BYU-I Teach let go

[Gray]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Yeah, that's right, there's nobody to compete with these days.  Let's just disband the whole thing.  Two countries spring to mind: Russia; and China.

Our existing fighter planes are already competitive with them.

 

 

Just now, Stargazer said:

Typical deflection.  If I were to say that the purpose of the federal government is not to build schools, would you ask me why I hate education?  That's exactly what you just did here: put words in my mouth and then show faux outrage over my smallmindedness.  Sorry, ain't buying it.

 

If you say so.

 

Just now, Stargazer said:

And "investing"?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.

I'm using it correctly. We can choose to invest in military contractors, or in education for Americans, or a million other things. It's all investment.

 

 

Just now, Stargazer said:

Of course it is.  There you go again!  

If you throw too much money at a problem, people, being inventive and always on the lookout for an easy time, will find ways to use that money, for better or worse.  You spoke of boondoggles earlier.  I know a man who, after getting a two-year degree in computer programming under the GI bill, went back and got a second two-year degree he didn't need, just because he hadn't yet used his entitlement up. Arguably, the government's money was used appropriately for the first degree, and after getting it he continued in that profession as a contributing member of society until he retired, 30 years later.  He got the second degree just because the money was available, and the monthly stipend after expenses (tuition, books, etc) amounted to a second, part-time job.  He didn't violate any law doing what he did, but he later felt that what he did was unethical -- and it was.  The money that he received for getting that second degree wasn't wasted, per se, but it did represent an opportunity cost -- it was was money that could have gone for something else more valuable -- taxes were wasted.

Sounds like a policy issue, not a reason not to invest in education.

 

 

Just now, Stargazer said:

At the education institution level, the same thing is observed to occur for such things as the aforementioned Gender Studies, as well as other areas of study with very tenuous grasps on reality (and employability).  There are a few institutions of higher learning that will teach you how to enter the exciting world of surfing -- not how to surf, per se, but how to manage sporting events featuring surfing: The Surf-Specific Degree.

 

The value of a liberal arts education goes far beyond job training. It's important to have an informed citizenry. Having said that, even as something as "useless" as an undergrad degree in English can help you move into a professional career. Communication skills are valuable.

 

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Our existing fighter planes are already competitive with them.

 

Interesting assertion! This turns out not to be the case. Continuing development, in both China and Russia, assure that this is not the case, and will continue to be not the case in coming years, unless the US perseveres in its development. I'm not interested in parity, by the way.  Superiority is preferable.  The Russian Su-35 is quite comparable to the US F-35.  Drop the F-35 program, and we sacrifice parity.  For example, as much as I love our existing F-15, Russia's new Su-35 is superior to it. In case you're interested in an analysis put forward by a Russian YouTube channel (not an "official" channel), have a look at Binkov's Battleground on the subject of F-35 vs Su-35.  Parts One and Two. Binkov is clearly Russian, but I've been watching his videos for some time, and he seems fairly objective and very knowledgeable.  He rates F-35 as "somewhat better" than Su-35.  And I'd say that's inadequate as it stands.

Another Russian fighter which is even more comparable to the F-35 (and superior to our existing aircraft) is the new Sukhoi PAK FA (sometimes referred to as T-50).  The Chinese have a comparable new fighter, the Chengdu J-20.  In this connection, if you're at all interested, I present this video featuring an interview of a Russian military expert (apparently a radio show with stock footage of the subject).  It's a bit tedious, due to the interview being entirely in Russian, and the subtitles manage to be in somewhat poor English at times.  The interviewee (Mikhail Mikhailovich) praises the F-35 (and the J-20), but is confident that their new 5th generation fighter is quite comparable, and if it is somewhat behind the F-35 at this time, will approach parity in time.

 

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The value of a liberal arts education goes far beyond job training. It's important to have an informed citizenry. Having said that, even as something as "useless" as an undergrad degree in English can help you move into a professional career. Communication skills are valuable.

 

Tell that to the social science or liberal arts major who goes into enormous debt to get his or her degree and then can't pay off that debt in any reasonable time because the available jobs don't pay very well.  Of course communication skills are valuable -- I'm not arguing that there's no value in these things.  But one of the reasons why higher education costs so much these days is precisely because so much money is being thrown at it, via scholarships and especially government-guaranteed loans.  And you think that throwing even more money at it will make things better.  People get degrees in useless subject areas (or in many cases don't get degrees because they drop out), and in my humble opinion this does not constitute an informed citizenry.  Especially since most university campuses are rife with professors who are in many cases open Marxist idealogues who still think that Socialism is "da bomb", and the only reason socialism has produced more misery than any other system is because it hasn't been tweaked properly anywhere.  Apparently.  But that's another subject, and I'm sure you disagree with me.

I think education is wonderful.  Let's build lots of schools and educate people.  But you seem to think that education for education's sake is a positive good.  I think it is good, too, and even though I'm retired and don't need to go to school any longer, I'd love to get going on learning something new any time.  But for something to be an "investment" it needs to have a freaking Return On Investment.  And like I keep trying to say, how many Gender Studies degrees do we need out there?  Or for that matter, how many Video Production graduates do we need?  One of my sons spent two years and a few thousand dollars getting an Associate Degree in that subject at a local school, and when he was done found out that the supply hugely exceeded demand -- and not only that, the starting salary, even if he had managed to actually get a job in the field, was only about twice the minimum wage.  His "education" was surely not a total waste, but it didn't pay the bills, and the ROI was Zip.  Today he works in the construction business -- builds great garages, remodels houses, and makes a great living at it. We need garages and we need comfortable housing.  But his degree is virtually useless.  The only thing his obtaining it did was pay his instructors' salaries.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but still, it didn't help him at all.  And there's plenty of other similar stories out there.

[rockpond]

I thought we believed that people should not risk losing their employment over their sincerely held religious beliefs.  I guess that doesn't apply if you work for BYU.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought we believed that people should not risk losing their employment over their sincerely held religious beliefs.  I guess that doesn't apply if you work for BYU.

I think everyone can see the problems with your statement.  If the president of Bob Jones university were to start sharing his testimony of the Book of Mormon I don't think anyone would be surprised if there was a job opening.

If you work for a religiously owned institution and "officially" oppose the doctrines of that church you shouldn't be suprised if there are consequences.

Edited July 20, 2017 by ksfisher

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think everyone can see the problems with your statement.  If the president of Bob Jones university were to start sharing his testimony of the Book of Mormon I don't think anyone would be surprised if there was a job opening.

If you work for a religiously owned institution and "officially" oppose the doctrines of that church you shouldn't be suprised if there are consequences.

That's true although I question where she opposed the doctrines of the church.  That's questionable.  Our church's publicly stated position is that homosexuality (aka same-sex attraction) is not sinful.  And, at least one apostle has stated that members are free to support legal same-sex marriage.

And I find it interesting that the apostles have expressed concern, in numerous addresses regarding religious freedom, over members of the church someday being unable to express their beliefs regarding same-sex marriage without negative consequence to employment, housing, etc.  Apparently it is okay for our employing entities to fire people over their privately stated opinions/beliefs regarding same-sex marriage.  Interesting. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I thought we believed that people should not risk losing their employment over their sincerely held religious beliefs.  

Unless they got the job in part because they claimed they agreed with their employer's sincerely held religious beliefs.  I'm fine with religious institutions having belief requirements.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's true although I question where she opposed the doctrines of the church.  That's questionable.  Our church's publicly stated position is that homosexuality (aka same-sex attraction) is not sinful.  And, at least one apostle has stated that members are free to support legal same-sex marriage.

And I find it interesting that the apostles have expressed concern, in numerous addresses regarding religious freedom, over members of the church someday being unable to express their beliefs regarding same-sex marriage without negative consequence to employment, housing, etc.  Apparently it is okay for our employing entities to fire people over their privately stated opinions/beliefs regarding same-sex marriage.  Interesting. 

Apparently she identifies as an Ex Mormon.  She seems to opposed many doctrines of the church. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Danzo

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless they got the job in part because they claimed they agreed with their employer's sincerely held religious beliefs.  I'm fine with religious institutions having belief requirements.

I don't think her post shows disagreement with "employer's sincerely held religious beliefs" assuming the employer's beliefs are supposed to be in line with the LDS Church's doctrinal positions.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Apparently she identifies as an Ex Mormon.  She seems to opposed many doctrines of the church. 

In the statement from her that I read she identified herself as an active, temple attending member.

[carbon dioxide]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In the statement from her that I read she identified herself as an active, temple attending member.

Apparently he has a reddit profile where she does consider herself an exmormon.  She says she left the church in posts days ago.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think her post shows disagreement with "employer's sincerely held religious beliefs" assuming the employer's beliefs are supposed to be in line with the LDS Church's doctrinal positions.

You don't think that saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality is equal in the eyes of God and that the church mistreats gays shows disagreement with the teachings of the church?

And yes, the church teaches that homosexuality on it's own isn't sinful, but her post made it very clear that she was talking about SS relationships and not just attraction.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's true although I question where she opposed the doctrines of the church.  That's questionable.  Our church's publicly stated position is that homosexuality (aka same-sex attraction) is not sinful.  And, at least one apostle has stated that members are free to support legal same-sex marriage.

The post she wrote contained far more than just that she was LDS and supported legalized civil gay marriage.  Here are some of the statements that stood out to me

"Most Christian faiths label homosexuality as a sin based on archaic writings."  

Why does she consider the scriptures to be "archaic" writing.  Yes they are old but the overall tone of here post gives the impression they are outdated or need to be changed.    Though the scriptures are old, the teachings still apply today. 

"A few hateful verses in the Old Testament have led to hundreds of years of prejudice, hatred, violence, and pain."

Perhaps people might use the scriptures for prejudice and hate but that does not mean the verses themselves are hateful.  She also completely ignores New Testament passages that also refer to homosexuality.  Perhaps she considers these passages hateful as well. Any passage of scripture that gives her problems or makes her uncomfortable perhaps is hateful?

"What I’m trying convey is that we like to pick and choose from the scriptures, and if we choose to use the Old Testament as a defense for condemning homosexuality… there’s a whole lot more we need to be condemning as well."

One has to wonder what she does accept in the Old Testament.  Using her logic, one should not use the Old Testament as a defense for condemning idolatry, adultery, and other things.

The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the keystone of the Church, right? It never once mentions homosexuality.

The Book of Mormon does not mention a variety of things including diverse and what people would call deviant sexual practices.  Does that mean they are ok because the BOM does not address it? Or perhaps the reason the Nephites did not address it is they had a good knowledge that it was a sin.  The Nephites misunderstood the practice of polygamy so it was addressed.  They most likely did not error in the issue of homosexuality.  There is simply nothing in the text that give any remote hint that it was acceptable to God.  If the Nephites had practiced gay marriage, there is every reason to believe they would have been condemned just as strongly as those Nephites that practice unauthorized polygamy.

This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful.

Sexual orientation is not sinful but there is nothing in the post that she gives that suggests she is focusing only on that.  She completely ignores Mosiah 3:19 "For the natural man is an enemy to God..."  If she accepts that then she should understand that the whole idea of whether homosexuality is natural or not is irrelevant to God.  The purpose of life is not to magnify our natural tendencies but to put off the natural man and do the Lords will and not our own.  If our natural tendencies lead one away from God we MUST either change or at minimum hold them in check. 

"I will never support the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” because that “sin” is part of who that person is. "

No the sin is NOT what the person is.   The sin is the action or decision one makes after accountability that is against a law or command of God. 

"Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; if God made us, and those are part of who we are.. then God created that as well."

Noting in the post suggest she is simply referring to orientation.  God also "created" the habitual liar, the alcoholic, the person who just can't resist the urge to steal.  None of us can excuse our decisions on our natural inclinations. 

I realize that my views counter the current day policies of the LDS Church, but I hope that over time the Church will come to see the harm these policies have."

What policies?  The policy that the church must protect itself from false doctrine and people from promoting sinful practices that lead to damnation?  She needs to be more specific in what she is asking for.  I believe it goes far beyond the policy about baptism of kids of gay parents.  There is nothing to suggest to me in the post the is limiting it to just that.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

"Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; if God made us, and those are part of who we are.. then God created that as well."

This is the argument that I understand the least.  There are lots of parts of me that are a part of who i naturally am.  Most if not all of our weaknesses are 'who we naturally are.'  I would be an idiot though to believe that because I was born with specific inclinations, that means that God wants me to embrace them.  

Of all the arguments about why SS relationships aren't sinful, the 'I was born this way' argument is the one that I find nonsensical.  

[USU78]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This is the argument that I understand the least.  There are lots of parts of me that are a part of who i naturally am.  Most if not all of our weaknesses are 'who we naturally are.'  I would be an idiot though to believe that because I was born with specific inclinations, that means that God wants me to embrace them.  

Of all the arguments about why SS relationships aren't sinful, the 'I was born this way' argument is the one that I find nonsensical.  

"The natural man is an enemy to G-d" certainly agrees with you.

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This is the argument that I understand the least.  There are lots of parts of me that are a part of who i naturally am.  Most if not all of our weaknesses are 'who we naturally are.'  I would be an idiot though to believe that because I was born with specific inclinations, that means that God wants me to embrace them.  

Of all the arguments about why SS relationships aren't sinful, the 'I was born this way' argument is the one that I find nonsensical.  

Yes.  One of my natural tendency is to be lazy and procrastinate.  It has been something that I have struggled with all my life.  I don't believe God wants me to just accept this as it being a part of me and go through life and be lazy.  He wants me to improve and do better.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Apparently he has a reddit profile where she does consider herself an exmormon.  She says she left the church in posts days ago.

I hadn't heard that.  Is there some way to know that the reddit profile is actually her... because her public statement was quite different.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I hadn't heard that.  Is there some way to know that the reddit profile is actually her... because her public statement was quite different.

Calm and Cinqpro have discussed this earlier in the thread.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You don't think that saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality is equal in the eyes of God and that the church mistreats gays shows disagreement with the teachings of the church?

And yes, the church teaches that homosexuality on it's own isn't sinful, but her post made it very clear that she was talking about SS relationships and not just attraction.

According to current church doctrine, heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in the eyes of God.  God created both and loves individuals of both orientations equally.

That the church mistreats gays is an observation and not showing disagreement with church teachings.

I disagree with the interpretation in your final sentence above.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

According to current church doctrine, heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in the eyes of God. 

CFR please.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The post she wrote contained far more than just that she was LDS and supported legalized civil gay marriage.  Here are some of the statements that stood out to me

"Most Christian faiths label homosexuality as a sin based on archaic writings."  

Why does she consider the scriptures to be "archaic" writing.  Yes they are old but the overall tone of here post gives the impression they are outdated or need to be changed.    Though the scriptures are old, the teachings still apply today. 

"A few hateful verses in the Old Testament have led to hundreds of years of prejudice, hatred, violence, and pain."

Perhaps people might use the scriptures for prejudice and hate but that does not mean the verses themselves are hateful.  She also completely ignores New Testament passages that also refer to homosexuality.  Perhaps she considers these passages hateful as well. Any passage of scripture that gives her problems or makes her uncomfortable perhaps is hateful?

"What I’m trying convey is that we like to pick and choose from the scriptures, and if we choose to use the Old Testament as a defense for condemning homosexuality… there’s a whole lot more we need to be condemning as well."

One has to wonder what she does accept in the Old Testament.  Using her logic, one should not use the Old Testament as a defense for condemning idolatry, adultery, and other things.

The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the keystone of the Church, right? It never once mentions homosexuality.

The Book of Mormon does not mention a variety of things including diverse and what people would call deviant sexual practices.  Does that mean they are ok because the BOM does not address it? Or perhaps the reason the Nephites did not address it is they had a good knowledge that it was a sin.  The Nephites misunderstood the practice of polygamy so it was addressed.  They most likely did not error in the issue of homosexuality.  There is simply nothing in the text that give any remote hint that it was acceptable to God.  If the Nephites had practiced gay marriage, there is every reason to believe they would have been condemned just as strongly as those Nephites that practice unauthorized polygamy.

This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful.

Sexual orientation is not sinful but there is nothing in the post that she gives that suggests she is focusing only on that.  She completely ignores Mosiah 3:19 "For the natural man is an enemy to God..."  If she accepts that then she should understand that the whole idea of whether homosexuality is natural or not is irrelevant to God.  The purpose of life is not to magnify our natural tendencies but to put off the natural man and do the Lords will and not our own.  If our natural tendencies lead one away from God we MUST either change or at minimum hold them in check. 

"I will never support the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” because that “sin” is part of who that person is. "

No the sin is NOT what the person is.   The sin is the action or decision one makes after accountability that is against a law or command of God. 

"Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; if God made us, and those are part of who we are.. then God created that as well."

Noting in the post suggest she is simply referring to orientation.  God also "created" the habitual liar, the alcoholic, the person who just can't resist the urge to steal.  None of us can excuse our decisions on our natural inclinations. 

I realize that my views counter the current day policies of the LDS Church, but I hope that over time the Church will come to see the harm these policies have."

What policies?  The policy that the church must protect itself from false doctrine and people from promoting sinful practices that lead to damnation?  She needs to be more specific in what she is asking for.  I believe it goes far beyond the policy about baptism of kids of gay parents.  There is nothing to suggest to me in the post the is limiting it to just that.

 

The scriptures are archaic writings.  That's just a fact.  If we fail to keep them in context than we fail to read them correctly.

The scriptures have been used to justify hundreds of years of prejudice, violence, hatred, and pain.  That is demonstrably true.  Just look at our own history with those of African descent.

I can't speak to what she feels about every passage in scripture.  I can only respond to what she has actually written/said.

Her statement about orientation is correct and aligns with current church teachings.  I won't be drawn into speculating what she meant beyond what she actually wrote.

You will have to ask her what policies she was referring to.  If she is referring to the Nov 2015 additions to the handbook, I would agree.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

CFR please.  

God is no respecter of persons.

And the church acknowledges that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (mormonandgay.lds.org).

 

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The comparisons aren't perfect, you point out some differences, I agree.  I'm not sure a marketing director at Target would get fired for this though, I would be interested to know if Target has fired any employees for making negative comments about the transgender community.  I found this interesting article on the subject.  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659024/Macys-allegedly-fires-longtime-employee-over-transgender-bathroom-incident.html

On another note, I found a ton of articles about Target boycotts by conservative groups that are very bigoted towards the LGBT community.  I won't link to those, but I was saddened by what I read in some of those articles, there is a lot of hate and evil out there masquerading as righteousness.  

 

So you are equating a doctrine on the eternal nature of the family to bigotry against the LGBT community? Is that where you are trying to go with this?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is the argument that I understand the least.

It is certainly a very old argument with a long genealogy:

'And he [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life'.

'But as to the people that were in the land of Ammonihah, they yet remained a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people; and they repented not of their sins, ascribing all the power of Alma and Amulek to the devil; for they were of the profession of Nehor, and did not believe in the repentance of their sins'.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

God is no respecter of persons.

And the church acknowledges that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (mormonandgay.lds.org).

 

I don't think you answered the CFR.  You've stated that "according to current church doctrine heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in the eyes of God."  Please demonstrate this.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

According to current church doctrine, heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in the eyes of God.  God created both and loves individuals of both orientations equally.

That the church mistreats gays is an observation and not showing disagreement with church teachings.

I disagree with the interpretation in your final sentence above.

it's not an interpretation.  She is pro SSM and doesn't believe that SSM is sinful.