BYU-I Teach let go

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

Of course! I am constantly tempted to not complete and return the useless reports I'm required to submit or write special tests for students who get formal accommodations because of test anxiety. I do those things because I have to but if they paid me more I'd do it without being so surly about it.  There are several policies I disagree with, but I know that the university is fulfilling requirements forced upon them from higher powers. I personally would never take a teaching position at any of the church universities or teach seminary or institute because of the very issues that this young woman is facing. I could never stand to have my personal life under a microscope on every level, but I think church employees should understand that that is exactly what they are signing up for.

Thank you for your honesty...and your integrity.  I admire you.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, and if a homosexual orientation is a weakness, than it does need to be overcome.

I'm not sure what you felt was an unwarranted assumption on my part.

The unwarranted assumption is that  God doesn't give us weaknesses. IE: Being born blind isn't a sin any more than having homosexual thoughts is a sin. But obviously both are something to be overcome as best as possible.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The unwarranted assumption is that  God doesn't give us weaknesses. IE: Being born blind isn't a sin any more than having homosexual thoughts is a sin. But obviously both are something to be overcome as best as possible.

Seems to be a bit of semantics at play:  If someone is born blind, did God give that condition to them, as their creator, or is it something that God allowed to happen as part of the diversity inherent in the creation process?  I'm comfortable with either POV whether it is blindness, sexual orientation, handedness, etc. 

I agree that we are meant to strive to overcome weaknesses.  I just have found no reason to conclude that sexual orientation (including homosexual orientation) is a weakness. 

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I agree that we are meant to strive to overcome weaknesses.  I just have found no reason to conclude that sexual orientation (including homosexual orientation) is a weakness. 

 I would submit that as modern day prophets have consistently taught that homosexual activity is a sin, that we can safely conclude that having those desires is a weakness.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 I would submit that as modern day prophets have consistently taught that homosexual activity is a sin, that we can safely conclude that having those desires is a weakness.  

Yes, a worthy consideration.  I spent a lot of time studying their teachings (accompanied by sincere prayer).  For my part, what I discovered was quite a bit of confusion and a lack of revelation.  So the Spirit has not led me to the same conclusion at which you seem to have arrived. 

[rockpond]

I was able to listen to a bit more of the Robertson and Dehlin interview today while running errands.  But still haven't finished.  Thought I'd share one interesting point regarding Robertson's faith journey. 

She explained that it was in November  of 2015, as a student in her final year of school that she heard about the new handbook additions.  At that time she mentally separated "the gospel" (which she still believed in) from "the church" (which she seemed to feel was departing from her belief system). 

A somewhat common response but I thought I'd share for those still interested in her faith journey. 

[Calm]

So she was teaching for a year and a half while not being aligned with the Church, her employer.

From other of her comments, she made no effort to look for another job where she could be open about her beliefs for that year and a half.  She was intent on being an agitator for change from inside, the same reason she misrepresented herself to the press (exmormons don't get listen to).

(I don't have a problem with her beliefs choice, I have an issue with misrepresenting herself to her employer and the news.)

Edited July 23, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

So she was teaching for a year and a half while not being aligned with the Church, her employer.

From other of her comments, she made no effort to look for another job where she could be open about her beliefs for that year and a half.  She was intent on being an agitator for change from inside, the same reason she misrepresented herself to the press (exmormons don't get listen to).

(I don't have a problem with her beliefs choices, I have an issue with misrepresenting herself to her employer and the news.)

That's one way to look at it.  From what I've heard from her, I'm not willing to conclude that she was "not aligned with her employer" in any way that contradicted her contract. I also see no evidence that she was attempting to be an agitator.  She has stated that she never brought those views into the classroom and never even discussed her views privately with students.

I don't have evidence to conclude that she misrepresented herself.  But I am also not on Reddit where it sounds like she may have made other statements. I don't know, I'm only read a couple of articles and am now listening to her interview with Dehlin (haven't finished because I am preparing two lessons for tomorrow  ).

[Calm]

However, she has stated she wanted to bring about change to the Church and that was why she didn't resign from either the Church or the school.

Exmofeministq:  "When presenting these issues, in order for members to accept change, you have to be soft. You have to make them see you as one of them. Exmormons aren't as effective at making changes in the church and that's why I phrased things the way I did in interviews."

I believe I have quoted her twice on that or it is possible that cinepro did.

She has been quoted on this thread, contradicting herself.  Perhaps you have missed those posts.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

She knowingly allowed her students to disregard the Honor Code.  I don't know if some level of enforcement or at least education of students is required, but I would be surprised if it wasn't from what I heard from my professors back in the day, many who weren't shy about saying they weren't happy about it, but were still intent on living the standard because they had promised they would

"Speaking as a professor for a CES school, I don't care what my students wear to class. I have kids show up in shorts and tank tops all the time, also have a few kids with longer hair than boys are allowed to have and more facial hair than is normally allowed. I keep my students out of the testing center because it's just a place for overzealous morons to enforce pharisaical rules. Know your department, that determines how strictly the honor code is enforced. Social science departments are usually the most laid back."

Now I think there are parts of the BYU system honor code that are plainly ridiculous and I find those who confront the student when it is not their job to be inappropriate, especially if accusing of immodesty or issues of chastity.  However, since to be a student or employee one agrees to live the Honor Code, then I think if one is being honest, they will live it themselves and if they don't or they encourage others not to by creating an environment that ignores the commitments the students promised to abide by, I think they are being dishonest and teaching people that one's word is meaningless and that standards one has committed to are low on the priority list.

[Calm]

Her high regard for the more traditional believers (we don't think, we like to be spoonfed and we aren't terribly successful at being decent human beings or Christians) makes me warm and fuzzy...not derogatory at all, just the truth .

Exmofeministq:  "A lot of mormons don't like to think for themselves. They like to be spoonfed everything, and those are the people who remain TBMs. The ones who think, don't take everything at face value, or follow every dictate of the Mormon leadership are the ones who actually successful at being decent human beings and christians (and also risk becoming inactive or exmormon because they realize the falsehood of a lot of the teachings). Your aunt most likely thinks this way because she hasn't wanted to push outside the small, narrow path of "logic" that the Church promotes. And I don't mean that to be derogatory, it's just the TBM way"

[Tacenda]

My son brought this story up to me yesterday. He is 24, and I believe the same age as many of her students at BYUI. In the interview with John Dehlin Ruthie mentions that she thought at least 75% of the students were against the November 2015 policy. I don't know how she knows, I'm guessing it gets brought up or she is able to hear the consensus by their discussions amongst themselves. I know that the policy was the cruxt to my son not having anything to do with the church.

[thesometimesaint]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seems to be a bit of semantics at play:  If someone is born blind, did God give that condition to them, as their creator, or is it something that God allowed to happen as part of the diversity inherent in the creation process?  I'm comfortable with either POV whether it is blindness, sexual orientation, handedness, etc. 

I agree that we are meant to strive to overcome weaknesses.  I just have found no reason to conclude that sexual orientation (including homosexual orientation) is a weakness. 

The Church has long posited that homosexual actions are sinful thus a weakness. If Christ was truly tempted in ALL things. It is logical to conclude that included homosexual ideation if not the actions. He certainly knew about homosexuality.

Edited July 23, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My son brought this story up to me yesterday. He is 24, and I believe the same age as many of her students at BYUI. In the interview with John Dehlin Ruthie mentions that she thought at least 75% of the students were against the November 2015 policy. I don't know how she knows, I'm guessing it gets brought up or she is able to hear the consensus by their discussions amongst themselves. I know that the policy was the cruxt to my son not having anything to do with the church.

Yep, the 75% figure has to be just a guess.

She mentioned that there is a section of her International Relations class that covers human rights, including LGBT rights.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church has long posited that homosexual actions are sinful thus a weakness. If Christ was truly tempted in ALL things. It is logical to conclude that included homosexual ideation if not the actions. He certainly knew about homosexuality.

Church doctrine teaches that the actions are sinful, but not the orientation.  So I don't see that a reason to deem it a weakness.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Church doctrine teaches that the actions are sinful, but not the orientation.  So I don't see that a reason to deem it a weakness.

So if I'm constantly feel like stealing my neighbors [insert something nice your neighbor has], but never act on it, this isn't a weakness in my character?  This isn't something that I need to work on so that one day I won't give I won't give in and swipe something?  

What if I find a co-worker very, very attractive and am tempted in that direction?  Wouldn't we call that a weakness even if never acted upon?  I have not acted on this temptation so it doesn't qualify under your definition of a weakness.

I really, honestly don't understand your position and find it perplexing.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by ksfisher

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if Imconstantly feel like stealing my neighbors [insert something nice your neighbor has], but never act on it, this isn't a weakness in my character?  This isn't something that I need to work on so that one day I won't give I won't give in and swipe something?  

What if I find a co-worker very, very attractive and am tempted in that direction?  Wouldn't we call that a weakness even if never acted upon?  I have not acted on this temptation so it doesn't qualify under your definition of a weakness.

I really, honestly don't understand your position and find it perplexing.

 

Negotiating the minefield of political correctness is hard

[katherine the great]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if Imconstantly feel like stealing my neighbors [insert something nice your neighbor has], but never act on it, this isn't a weakness in my character?  This isn't something that I need to work on so that one day I won't give I won't give in and swipe something?  

What if I find a co-worker very, very attractive and am tempted in that direction?  Wouldn't we call that a weakness even if never acted upon?  I have not acted on this temptation so it doesn't qualify under your definition of a weakness.

I really, honestly don't understand your position and find it perplexing.

 

I think this argument is just a matter of semantics. Something that you consider a weakness could just be considered a trait to others. Same sex attraction could be considered a weakness in a culture that considers it a sin. Our church doesn't consider it a sin to feel the attraction, only to act on it.  Finding your coworker attractive is not a sin or a weakness (its simple chemistry). Once you identify it, if you then act on it, it would be considered a weakness or sin. If feeling attraction is a weakness, heaven help us all!

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I think this argument is just a matter of semantics. Something that you consider a weakness could just be considered a trait to others. Same sex attraction could be considered a weakness in a culture that considers it a sin. Our church doesn't consider it a sin to feel the attraction, only to act on it.  Finding your coworker attractive is not a sin or a weakness (its simple chemistry). Once you identify it, if you then act on it, it would be considered a weakness or sin. If feeling attraction is a weakness, heaven help us all!

I was thinking of something a little stronger than just finding someone attractive.  

I could always use a good editor before I hit submit.

Edited July 24, 2017 by ksfisher

[katherine the great]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I was thinking of something a little stronger than just finding someone attractive.  

I could always use a good editor before I hit submit.

I find this car very, very attractive but I don't consider that a weakness.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I think this argument is just a matter of semantics. Something that you consider a weakness could just be considered a trait to others. Same sex attraction could be considered a weakness in a culture that considers it a sin. Our church doesn't consider it a sin to feel the attraction, only to act on it.  Finding your coworker attractive is not a sin or a weakness (its simple chemistry). Once you identify it, if you then act on it, it would be considered a weakness or sin. If feeling attraction is a weakness, heaven help us all!

God talks about turning our weaknesses into strengths.  I think it pretty much depends on how we use our traits as to whether they are weaknesses or strengths.

Most people would view great talent or intelligence as a strength.  But what if most people with those traits are frequently in situations where they have thoughts of inappropriate pride or superiority?  What if such is typically coupled with overly strong competiveness?

Kind of like rich men entering the kingdom of heaven...is wealth therefore a weakness, poverty or at least lower income a strength?

[Guest]

On July 18, 2017 at 0:19 PM, stemelbow said:

Is it a good idea to base a job at a Church-owned school, granted, on whether a professor agrees with policy on her personal facebook entries?   Why does her personal view expressed on facebook require her to lose her job? 

When anyone accepts employment, they do so knowing beforehand, the terms of employment. It is a Church owned school, and I am sure there are moral requirements attached. I served in the Army for 8 years and in Law Enforcement for 23, years. During those 31 years I knew full well, the standards and requirements of my jobs. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Exmofeministq:  "A lot of mormons don't like to think for themselves. They like to be spoonfed everything, and those are the people who remain TBMs. The ones who think, don't take everything at face value, or follow every dictate of the Mormon leadership are the ones who actually successful at being decent human beings and christians (and also risk becoming inactive or exmormon because they realize the falsehood of a lot of the teachings). Your aunt most likely thinks this way because she hasn't wanted to push outside the small, narrow path of "logic" that the Church promotes. And I don't mean that to be derogatory, it's just the TBM way"

 

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In the interview with John Dehlin Ruthie mentions that she thought at least 75% of the students were against the November 2015 policy. I don't know how she knows...

My strong suspicion is that it's her estimate of what percentage of her students were open to what she was spoon-feeding them.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

My strong suspicion is that it's her estimate of what percentage of her students were open to what she was spoon-feeding them.

She has said, multiple times, that she did not share those views (the ones expressed in the Facebook post) with her students and did not allow her students to friend her on Facebook. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Her high regard for the more traditional believers (we don't think, we like to be spoonfed and we aren't terribly successful at being decent human beings or Christians) makes me warm and fuzzy...not derogatory at all, just the truth .

Exmofeministq:  "A lot of mormons don't like to think for themselves. They like to be spoonfed everything, and those are the people who remain TBMs. The ones who think, don't take everything at face value, or follow every dictate of the Mormon leadership are the ones who actually successful at being decent human beings and christians (and also risk becoming inactive or exmormon because they realize the falsehood of a lot of the teachings). Your aunt most likely thinks this way because she hasn't wanted to push outside the small, narrow path of "logic" that the Church promotes. And I don't mean that to be derogatory, it's just the TBM way"

It goes back to what I said earlier: It's easy enough these days to start your own church with teachings that are more to your liking;** you don't have to try to hijack this one.

**I linked to a website that offers step-by-step instructions, software, even an app.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd