Making A Statement About Free Byu

[Scott Lloyd]

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

OK. Consider the rest of my post.

[HappyJackWagon]

OK. Consider the rest of my post.

I considered the rest of your post but I see a change in this policy to better align with the church's mission of championing religious liberty. I feel like this policy is at cross purposes with this larger issue.

[BTH&T]

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?

 You want to be "fair" to students who on their own want to denounce their religion and still receive the blessings.

What did the students who started this "cause" do?

They removed their own names, knowing the consequences and then want to be left unharmed.

 

Sorry if the comparison was confusing.

I feel that just because someone thinks that they are "wronged" by the Church/BYU we should reward their poor behavior is flat out wrong.

Those that support women in the Priesthood feel that getting the Priesthood is the fair thing for them, so should that be accommodated as well as Free BYU, what next?

[Scott Lloyd]

I considered the rest of your post but I see a change in this policy to better align with the church's mission of championing religious liberty. I feel like this policy is at cross purposes with this larger issue.

That's because you have a misguided concept of religious liberty. Liberty does not mean license.

 

Walking your dog on the public sidewalk in front of my house is exercising liberty. Allowing said dog to poop on my front lawn is taking license.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[iWriteStuff]

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.

You realize that it's one thing to believe differently, even to question one's beliefs, and another thing entirely to set an appointment with your bishop, walk in, and tell him to take your name off the rolls of the church, right?

 

It's a very deliberate act of self-disfellowship.

 

Again, no one is taking away their right to question/doubt/believe any differently. I may have conflicting views than that of the church membership, maybe even wholly apostate views. Those might hinder me from obtaining a temple recommend, but it has little to do with my church membership as long as I continue to search for light and knowledge and continue fellowship with the church. The only thing the policy has to deal with is the deliberate act of removing oneself from the records of the church.

 

Does anyone else understand the difference?

[BTH&T]

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.

Each is free to choose, so what freedom is lost?

No one is forced to believe anything.

[Senator]

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.

 

I'm not talking out of two sides of my mouth if I've delineated that what I hear in GC (and approve of), is not necessarily represented in the policies at the school.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not talking out of two sides of my mouth if I've delineated that what I hear in GC (and approve of), is not necessarily represented in the policies at the school.

And I say again, if you approve of what's said and done at conference, maybe you ought to reexamine your attitude about the policies at BYU, because the authors of what is said and done at conference set and sustain the policies at BYU.

[Senator]

And I say again, if you approve of what's said and done at conference, maybe you ought to reexamine your attitude about the policies at BYU, because the authors of what is said and done at conference set and sustain the policies at BYU.

 

And it exactly because of what is said and done in conference that I felt to reexamine the policies at BYU.  I see there might be an inconsistency. The leadership of the church, and thus their policies, are not perfect, correct? Maybe, just maybe there is a policy that needs be re-evaluated.

 

Please don't set me up as an adversary.

[filovirus]

Mini rant follows (skip if you wish):

In reading through this thread, there have been a number of comparisons between BYU and other institutions. Just because other religions schools do things differently does not mean that BYU should. Notre Dame, SMU, Boston College, et al can all run their university as they see fit. Their way is not the right way for BYU, neither is BYU's way the right way for them. They each have different ways and should not necessarily mimic each other in policy. Nor is BYU a secular school. It does not need to cater to the whims of society or other stipulations enforced by government in many of it's policies.

I have also seen mention of knowledge of students who lost faith and are lying about it to continue enrollment. In the words of Elder U, "this saddens me." Early on at BYU, students are taught about Karl Maeser and his integrity. This is what he said, "I have been asked what I mean by ‘word of honor.’ I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls–walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground–there is a possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I’d die first!” Unfortunately these students did not learn this life lesson while at BYU.

Here is the mission statement of BYU http://aims.byu.edu/mission_statement

First and foremost it states "to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life." It also states "To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail:

All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor."

Unfortunately some students will reject the Doctrine of Christ while at BYU by following the precepts of men, whatever they may be. Whatever the reason for its rejection, they are no longer living the mission statement of the Church, be it individually in heart or promoting their views to others.

End rant!

Now, do I think there is still room for them at BYU? I say yes, but on a case by case basis. I believe those who actually still do have a contrite heart and a broken Spirit, even though espousing the Doctrine of Christ can be allowed to finish their degree. I would leave it to a "judge in Israel" to make the distinction.

[Gray]

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.

 

This attitude has its roots in the 19th century. It's time to let it go. 

[Scott Lloyd]

And it exactly because of what is said and done in conference that I felt to reexamine the policies at BYU.  I see there might be an inconsistency. The leadership of the church, and thus their policies, are not perfect, correct? Maybe, just maybe there is a policy that needs be re-evaluated.

 

 

I know of nothing that has been said at general conference that could reasonably be taken as a rationale for condemning or criticizing the enrollment requirements at BYU.

 To the contrary, I see the requirements as entirely consistent with what is taught at general conference and other Church settings.

 

Please don't set me up as an adversary.

 

 

If you are joining the chorus of voices publicly condemning BYU for its enrollment policies, you have already set that role for yourself.

[Gray]

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.

 

It's the contract itself that is infringing upon religious freedom. By contract, Mormon students at BYU are afforded no religious freedom. 

[Scott Lloyd]

It's the contract itself that is infringing upon religious freedom. By contract, Mormon students at BYU are afforded no religious freedom. 

They are free not to accept the terms of the contract.

 

Demanding to be admitted or retained at the school while refusing to comply with terms of the contract is assuming license, not exercising freedom.

 

Religious freedom grants the school the right to set whatever conditions for enrollment that it deems necessary to support its mission. If those conditions were altogether intolerable, nobody would agree to them, and the school would wither and die on the vine for lack of a clientele. I don't see that happening; I see just the opposite, in fact.

 

Freedom does not entail escaping the consequences of the choices one makes.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I know of nothing that has been said at general conference that could reasonably be taken as a rationale for condemning or criticizing the enrollment requirements at BYU.

 To the contrary, I see the requirements as entirely consistent with what is taught at general conference and other Church settings.

I noted two addresses by E. Ballard and Uchdorf respectively that might speak to a gentler handling of the policy. And I agree with this statement by filovirus and feel it meshes

well.

"Now, do I think there is still room for them at BYU? I say yes, but on a case by case basis. I believe those who actually still do have a contrite heart and a broken Spirit, even though espousing the Doctrine of Christ can be allowed to finish their degree. I would leave it to a "judge in Israel" to make the distinction."

 

If you are joining the chorus of voices publicly condemning BYU for its enrollment policies, you have already set that role for yourself.

I have not condemned BYU.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Senator

[Gray]

Biola University (a private evangelical liberal arts university) hosted a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens in 2009. Presumably they were unconcerned with their students being "contaminated" by the presence of a vehemently ant-religious person like Christopher Hitchens. They wanted an open environment to explore the arguments. Presumably they were confident that their theology could withstand scrutiny, and were willing to treat the student body like adults. 

 

And yet we're so worried about LDS college students being contaminated with critical ideas that even the presence of former Mormons on campus is not to be tolerated.

[Gray]

They are free not to accept the terms of the contract.

 

Demanding to be admitted or retained at the school while refusing to comply with terms of the contract is assuming license, not exercising freedom.

 

Religious freedom grants the school the right to set whatever conditions for enrollment that it deems necessary to support its mission. If those conditions were altogether intolerable, nobody would agree to them, and the school would wither and die on the vine for lack of a clientele. I don't see that happening; I see just the opposite, in fact.

 

Freedom does not entail escaping the consequences of the choices one makes.

 

Yes, only as non-students will they retain (or regain) their religious freedom. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Gray

[Buckeye]

Just when this thread was getting super stale. Something NEW !! Mark Juergensmeyer has something to say:

 

 

Sometimes you find yourself in the spotlight when you least expect it. This happened to me this week when I decided that out of conscience I could not attend a conference dedicated in part to religious freedom on a campus that denied it to its own Mormon students.

Shortly before I was planning to go the conference this weekend I received an email from a group of present and former Mormon students who called themselves “Free BYU.” Because of a Brigham Young University policy, Mormon students who lose their faith, convert to another religion, or leave the church are automatically expelled from the University; and they lose their housing, scholarship, and campus jobs at the same time. This seemed so counter to the spirit of academic freedom—and to the very issues of religious liberty that the conference was promoting—that in conscience I felt that I had to take a stand.

I had looked forward to the conference. The issue was important, the international roster of scholars participating was impressive, and my old friend and colleague, David Little, was to receive an award for his work on issues of religious tolerance around the world. He certainly deserved it. My schedule was tight but I could go for at least a day.

But then I received the Free BYU email and I knew I could not attend. All my adult life I have been a part of academic communities that have prized freedom of inquiry, intellectual openness and the life of the mind. I have been so grateful that in our society we have this one institution—the university—that preserves a domain for intellectual exchange and the marketplace of ideas. This is especially so in our current media climate that is so dominated by opinion masquerading as fact. More than ever, we need the intellectual freedom of the university.

But doesn’t a religious institution have the right to set its own rules, I was asked in one email that I received in response to my decision. I received dozens of emails from present and former Mormon students at BYU supporting my position, some of them telling heartbreaking stories about how their careers were ruined by being expelled for their beliefs just months before graduation. But I also received this one email defending the university’s position on expelling Mormon students who lose their faith.

Of course a church or a temple can limit membership and set its own standards of belief—within its own walls. But we bristle when those standards are imposed outside. I noted that BYU accepts non-Mormon students on campus and does not dissuade them from converting to the Mormon faith. But if a Mormon student rebels, he or she is axed. This is not just unfair, it seems to me, but contrary to the spirit of what a university is.

A university that calls itself a university is a public institution. It is not a Sunday school. Regardless of who sponsors it, the university is a public trust. It provides necessary skills to accredit individuals for jobs in the public arena, and just as important, it provides that social space that I referred to above—the arena for the free expression of ideas—that is important for an educated society and for an individual’s own intellectual growth.

But what about honor codes that many universities impose? These are usually attempts to regulate behavior—not thought. They attempt to prohibit, for example, alcohol and pot in student dorms. Prohibitions against thinking, against ideas that are counter to administrators’ beliefs, however, should have no place in a university.

Although I am not an expert in issues of religious freedom in American higher education, I do not know of many attempts to prohibit the free expression of thought. It would be as if a university expelled a student for accepting the scientific account of evolution, or if another university expelled a student for voting Democrat. Perhaps such cases exist, but I would be opposed to them as well.

And if a religious organization sponsors a university shouldn’t it be allowed to set the rules? Well, yes and no. When it comes to freedom of thought, I’d say no. If some rich donors come to our campus (as indeed they have) and want to create a position to promote their own ideas, we might thank them for their money but politely explain to them that the university is dedicated to the life of the mind and the free expression of views and they can’t control what our faculty and students think. Neither should the church or any other entity that wants to sponsor a university.

I’m one of those rare academics who is a practicing Christian. I love the church, but I also love the academic community and its standards of honest inquiry into the truth. I believe that the two, church and campus, should be free from each other’s meddling—for the sake of both.

 

http://religiondispatches.org/why-i-boycotted-a-conference-at-brigham-young-university/

[iWriteStuff]

Yes, only as non-students will they retain (or regain) their religious freedom. 

 

I started responding (again) and realized to my dismay there's probably no coming to an agreement on this issue. We frame the issues in a totally different manner. With two different starting points, there's very little chance of meeting somewhere in the middle.

 

I say "Expel them all and let God sort it out!"

 

[iWriteStuff]

ok one more comment:

 

This guy really seems to like the spotlight all this controversy is creating. Do we have the makings of a new "John Dehlin Award" candidacy?

 

Edit/Disclaimer: In the above comment, I am referring to an individual who gains celebrity status due to their "loyal opposition" in a popular/PC cause, a la Kate Kelly or John Dehlin, and soon finds themselves captivated by the limelight (as he references) to the point where seeking said limelight becomes more important than staying within the bounds of "loyalty". It seems to be happening a lot more frequently, lately. And that is sad.

Edited October 8, 2015 by iWriteStuff

[filovirus]

OK, I will call him out. Mark Juergensmeyer taught for 15 years at a school that teaches this:

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/06/23/berkeley-holds-seminars-to-discourage-use-of-terms-like-melting-pot-as-racial-microaggressions/

Seems to me like banning certain phrases on campus does not prize "freedom of inquiry, intellectual openness and the life of the mind." Although he wasn't employed there when this close mindedness started happening at UC Berkeley, he should offer the same condemnation to them that he gives to BYU.

[Gilbert]

It's the contract itself that is infringing upon religious freedom. By contract, Mormon students at BYU are afforded no religious freedom. 

Contracts by nature restrict a person's freedom in exchange for something else. If you don't want what that something else is you don't enter the contract. Meanwhile entering into this particular contract is an expression of religious freedom.

[Calm]

Rongo, the people who sign the Free BYU petition are making a public statement and will therefor suffer any consequences from that stand.

However, under profiles:

"Note that because of BYU’s policies, some current students are unable to reveal their names or show their pictures"

[Gilbert]

"I have been so grateful that in our society we have this one institution—the university—that preserves a domain for intellectual exchange and the marketplace of ideas."

 

I don't think he knows what he is talking about. Many, many universities constitute nothing more than a liberal assembly line, producing brain washed grads who don't know how to think for themselves.

[Calm]

Biola University (a private evangelical liberal arts university) hosted a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens in 2009. Presumably they were unconcerned with their students being "contaminated" by the presence of a vehemently ant-religious person like Christopher Hitchens. They wanted an open environment to explore the arguments. Presumably they were confident that their theology could withstand scrutiny, and were willing to treat the student body like adults.

And yet we're so worried about LDS college students being contaminated with critical ideas that even the presence of former Mormons on campus is not to be tolerated.

I think there is a difference between the controlled situation of a debate where it is well known what is said and the uncontrolled situation of a discussion among students, most often private and most likely not in situations where the participants think and challenge what each other is saying, but more likely behave like a sponge, not being in the state of mind where they are fully paying attention to the implications of what is being said or done. This not fully concious influence is as likely to have an impact on thought as public presentations by those of contrasting views but without first having the chance to be examined, debated, taken apart, put back together and otherwise properly chewed up for effective digestion instead of being swallowed whole. Edited October 8, 2015 by Calm