Making A Statement About Free Byu

[ERayR]

Your response sounds good, until you apply it to college students and religion. One great American experience with college is for students to grow, and learn, explore their thoughts and feelings. to tell students you can only do that a little, because if such efforts cause you decide to leave Mormonism, we'll send you packing, is opposing a students freedom to choose religion. Students heading off to college have all sorts of ideas and expectations, assumptions, and hopes. It's silly to expect each student remain LDS while he/she is off learning and growing.

BTW it's not against the rules to not be LDS and a student at BYU. The commitment you are referring to, I think, is having students say they are not going to lose their faith while at school. that expectation is silly.

 

Utter nonsense they can explore all they want.  Just do it on their own dime.

[stemelbow]

I am a bit befuddled by the ideology behind this movement.

 

So, these folks want individual students to be granted religious freedom, but the religious institution is to be denied the same freedom.

 

Is that correct?

Nope. The religious institution would not be denied the same freedom at all.

[CA Steve]

Because BYU is a church supported school and there is a long waiting list of members who want to attend.  Why should someone who does not want to be a member have their education subsidized by an organization they have expressed a desire to not be affiliated with?

How is this standard any different when it is applied to non-member students who never convert?

 

How about a former member applying as a non-member student to BYU for the first time. Should he/she be rejected because they are a former member?

Edited October 6, 2015 by CA Steve

[ERayR]

This topic hurts my head.

 

I wish BYU students would just believe the way we want them to. Why can't they just keep believing the way they used to? Silly students. If they have a change of conscience or belief I think we should take them out back and beat them with a rubber hose; or for the more old fashioned among us, a hickory switch, a wooden spoon, or a belt. I'm flexible.

 

OR maybe the church could just allow them the same religious liberty they seek from others.

 

The Church does allow them the same religious liberty they seek from others, the just have to accept the consequences of their choices.  Just like everybody else.

[stemelbow]

Not really. How we enforce the issue of freedom in society is an issue of legal rights. In this country you are certainly free to believe anything you want, and as long as your actions don't preclude others from exercising their freedoms you are free to do whatever your religion prescribes. In this particular example BYU has a set of rules governing who, and under what condition they may attend. We are under no legal or moral obligation to provide or subsidize the education of those that will not follow those rules. IE; Nonmembers may attend on a space available basis. Follow all the rules. Plus pay the nonmember tuition rates. If a member leaves the Church they are taking a space from a otherwise qualified member.

There already are people taking the place of an otherwise qualified member--they are non-members.

The institution should see those who wish to finish their education with them as an asset...not treat them like outcasts.

[stemelbow]

Utter nonsense they can explore all they want.  Just do it on their own dime.

So they can explore all they want on their own dime, but doing so at BYU is not on their own dime? Or doing so at BYU on their own dime is somehow not exploring and learning as they see fit?

Not sure I get a clear message from you two sentences here.

[ERayR]

How is this standard any different when it is applied to non-member students who never convert?

 

How about a former member applying as a non-member student to BYU for the first time. Should he/she be rejected because they are a former member?

 

Non-members, who never convert, are accepted on a space available at much higher tuition rates.

 

I expect that he/she would be treated just like any other non-member.

[stemelbow]

The Church does allow them the same religious liberty they seek from others, the just have to accept the consequences of their choices.  Just like everybody else.

\

The point is the consequences manufactured by BYU is a bad one. They should be allowed to finish their education whether they lose faith, are curious about faith or not.

[iWriteStuff]

Because BYU is a church supported school and there is a long waiting list of members who want to attend.  Why should someone who does not want to be a member have their education subsidized by an organization they have expressed a desire to not be affiliated with?

My understanding is that tuition is heavily supplemented by the church so as to make it more affordable to church members. That, of course, makes it the greatest bargain of an education that one can get.

 

Do you, as a tithing payer, feel ok giving money to students who started off saying they were members so they could get into a church school, receive subsidized tuition and education, and then turned their backs on the giver of the gift? It smacks of ingratitude to me. I can't imagine going to a school whose foundation I opposed and yet expected them to still give me a handout.

[Senator]

Non-members, who never convert, are accepted on a space available at much higher tuition rates.

 

BYU actually has a shortage of member applicants?

[CA Steve]

Non-members, who never convert, are accepted on a space available at much higher tuition rates.

 

I expect that he/she would be treated just like any other non-member.

No one is saying that the newly deconverted student should be treated any differently than a non member is at BYU.

And I have a hard time believing that in student body of over 29,000 students that there are enough cases of deconversion that allowing them to stay would be taking up space for someone else.

How many cases of this happen each year? Anyone know?

Edited October 6, 2015 by CA Steve

[stemelbow]

My understanding is that tuition is heavily supplemented by the church so as to make it more affordable to church members. That, of course, makes it the greatest bargain of an education that one can get.

 

Do you, as a tithing payer, feel ok giving money to students who started off saying they were members so they could get into a church school, receive subsidized tuition and education, and then turned their backs on the giver of the gift? It smacks of ingratitude to me. I can't imagine going to a school whose foundation I opposed and yet expected them to still give me a handout.

I don't know anyone is arguing that if they lose faith they should not have to pay a higher tuition. But I would certainly question whether a student who loses his/her faith is turning his/her back on the institution. Quite the opposite,in fact. If a student who loses faith can finish his/her degree at BYU, he/she has, as a warrant of accomplishment, the ability to use BYU's degree for his/her personal gain and welfare. And BYU has another professional, potentially at least, support them. It's a win win, really.

[Gray]

Because BYU is a church supported school and there is a long waiting list of members who want to attend.  Why should someone who does not want to be a member have their education subsidized by an organization they have expressed a desire to not be affiliated with?

 

We've discussed this before, I think. Former members could simply pay the non-member rate 

[Gray]

I am a bit befuddled by the ideology behind this movement.

 

So, these folks want individual students to be granted religious freedom, but the religious institution is to be denied the same freedom.

 

Is that correct?

 

Not correct. The school is simply being asked grant their LDS students religious freedom. 

[ERayR]

So they can explore all they want on their own dime, but doing so at BYU is not on their own dime? Or doing so at BYU on their own dime is somehow not exploring and learning as they see fit?

Not sure I get a clear message from you two sentences here.

 

As a matriculating member their fees and tuition are subsidized heavily by the Church.  When they leave the Church they just have to go back to the end of the non-member line where space is harder to come by and much more expensive.  When they have matriculated as a member they are not on their own dime.  Church members are subsidized at approximately 50%.

[iWriteStuff]

I don't know anyone is arguing that if they lose faith they should not have to pay a higher tuition. But I would certainly question whether a student who loses his/her faith is turning his/her back on the institution. Quite the opposite,in fact. If a student who loses faith can finish his/her degree at BYU, he/she has, as a warrant of accomplishment, the ability to use BYU's degree for his/her personal gain and welfare. And BYU has another professional, potentially at least, support them. It's a win win, really.

 

I know it's a stretch, but if you know of any alumni patrons who also fell away from the church yet continue to donate to BYU, I'd love to hear about it.

 

My own experience shows there's more danger to allowing ex-Mormons finish at BYU than not. My wife and I went there, and so did one of her old mission buddies. He came out of the closet a week after graduating. A month after that, he was doing "live art" performances on the east coast that involved him dressing up in his temple clothes and performing endowments on total strangers in a city park. What's on his resume? BYU. Doesn't reflect too well on the university, does it? Not to mention tithing money was spent credentialing someone who in reality should be excommunicated.

 

I guess maybe the experience made me biased a bit, but only because I feel such a debt of gratitude to members of the church who helped subsidize my education and when I see such cases as the one mentioned above, it kinda irks me a little. Rarely do members leave the church and leave it alone; they almost always turn into persecutors. I'd rather not subsidize that.

[Gray]

Not really. How we enforce the issue of freedom in society is an issue of legal rights. In this country you are certainly free to believe anything you want, and as long as your actions don't preclude others from exercising their freedoms you are free to do whatever your religion prescribes. In this particular example BYU has a set of rules governing who, and under what condition they may attend. We are under no legal or moral obligation to provide or subsidize the education of those that will not follow those rules. IE; Nonmembers may attend on a space available basis. Follow all the rules. Plus pay the nonmember tuition rates. If a member leaves the Church they are taking a space from a otherwise qualified member.

 

That's not really relevant to the topic at hand. Outside of statutory or constitutional law, private organizations can still impact the religious freedom of others. BYU is being asked to change its policy to be consistent with its stated support for religious freedom. 

 

If a member leaves the church they're not permitted to pay the non-member rate. They are instead expelled. 

[Gray]

The Church does allow them the same religious liberty they seek from others, the just have to accept the consequences of their choices.  Just like everybody else.

 

By that same standard, we could jail all Muslims for their beliefs and say they have religious freedom, but have to accept the consequences of their actions, just like everyone else. 

[Buckeye]

This topic gets rehashed every few months on this board. I'm glad to see this professor's reaction. Take a clear stand, but don't make a show of it. Good move.

 

My position remains that one of the fundamental aspects of religious freedom - if not the most fundamental aspect - is the freedom to change one's faith without being wrongfully discriminated against. On one extreme is the 'consequence' of death for someone born into Islam who converts to another faith. But there are many other lower levels of wrong. In this case, BYU is in the wrong. It would be one thing if BYU allowed only members. But it does not. It would be one thing if BYU disallowed anyone from changing faiths. But it does not; in fact, it actively encourages conversion to the LDS faith. To accept non-members unless those non-member were previously members is clear, wrongful, discrimination. 

 

I probably won't convince anyone who thinks otherwise. So consider these points instead:

 

1) Public image. The church is actively seeking room for religious freedom in the current environment. While you may not agree that BYU's expulsion policy is wrong, at least consider that many of the public opinion leaders who we need on our side do consider the policy wrong, and even hypocritical. Regardless of our 'right' to maintain the policy, thought should be given to whether it is doing more harm than good in the larger sense.

 

2) Strong families. The church is actively seeking to strengthen families in all stages, including especially families where a parent stops believing in the LDS truth claims. While we would prefer for both  parents to be active, if that is not be, isn't it better to keep a good and friendly relationship with the parent who has taken a different path in the hopes that (i) they may some day return, (ii) they continue to see the church as a good influence on their children and so continue to support the children's participation, and (iii) they allow their active-member spouse to fully participate, including possibly paying tithing. With such goals in mind, we should give great thought to whether BYU's expulsion policy is doing more harm than good - by driving people and families further away than they otherwise would walk on their own, if not for the church's discrimination.

 

In short, even if you think the policy does some good, consider whether that good is outweighed by the harm to our public image and to mixed-member families.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[jkwilliams]

I don't know anyone is arguing that if they lose faith they should not have to pay a higher tuition. But I would certainly question whether a student who loses his/her faith is turning his/her back on the institution. Quite the opposite,in fact. If a student who loses faith can finish his/her degree at BYU, he/she has, as a warrant of accomplishment, the ability to use BYU's degree for his/her personal gain and welfare. And BYU has another professional, potentially at least, support them. It's a win win, really.

A few years back, I did an interview with a French news organization, and afterwards, the reporter asked me if there was a decent place in Provo to get coffee. So, we went to the Coffee Pod, which is a couple of blocks west of BYU. While we were in there, a relative of mine, who was a senior at BYU at the time, came in with his non-LDS girlfriend. He saw me and was really embarrassed (I don't talk to my extended family about religion, so most probably assume I'm still active). I told him not to worry, that I wasn't going to tell anyone. It was none of my business. He told me later that he had stopped believing in the church the summer before his senior year, but he had a scholarship and found that a number of his classes didn't transfer to other Utah schools. So, he was keeping his head down and doing the minimum required to stay in school. I'm sure some people here would think he was being dishonest and evil, etc., but I don't blame him a bit for hanging on for that last year.

I feel the same way about a friend of mine who was a tenured professor at BYU when she had her crisis of faith. She told her bishop she was having doubts, but she didn't tell anyone she was leaving the church until she had another job lined up. For the better part of a semester, she did what my relative did and kept her head down.

I'm not saying that BYU has any need to change their policy about apostates, but I also recognize that people shouldn't be expected to screw up their academic and career progress just because of a change in religious belief.

[ERayR]

A few years back, I did an interview with a French news organization, and afterwards, the reporter asked me if there was a decent place in Provo to get coffee. So, we went to the Coffee Pod, which is a couple of blocks west of BYU. While we were in there, a relative of mine, who was a senior at BYU at the time, came in with his non-LDS girlfriend. He saw me and was really embarrassed (I don't talk to my extended family about religion, so most probably assume I'm still active). I told him not to worry, that I wasn't going to tell anyone. It was none of my business. He told me later that he had stopped believing in the church the summer before his senior year, but he had a scholarship and found that a number of his classes didn't transfer to other Utah schools. So, he was keeping his head down and doing the minimum required to stay in school. I'm sure some people here would think he was being dishonest and evil, etc., but I don't blame him a bit for hanging on for that last year.

I feel the same way about a friend of mine who was a tenured professor at BYU when she had her crisis of faith. She told her bishop she was having doubts, but she didn't tell anyone she was leaving the church until she had another job lined up. For the better part of a semester, she did what my relative did and kept her head down.

I'm not saying that BYU has any need to change their policy about apostates, but I also recognize that people shouldn't be expected to screw up their academic and career progress just because of a change in religious belief.

 

I honestly don't know what I would do in that set of circumstances.  I have an idea what I should do but . . . .

[jkwilliams]

I honestly don't know what I would do in that set of circumstances.  I have an idea what I should do but . . . .

I agree that the right thing to do is to be honest. At the same time, BYU puts people in a tough position unnecessarily. I'm glad I've never been in that position.

[Buckeye]

 

I know it's a stretch, but if you know of any alumni patrons who also fell away from the church yet continue to donate to BYU, I'd love to hear about it.

 

My own experience shows there's more danger to allowing ex-Mormons finish at BYU than not. My wife and I went there, and so did one of her old mission buddies. He came out of the closet a week after graduating. A month after that, he was doing "live art" performances on the east coast that involved him dressing up in his temple clothes and performing endowments on total strangers in a city park. What's on his resume? BYU. Doesn't reflect too well on the university, does it? Not to mention tithing money was spent credentialing someone who in reality should be excommunicated.

 

I guess maybe the experience made me biased a bit, but only because I feel such a debt of gratitude to members of the church who helped subsidize my education and when I see such cases as the one mentioned above, it kinda irks me a little. Rarely do members leave the church and leave it alone; they almost always turn into persecutors. I'd rather not subsidize that.

 

How exactly would this situation have been worse if BYU's expulsion policy were removed? Your wife's mission buddy would have been allowed a greater chance to be honest about his faith. If he had acted out inappropriately while a student, action could have been taken and he might not have graduated. Really, I can't see that anything would have changed much, except that this student would have paid higher tuition and/or never graduated - thereby eliminating the great harm you point to of his BYU diploma. 

[iWriteStuff]

 

 

 

How exactly would this situation have been worse if BYU's expulsion policy were removed? Your wife's mission buddy would have been allowed a greater chance to be honest about his faith. If he had acted out inappropriately while a student, action could have been taken and he might not have graduated. Really, I can't see that anything would have changed much, except that this student would have paid higher tuition and/or never graduated - thereby eliminating the great harm you point to of his BYU diploma. 

 

 

I suppose maybe it's an optics problem more than an academic one. Imagine you're a future employer of said apostate and you look at his previous work ("performance art LDS initiatories and endowments a la city park") and see that he's also a graduate of BYU, an obvious Mormon church school. Does that not jade your view of the church and the school simultaneously? Now he's not only made a mockery of sacred ordinances, but he's associated the church with his actions via his bona fides.

 

I'd agree with another poster (previous) who said it's fine to change faiths, but then get in line with the other non-members. Don't take the spot of another member of the church who desperately wants the education and supports the standards of the church with a living, vibrant testimony.

 

Or make it about freedom of religion. He/she is free to believe and worship as they will, but there are still consequences to face and privileges lost.

[Bob Crockett]

The issue of freedom is conceptually broader than the issue of legal rights. It's wholly appropriate to refer to this as a religious freedom issue. And I think one of the reason it's an issue for BYU is the the church has advocated for religious freedom broadly, but religious freedom is not available to LDS students at the church's university. In other words, BYU's policy is at odds with the church's broad support for religious freedom. 

 

You're just incorrect to use "religious freedom" as a means to beat the Church.  But I can understand why a dissenter would be compelled to use terms like this.   As I have said before, "religious freedom" concerns the ability of a religion to operate free of government restriction.  The doctrine is not used to browbeat a religion for its practices.  But I'm pretty sure you know that.

 

In the New Testament, Paul mandates that unbelievers be "cut off" from the Church, and he uses a eumphemism for castration.  That might offend your sensibilities, perhaps, but it isn't a "religious freedom" issue.