stemelbow Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: "Don't see it" because you cannot, or because you will not? With due respect, I believe it is the latter. If BYU's raison d'etre is the education of faithful Latter-day Saints, then winking-and-nodding at someone who conceals a lack or loss of faith in order to maintain enrollment and eligibility for reduced tuition does nothing to further that objective. (And I'll reiterate, yet again, that, in my mind, there's a vast difference between someone who confesses a loss or lack of faith to BYU officials or to officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and wonders, in light of that loss or lack of faith, how to proceed, on the one hand, and someone who conceals that loss or lack of faith from Church or University officials, on the other hand.) There is two things to consider here: 1. many students at BYU lack faith and they are gladly accepted. So your theory goes out the window. 2. It's possible to let them stay and pay the non-believer price, at the very least. Of course, it's likely their family and friends still pay tithing, and they may too. It's a pretty petty argument to make, if you ask me. I dont' blame any particular kid who is struggling with belief for not talking about it to others. it's a difficult thing to deal with and often family and friends and university officials don't deal with it the best. They can be too mean and thoughtless. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 6 hours ago, readstoomuch said: This came up in another board, but students didn't realize that they are subsidized about 17,000 per year for their education. I pulled that out of some estimates given by others. I am not sure what the right way to handle those leaving the Church is. My daughter started down the radical feminist road while at byu. Apparently there was a forum she went to where the speaker was a feminist. She kept going to Church and graduated. She kept going until KK was excommunicated. KK was horribly treated in all of this (says OW) and most of those in OW stopped going to Church that I have any knowledge about. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for you, RTM, to have watched that happen to one of your children. My sympathies are unlikely to be nearly enough, but you do have them. First, one must pin down exactly how one is using the word feminist (e.g., I believe Valerie Hudson Cassler, to cite one example, styles herself a feminist) but there is such a thing as a feminist who also is a faithful Latter-day Saint. (There are probably more than a few of them at Feminist Mormon Housewives.) Your experience puts the lie to the proposition that, well, Kate Kelly didn't really change any hearts or minds: all she did was to provide a forum for those whose disaffection ran in the same direction Ms. Kelly's does. I don't know the timetable of the progression of your daughter's disaffection or how up-front she was about it with Church or University officials, but, as I've said, there's room for discussion about both entities should treat someone who is up-front and who wonders how to proceed. I wish you well. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: There is two things to consider here: 1. many students at BYU lack faith and they are gladly accepted. So your theory goes out the window. 2. It's possible to let them stay and pay the non-believer price, at the very least. Of course, it's likely their family and friends still pay tithing, and they may too. It's a pretty petty argument to make, if you ask me. I dont' blame any particular kid who is struggling with belief for not talking about it to others. it's a difficult thing to deal with and often family and friends and university officials don't deal with it the best. They can be too mean and thoughtless. I daresay we all lack faith to one degree or another. But I don't believe the university knowingly accepts enrollees who are anywhere near renouncing their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ and thereby violating sacred covenants that have been made. It is one thing to give compassionate care to one who is struggling in the faith. It is another to offer that person a privilege that is meant for those who merit it through their strong dedication and a scarce enrollment slot that could be offered to such a person. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, stemelbow said: There is two things to consider here: 1. many students at BYU lack faith and they are gladly accepted. So your theory goes out the window. 2. It's possible to let them stay and pay the non-believer price, at the very least. Of course, it's likely their family and friends still pay tithing, and they may too. It's a pretty petty argument to make, if you ask me. I dont' blame any particular kid who is struggling with belief for not talking about it to others. it's a difficult thing to deal with and often family and friends and university officials don't deal with it the best. They can be too mean and thoughtless. Congratulations! I'm not sure how, but you must know more about why I started this thread than I do! (It must be that XML-7000 Mind-Reader Chip.™) I thought I started it to discuss whether J. Reuben Clark Law School should lose its American Bar Association accreditation (resulting in its graduates being unable to take the Bar Exam elsewhere and to practice outside of Utah once they pass it), due to certain positions held by its sponsoring institution, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're confused, please see the OP. Anyone who applies to law school already has a bachelors degree, or will have it by the time he matriculates into law school. Thus, he's not a "kid" anymore. (This thread isn't about baby goats, either, in case you're confused about that, as well. It's not really about goats, period, but to the extent that they might enter into the conversation, the only goats potentially under discussion in this thread are full-grown goats who are candidates for admission to J. Reuben Clark Law School.) I certify that no goats have been harmed in the course of this thread. And since, although your mind-reading skills are top-notch, your reading comprehension skills apparently leave something to be desired because I've mentioned it already several times in this thread, yet, somehow, you've missed it, here it is again, solely for your benefit: there is room for discussion about how officials of Brigham Young University, of its law school, J. Reuben Clark Law School, and of its sponsoring institution, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, should treat those who are enrolled at one of the former two institutions who confess a loss or lack of faith and who wonder, in light of that condition, how to proceed. Thus, the only bishops or university officials under discussion in this thread are not hypothetical insensitive ones who berate young members of their flock for their loss or lack of faith, whose first instinct, upon hearing such a condition, is to take umbrage on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to wonder aloud to those members of their flock, "How could you possibly have allowed such a thing to happen?! You realize what this means, don't you? No more BYU/JRCLS for you!" Edited January 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969
stemelbow Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I daresay we all lack faith to one degree or another. But I don't believe the university knowingly accepts enrollees who are anywhere near renouncing their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ and thereby violating sacred covenants that have been made. It is one thing to give compassionate care to one who is struggling in the faith. It is another to offer that person a privilege that is meant for those who merit it through their strong dedication and a scarce enrollment slot that could be offered to such a person. I hear that and I don't see the merit in the position, Scott. But to each their own, I suppose. Many attend BYU and dont' believe, as they say. I realize you see a difference between such students and those who lose faith, but I don't. They are all individual people trying their best to get an education and contribute to society. BYU makes a mistake in sending such students packing because they then don't have those contributors to society graduating from BYU. College grads and alumni are an asset to institutions. 2
stemelbow Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Congratulations! I'm not sure how, but you must know more about why I started this thread than I do! (It must be that XML-7000 Mind-Reader Chip.™) I thought I started it to discuss whether J. Reuben Clark Law School should lose its American Bar Association accreditation (resulting in its graduates being unable to take the Bar Exam, or to practice, outside of Utah once they pass it), due to certain positions held by its sponsoring institution, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're confused, please see the OP. Anyone who applies to law school already has a bachelors degree, or will have it by the time he matriculates into law school. Thus, he's not a "kid" anymore. (This thread isn't about baby goats, either, in case you're confused about that, as well. It's not really about goats, period, but to the extent that they might enter into the conversation, the only goats potentially under discussion in this thread are full-grown goats who are candidates for admission to J. Reuben Clark Law School.) I certify that no goats have been harmed in the course of this thread. And since, although your mind-reading skills are top-notch, your reading comprehension skills apparently leave something to be desired because I've mentioned it already several times in this thread, yet, somehow, you've missed it, here it is again, solely for your benefit: there is room for discussion about how officials of Brigham Young University, of its law school, J. Reuben Clark Law School, and of its sponsoring institution, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, should treat those who are enrolled at one of the former two institutions who confess a loss or lack of faith and who wonder, in light of that condition, how to proceed. Thus, the only bishops under discussion in this thread are not hypothetical insensitive ones who berate young members of their flock for their loss or lack of faith, whose first instinct, upon hearing such a condition, is to take umbrage on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to wonder aloud to those members of their flock, "How could you possibly have allowed such a thing to happen?! You realize what this means, don't you? No more BYU/JRCLS for you!" I'm not sure what you're going on about. I didn't suggest the reason why you started this thread. I didn't pretend mind-reading at all. I didn't even mention bishops. Anywho. I disagree with the policy. I don't think there's good reason to keep it. I dont' think there's been a good reason to have it or implement it.
provoman Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 This will result in very interesting Court proceedings, if in our lifetime it can get to Court. Religious Institutions should be permitted to establish certain standards. Contractual obligations are contractual obligations, which includes contractual obligations that come with receiving money from the government. 1
smac97 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Stemelbow, >> Second, I do not accept the premise that the LDS Church, or the Board of Trustees at BYU (presently consisting of the First Presidency, Elders Nelson, Oaks and Hallstrom, and Sisters Burton and Oscarson, though I'm not sure who was on the Board in 1993) made this policy change out of malice or ill will (or that the policy is, as Stemelbow put it, "silly"). I have had too much experience in the Church to make such a hostile (and, let's be honest, facile) assumption. So whatever the reason for the current policy, I don't think it's the one which the "Free BYU" folks have proposed. > I haven't said anything about malice or ill will, of course. ==Caprice, then. You have pretty much alleged that. (And there have been others who have alleged malice or ill will by BYU and/or the Church about this issue.) > It's silly to me when I put myself in the shoes of a youngster whose working his way through college. The policy is not helpful to anyone in my mind. ==That is, I think, a facile observation. ("Facile" is my new favorite word, as it aptly captures the essence of oh so many criticisms of my faith.) >> Third, I have had some experiences with BYU students who, I think, attended BYU under false pretenses. That is, they said what they needed to say to get into a fairly well-regarded university, and to benefit from heavily subsidized tuition. But once they were in, they engaged in conduct which was plainly in violation of the Honor Code. Some students may have started out at BYU by adhering to the Honor Code, and then while matriculated they mess up in one way or another. However, I suspect that some students were more calculated in their actions. That is to say, they get into BYU through deceit, relishing the idea of having their education heavily subsidized by an institution they secretly dislike/resent/hate, and/or with no intention of adhering to the Honor Code (or of putting on a false front long enough to get through BYU). I can't help but wonder if a policy change now would invite such mischief. > Seems like a lot of malice to assume any certain student who loses his/her faith applied and attended under false pretenses. ==Well, for me, I'm not speaking out of malice, but out of first-hand observation. > Even if a few people do, in the long run, it wouldn't produce a negative from what I can see. ==Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose. We hear the same things about how the Church should not excommunicate apostates, as their numbers are "few" and their presence in the Church does no "harm." I think this is an unserious, unstudied, facile point of view. (There's my favorite word again!) >> Fourth, BYU has a limited number of slots. And one of its core functions is to create an educational venue conducive to both secular education and religious adherence for, as a practical and principal matter, Latter-day Saints. > And? ==Oh come on. "And?" You really can't see the problem of BYU, as a standard practice, giving one of its limited student slots to, and heavily subsidizing the tuition of, a person who has openly repudiated the Church, thus depriving some other faithful Latter-day Saint of that slot and depriving him/her of the opportunity to receive an education at BYU? ==I get that you probably don't *agree* with those considerations. But are you seriously suggesting you cannot even *comprehend* them? ==To be sure, the above considerations are just on-the-surface ones. I strongly suspect that there are several more, and probably even more weighty, considerations in play. The Church does not seem to be given over much to flights of fancy, particularly when addressing challenging, difficult issues such as this one. To its credit, the Church is also willing to brave so-called "bad PR" by doing what it thinks is right, rather than what the crowd wants it to do. In fact, there are critics who lambast the Church with being overly obsessed with its image on one hand, but then they turn around and rake the Church across the coals when it does something that doesn't jib with socially popular trends (Exhibit 1: Last year's changes to the CHI). > The student is already in, ready to learn and accomplish... ==And taking up a slot at an institution focused on, geared toward, and funded by an institution which "the student" has openly repudiated (very unlike LDS and non-LDS students). ==BYU is intended as an institution of higher learning that allows for the incorporation of gospel principles in the daily lives of students. While non-LDS are allowed to attend, its primary mission is to serve the educational needs of Latter-day Saints and prepare them for a life of service in society in general, in their families, and in the Church. It is a religious university. It advertises itself as a religious university. As an LDS university. ==A student can learn about history or english or engineering at any of the thousands of universities around the world. But there are precious few where they can do so in a strongly LDS environment. So while book learning and training in various fields of inquiry is clearly a very important objective at BYU, it's not the only one. Not by a long shot. The social milieu matters. A lot. This is exemplified by a 2002 study which suggested that as much as two-thirds of both men and women at BYU desired to meet their future husband or wife at college. And since "51 percent of BYU’s 2005 graduating class were married compared to the national average of 11 percent," the "milieu" of BYU appears to be succeeding at helping many young Latter-day Saints prepare for life. Many come away not only with an education, but with a family as well. ==Dating and marriage are not the only benefits, of course. The Church is trying, with varying degrees of success, to establish a "gospel culture." Elder Oaks wrote an article about this topic in the March 2012 Ensign. In an increasingly secularized, sexualized, profane world, the Church is trying to help LDS families adopt what Elder Oaks described as "a distinctive way of life, a set of values and expectations and practices common to all members." This culture "comes from the plan of salvation, the commandments of God, and the teachings of the living prophets," and it "guides us in the way we raise our families and live our individual lives." ==BYU is, admittedly, a bubble. Students jokingly re-word its motto from "The World is Our Campus" to "The Campusis Our Word." But it's the same sort of "bubble" that all of us are trying to create in our homes for our families. A bubble where the increasingly profane influences of the world are minimized. The bubble doesn't last, of course. It's not supposed to last. The Latter-day Saints are not supposed to live cloistered, secluded lives. We are supposed to be "in the world," but not "of the world." But BYU is supposed to be an LDS environment, and LDS experience. Non-Latter-day Saints, who have never committed to membership in the LDS Church, are obviously welcome to attend. In fact, some of them end up joining the Church while at BYU. But a person who openly repudiates membership in the Church is situated very differently. Just as excommunicates would be detrimental to the overall mission and objectives at BYU, so would the presence of people who have, in essence, excommunicated themselves. (And again, the cynical-but-pragmatic side of me can't help but suspect that changing the policy at this point could foment *more* dishonesty, not less. That is, changing the policy would incentivize dishonest behavior by applicants who have no intention of adhering to the Honor Code or remaining LDS, but who relish the idea of flipping the proverbial bird at the Church by having it heavily subsidize their eduation, by taking up slots at BYU which would otherwise have been filled by faithful Latter-day Saints, by establishing a presence at the Church's flagship school that is at odds with that school's primary mission and focus, etc.). > ... could very well be persuaded back into the fold. Closing the door on him/her is not helping. ==Again, facile. And not self-evident, either. >> Fifth, it is my understanding that voluntary name removal is functionally equivalent to excommunication from the Church. It is a big deal. "An excommunicated person is no longer a member of the Church, and all priesthood ordinances and temple blessings previously received are suspended. Excommunicants may not pay tithing and, if previously endowed in a temple, may not wear temple garments. They may attend Church meetings. Excommunicants may later qualify for rebaptism after lengthy and full repentance and still later may apply for a formal restoration of their original priesthood and temple blessings." Excommunication is the most severe "punishment" that can be meted out by the Church (see D&C 134:10). > I'm wondering if these listed are reasons why the policy is good or helpful. I don't see any reasoning in the above. ==First, see above in this post for more information. ==Second, I'm not sure the policy can or ought to be characterized as "good or helpful." Perhaps "necessary" would be the better adjective. Nobody in the Church thinks of excommunication as "good or helpful," even though it is, in some ways and in the long run, both "good" and "helpful" to both the individual and the Church. But things that are "necessary" can sometimes come across as unpleasant. I get that. But proceeding on an "This hurts people so it's bad" line of reasoning is, well, facile. ==Third, let's keep in mind that the Church is a missionary church. It spends vast amounts of time, talent, money and resources on inviting people to join it. Let's also keep in mind that its leaders are men and women of vast training and experience in both secular and religious matters. They are not idiots. They are not oblivious to the ramifications of decisions like the BYU policy, or the recent changes to the CHI, or the excommunications of well-known critics, or Prop 8, or staying with or leaving the Scouting program, or any other other countless difficult and challenging and unpopular decisions the Church has made. They may not know all the particulars of how such things are going to play out, or how critics and enemies of the Church are going to spin them, but they know the general ramifications. They will know, for example, that individuals who resign from the Church but want to continue their studies at BYU will be "hurt" by a policy that prevents that from happening. They also know that the Church will periodically take a hit for doing things that are contrary to popular societal trends, or for not doing what its critics want (such as not overturning Kate Kelly's excommunication, not endorsing same-sex behavior or same-sex marriage, expelling BYU students who resign from the Church, etc.). ==They know these things will happen, and they know the Church's reputation and/or missionary efforts may in some way be affected, but they continue to make some decisions that are not socially popular. Why would a "missionary church" do such things? The hostile, and knee-jerk, and facile response would likely be "Because those old codgers at BYU or in Salt Lake are a bunch of hayseed ignoramuses who have no clue what's going on." But that would be at odds with . . . reality. The men and women making these difficult and challenging decisions are not uniformed. They are not cloistered. They are well-educated and well-experienced in life. And they are good and decent people. ==So could we, then, perhaps grant that these people are doing what they think is right? Could we also grant that there are many social issues facing the Church, including the BYU policy under discussion, about which reasonable minds can disagree? Could we also grant that the leaders of large organizations, such as the Board of Trustees at BYU, will be called upon to make decisions on controversial topics, and that their decisions on such topics will *always* garner disapproval from *someone*? Could we also grant that the simple presence of disapproval of their decisions about sensitive or controversial topics (particularly from folks who are generally hostile to the LDS Church and BYU in the first instance) is perhaps not the best indicator of whether those decisions are "good or helpful?" >> Sixth, non-LDS students at BYU have never entered into religious covenants and ordinances deemed sacred by the LDS Church, and so will not be held to account for conduct inconsistent with those covenants and ordinances. This may be why non-LDS students are, in a fairly fundamental way, very differently situated from LDS students at BYU. >> Seventh, I recognize that BYU students can, like anyone else, change their views on religion. That is their right. But attending BYU is a privilege. And a heavily subsidized one at that. >> Eighth, I think there are reasonable and principled arguments to be made both for and against BYU's current policy. > Cool. I disagree that a good argument could be made or has been made for the policy. ==You disagree that a good argument "could" be made? It's not even possible *at all*? Reasonable minds cannot disagree about the policy? It's your way or the highway? ==Wow. ==As for whether an argument "has been made," you may be right. This thread is largely populated by conjecture and theorizing. We none of us have sufficient access to the relevant facts and considerations about this issue so as to make a reasoned, informed assessment of the policy. ==Also, I notice that you did not address the 6th and 7th points I raised. What are your thoughts on those? >> Ninth, I find much of Free BYU's rhetoric to be unfair, overblown, and/or lacking in good faith. I also find their overall objective (asking governmental/accreditation entities to compel BYU to change its policy) to be repugnant. >> Based on these considerations, my present assessment is that BYU's current policy was and remains the result of studied discussion, thought, and prayer. > Thanks. I just wish there was a good reason why the policy exists. I don't see it. ==I'm okay with that. I don't think you are in a position to make a fair and reasonable and informed assessment of the policy, so it's not really surprising that you "don't see it." ==Here's an illustration, a parable if you will, of where I'm coming from: ==I recently concluded a lawsuit with a pro se litigant (he was representing himself, and he had no legal training or advice from an attorney). My client had filed an eviction action against him (let's call him "Jack"), and he had filed a counterclaim. I sought to dismiss the counterclaim immediately, but the judge would not let me (which, I think, was quite inappropriate, as dismissal of the counterclaim was clearly appropriate). ==Jack, seeing that the judge did not allow me to seek a dismissal of the counterclaim, took that as a sign that the judge was on his side, or that he had a real case and was going to win, or some such. So we spent some time sorting out his claim. I sent over some discovery requests (questions he is obligated to answer, requests for documents, etc.), and he did the same. During this process he called me several times and was quite rude and bombastic. He sounded positively giddy about his counterclaim, and he accused me of being dishonest or incompetent when I would not concede (on the telephone) that he was going to win. He was also so out of his depth in terms of the litigation that I soon gave up trying to explain why he was going to lose. His combination of arrogance, hostility, and substantial ignorance of the applicable facts and legal principles made it all but impossible for him to see what was happening and why, and what was going to happen. ==Since he was not really entitled to require me to explain every jot and tittle of the case to him (he was not my client, after all), and since I knew that he was not going to accept my explanations anyway, and because he was not even in a position to fully understand or accept or give credence to my explanations, I chose to not engage in substantive discussion with him. Instead, I proceeded with my understanding of the law and the facts. And since I have many years of training in and practice of the law, and because I had access to much more information than he did, I proceeded with the course of action I thought best. I filed a motion for summary judgment (asking the judge to dismiss the case without needing a trial). We then had a hearing before the judge. Prior to the hearing, Jack was grinning like a Cheshire cat. He sat down behind me and asked if I was ready to give in. He well and truly thought he was going to win. He had, from his perspective, a set of unassailable facts that favored his position. He had, from his perspective, a pile of innuendo and self-serving accusations that I and my client were liars, that we were dishonest, that we had "broken the law." He had, from his perspective, a winning case. ==The hearing lasted about 20 minutes. I spoke for about four of those minutes, and the rest of the time the judge spent analyzing and utterly dismantling Jack's "perspective." Jack was manifestly ignorant of many, many important legal and factual issues. He had no evidence of wrongdoing, so he resorted to bare accusations, which the Court rejected as unsubstantiated. He had no evidence to counter the affidavit I had procured from a percipient witness. He had no evidence or argument pertaining to the Statute of Frauds, the Economic Loss Rule, the appropriate discovery tier under Rule 26, the RM Lifestyles/Reynolds analysis, and the various other legal principles I had presented in the motion for summary judgment. The judge then granted my motion in its entirety. Jack was . . . stunned. He was at a loss for words. ==Jack's predicament was, from my point of view, both unfortunate and understandable. He was attempting to argue about an issue with which he lacked familiarity. He lacked training and experience in the various factors and reasoning involved. He lacked access to important pieces of information, information to which he was not entitled or which he would not have understood and appreciated anyway. All he knew was his "perspective." His narrow and facile viewpoint (there's that word again!). And to this toxic stew of ignorance and inexperience he added large dollops of unwarranted confidence in his opinion, and also unreasoned and unseemly resentment against me and my client. He has since re-started filing papers with the court, and from these it appears that he is still of the opinion that he is right, and that I am wrong, and that the judge is stupid. Meanwhile, for me and my client, life goes on . . . ==So there's my parable, the application of which I leave open to interpretation. Thanks, -Smac 3
stemelbow Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Thanks for that looong response Smac. I do appreciate it. I can tell we simply aren't going to agree and if we continue with this it sounds like it's going to be too mixed with personal accusations and barbs. I'm happy to leave it as agree to disagree. Take care. I appreciate your adorable parable, but as I can see there's no application here.
smac97 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Okay. I'm not sure about making "personal accusations," but I apologize for"barbs." Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts