Changes to BYU Admissions Policy

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you bothered to read what I said (a problem I seem to have you), I called the comment distasteful. I also called smac’s response overwrought (which it was). I note that you didn’t engage the content of the post at all (again typical for my interactions with you!). Did I miss where she “wished” someone dead? For two people with a law degrees, you two seem to miss a lot of nuance with words. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't help but wonder if the Church is getting a bit tired of heavily subsidizing the education of nominal members of the Church who, upon graduating, turn around and bash BYU, the Church, its leaders, its members, etc. for any and every grievance under the sun.  A few examples:

1. Heather Armstrong, a blogger, graduated from BYU in 1997.  According to her:

2. Jaclyn Foster, who previously attended BYU and is now apparently a doctoral student in history at the University of Utah, was a 2018 “Summer Fellow” of the Maxwell Institute, where her work resulted in a paper and a presentation entitled “The Influence of Scientific Racism on Mormon Racial Thought.”  A few days ago she had this lovely thing to say:

"Best case scenario for Mormonism is Nelson and Oaks dying simultaneously in a car crash tbh {to be honest}."

Per her Facebook profile, she served as a missionary in 2013:

And married in the temple in 2015:

 

And yet somehow, by 2019, she is publicly wishing for the violent and bloody deaths of Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks.

To her (kinda sorta) credit, she did subsequently publish a kinda-sorta-non-apologetic apology:

"How it could be construed?"  "Not my intent?"  How many ways does this insult the intelligence of her readers?

So apparently her position is that she still wants Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks to die, but perhaps just not in a car crash.  

(Oh, and if her wish is fulfilled and Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks are killed, then the "next in line" is Elder Ballard, not Elder Holland.)

I think the following response (from the above link) is apt:

Well, yeah.

3. Haley Lemmon wrote a brief article while at BYU regarding the influence of Adam Clarke's bible commentary on Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon.  

Posting under "Promiscuous_Spirit16," she started a Reddit AMA in which she openly brags about being "free" after getting her diploma from BYU.  She talks about "TSCC" ("The So-Called Church," a term reeking of contempt), about getting together with other former members to "celebrate our freedom!", and so on.

I have a hard time understanding the level(s) of ethical problems here.  These folks apparently despise the Church, but have no qualms goint to its flagship school and have their tuition heavily subsidized by the Widow's Mite.

I have no idea if the Church is looking for ways to keep folks like these out of BYU.  I am quite disappointed with folks who exploit the goodwill of the Church, and the Widow's Mite, to fund their educations, only to turn around and spit on the group providing that education.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you think a few dissidents says anything at a university with an undergraduate population over 30k students, I don’t know what to tell you. If you think screening people more closely (requiring seminary attendance and an endorsement) will prevent this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In my experience, many of the most vocal critics are those that were the most rigid and zealous in their application of faith. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Truly you have a dizzying intellect!

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Truly you have a dizzying intellect!

 

[MustardSeed]

My son almost got his acceptance revoked because he missed so many seminary days.  

One semester he was in two sports and a school play.  He got 2 hours of sleep a night.  Took AP classes.  He missed several days of seminary.  I didn’t have a problem with that- but maybe BYU did. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I loved early morning seminary (but early morning seminary for me was 7.  I know here in Utah they meet at 6, which seems crazy to me!).  Our teachers were really good and I learned a lot of the 'surprises' that people talk about finding out about and losing faith over during early morning seminary.

I enjoyed early morning seminary as well - though I probably spent more than an appropriate amount of time playing 'the dot game' during the first half of my freshman year. 

And when I reflect back on my peers who were regular-attending, engaged seminary students, there is a significant overlap between that group and those of us who ended up attending BYU, Provo (and who are still active, faithful members of the church).

If that correlation extends beyond my personal experience - and I suspect it does, at least to some degree - then it makes sense to me that the church might be interested in considering seminary participation as one qualification when determining admissions.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because early morning seminary is stupid. (Sorry - it just is. I learned nothing from the time and all it did was make my own studies harder since I was more tired)

But there are other reasons such as being in a small ward/branch that doesn't really offer it. Of course there's independent study seminary. I wish it was easier to get here in Utah rather than having to go the seminary route at High School. I should also note that it's a problem for those going to private school or home school even in Utah.

Early-morning seminary is a godsend for my highly motivated, college-bound high school student in Utah who wants the seminary experience but wants to leave room in his school day for academic courses he is interested in. 

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry this is more than a bit overwrought. Was her comment distasteful? Yes. Did she say she wished them dead? No! She said their deaths would be good for the church (and they will die eventually, likely within the next few years). There is a huge difference. Have you established that she even wants what is good for the church? To the contrary she seems to dislike the church, so it sounds like she wants them to live long and healthy lives. 

To my knowledge, death is the only way a president of the church has ever been removed from office. If President Nelson passed away tonight (May he live forever!) President Oaks would be the next president of the church. If someone honestly believes that those two men are bad for the church, the only way they can be removed is by their passing. 

Excuse me? Hoping two people get taken out in a car crash so they won’t be around to inconvenience you is tantamount to wishing them dead, is it not? What am I missing here? 

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you are not attending seminary I am confused why you would pick BYU.

Maybe you're a ballroom dancer and you want to dance for the best team in the country.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Excuse me? Hoping two people get taken out in a car crash so they won’t be around to inconvenience you is tantamount to wishing them dead, is it not? What am I missing here? 

Cfr for “hoping”

[smac97]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

For the record I find it deeply problematic to discuss someone in this fashion when they aren't even on the list to defend themselves.

Hence the invitation to read her published-to-the-world letter and draw your own conclusions about that published-to-the-world letter.

Not her.  Her letter.

Quote

This is someone who made a random tweet not a public figure.

This is someone who made a public statement wishing/hoping for the violent death of Presidents Nelson and Oaks, and also a published-to-the-world open letter to Pres. Oaks.

And she wrote these things under her own name.  

Critique of her public statements is reasonable and legitimate.

Quote

I've no idea what issues, if any, she is dealing with.

Same here.

Quote

But if you think she's dealing with issues I'd wonder if you think this is helping with those issues or making them worse?

Public statements to the world are open to scrutiny and critique and response.

I have not doxxed her.  I have not intruded into her privacy.  I have not hacked her emails.  I have not violated any confidences.

She placed her statements in the public arena.  There is nothing wrong with critiquing what she has put out for public perusal.

Quote

What would the Christlike thing be to do? 

There is nothing non-Christlike about objecting to her horrible comments.

Quote

I disagree with a lot of her views,

And you have publicly said so, as is your right.

So, for that matter, have I.  So why is it acceptable when you express such disagreement, but not acceptable when I do it?

Quote

but I've also had quite enjoyable discussions with her.

I tried to open a discussion with her.  It did not go well.  She rejected the request.  So that brings us back here.

Quote

However I find deeply problematic the idea we should contribute to Twitter outrage mobs for individuals with little influence.

I have said nothing on Twitter.

Quote

It hurts them and is at best a distasteful type of virtue signaling (IMO).

I quite agree.  But I haven't contributed to any "Twitter outrage mob," so I don't feel like that accusation sticks.

Again, she's made public statements.  Those statements are open for critique, just like anyone else's.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 6, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Cfr for “hoping”

"Best case scenario for Mormonism is Nelson and Oaks dying simultaneously in a car crash tbh {to be honest}."

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of small schools are closing down, going bankrupt, and can be had on the cheap.  Might be nice to have a small liberal arts college named for Joseph Smith.

Just out of curiosity, I did a little search. Here is one that went cheap. It was very small but had nice modern buildings. It was an hour from both Louisville and Lexington, KY:

SOLD: Former St. Catharine College, St. Catharine, KY

Bid Deadline: November 27, 2018
Auction Date: November 30, 2017
Minimum Bids: College Property Tracts (4 Tracts – Offered Collectively) - $1,300,000
Bypass Property Tracts (3 Tracts – Offered Individually or Collectively) - $3,000 per acre
All Properties as a Package - $1,420,000

That is cheap for 90 acres and 8 mostly modern buildings. The corporation which bought it apparently plans to do organic/sustainable farming classes.... maybe another sale will be in the works.. 

It seems small religiously affiliated liberal arts schools are having some of the most difficulty. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry this is more than a bit overwrought.

A member of the Church publicly wishing for the deaths of Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks is a horrible thing to say.  It is not overwrought to condemn such hateful rhetoric.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was her comment distasteful? Yes.

It was more than that.  If she publicly mused about the benefits stemming from the violent deaths of, say, a Jewish rabbi, or a Muslim imam, I don't think you would be here dismissing her statements as merely "distasteful."

A member of the Church publicly musing about the benefits to be had by the violent deaths of its leaders is a lot more than "distasteful."

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did she say she wished them dead? No!

So she's not hoping for the "best case scenario" for the Church?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She said their deaths would be good for the church (and they will die eventually, likely within the next few years). There is a huge difference.

Wow.  This is impressive reductionism.  We will all die eventually, so by your reasoning we are all justified in publicly musing about the benefits that will accrue when people we dislike die violent, gory deaths.

I think . . . not.  What she said is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  Way beyond it.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you established that she even wants what is good for the church?

So not only is she publicly musing about our leaders suffering violent deaths, you think she may not even be speaking in good faith?  

And this is you trying to defend her, is it?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To the contrary she seems to dislike the church, so it sounds like she wants them to live long and healthy lives. 

Words fail me.

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Best case scenario for Mormonism is Nelson and Oaks dying simultaneously in a car crash tbh {to be honest}."

Thanks,

-Smac

A few problems with this equivalence, but the easiest should be readily apparent. Is it your opinion that she is wishing and hoping for the best in Mormonism? After using her as an example as a staunch church critic?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A few problems with this equivalence, but the easiest should be readily apparent. Is it your opinion that she is wishing and hoping for the best in Mormonism? After using her as an example as a staunch church critic?

It's not abnormal for staunch critics to still believe the best thing for an organization they are criticizing is to change to align better with their beliefs.  And it sounds like this woman's best case scenario is for Mormonism to change to become more inline with her beliefs by 'losing' the leaders she sees as teaching the wrong things. 

I do agree though that Smac's words were probably overwrought.  I also believe that this woman's reaction to Pres. Oak's talk (wanting to commit suicide) was also overwrought.  Overwrought is kind of our favorite reaction in our American culture right now.  It's not healthy.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Maybe you're a ballroom dancer and you want to dance for the best team in the country.

In this case I recommend this course of action:

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Please don’t do that. 

I’m unclear what you are objecting to here. Smac made an allusion to a Gary Coleman character in a 1980s TV series (the name of the sit-com escapes me at the moment). I see (apparently benign) pop culture references on this board from time to time. Has  that now become bad manners? If so, why? 

Edited to add: I remember now. The name of the series was “Diff’rent Strokes.” It was about two black kids from Harlem who had been adopted by a rich white man. The younger kid, with skeptical expression, would often say to his brother, “What you talkin’ ‘bout, Willis?” It always got a laugh from the studio audience and became a catch phrase in the broader public. 

I feel like I have entered a strange world when such a harmless allusion is called out in the same thread where a public death wish for two high-level leaders of the Church is excused, minimized and rationalized. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Excuse me? Hoping two people get taken out in a car crash so they won’t be around to inconvenience you is tantamount to wishing them dead, is it not? What am I missing here? 

It's pretty: It has lipstick, rouge, eye shadow, and perfume, and it's been all dressed up!  Its name is Penelope.  You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A member of the Church publicly wishing for the deaths of Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks is a horrible thing to say.  It is not overwrought to condemn such hateful rhetoric.

It was more than that.  If she publicly mused about the benefits stemming from the violent deaths of, say, a Jewish rabbi, or a Muslim imam, I don't think you would be here dismissing her statements as merely "distasteful."

A member of the Church publicly musing about the benefits to be had by the violent deaths of its leaders is a lot more than "distasteful."

So she's not hoping for the "best case scenario" for the Church?

Wow.  This is impressive reductionism.  We will all die eventually, so by your reasoning we are all justified in publicly musing about the benefits that will accrue when people we dislike die violent, gory deaths.

I think . . . not.  What she said is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  Way beyond it.

So not only is she publicly musing about our leaders suffering violent deaths, you think she may not even be speaking in good faith?  

And this is you trying to defend her, is it?

Words fail me.

-Smac

Let me try a different tack. Let’s say I’m a critic and I believe in my heart of hearts that Elder Uchtdorf being church president tomorrow would be the best thing that could ever happen for the church. Let’s say that I say as much. Now the most likely way for this to happen in real life would be for several people to die tonight. I don’t want that to happen. 

Do you believe that this an internally consistent set of beliefs? Would you say that I am wishing or hoping for their deaths? Am I “evil” or “vile” for my opinion? Why or why not? Again the only likely way the best thing for the church could happen would be for several people to die tonight. 

 

Back to the topic at hand, was it ugly? Yes! Extremely distasteful? Yes. Vile and evil given her clarification? No. It was simply an ugly, crass, distasteful way of expressing the opinion I outlined above. One of my biggest bones with the political left, is the way they will take a comment flippantly made and no amount of clarification or apology is ever enough for them. It seems to me that you are doing that here. 

Eta: call out culture: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/call-out-social-justice.amp.html The irony is she did the exact same thing to Elder Oaks

Edited August 6, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not abnormal for staunch critics to still believe the best thing for an organization they are criticizing is to change to align better with their beliefs.  And it sounds like this woman's best case scenario is for Mormonism to change to become more inline with her beliefs by 'losing' the leaders she sees as teaching the wrong things. 

I do agree though that Smac's words were probably overwrought.  I also believe that this woman's reaction to Pres. Oak's talk (wanting to commit suicide) was also overwrought.  Overwrought is kind of our favorite reaction in our American culture right now.  It's not healthy.

This 100 percent. I think your first paragraph is likely correct. I also agree completely with your second paragraph. I was trying (and likely failing) to point out one of the logical ways that her statement could not be the equivalent of wishing and hoping for a violent death. 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A few problems with this equivalence, but the easiest should be readily apparent. Is it your opinion that she is wishing and hoping for the best in Mormonism? After using her as an example as a staunch church critic?

If she hates the Church and, at the same time, is flippantly musing about the horrible deaths of its two highest leaders, that makes the comment yet colder and uglier. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And this is you trying to defend her, is it?

-Smac

As a side note, I am doing no such thing. I am merely observing that your reaction is overwrought. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If she hates the Church and, at the same time, is flippantly musing about the horrible deaths of its two highest leaders, that makes the comment yet colder and uglier. 

So you concede that you cannot conclude from what she said, that she is hoping or wishing for their violent deaths? Great. Cold and ugly are great descriptions of her post btw and not overwrought at all. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you concede that you cannot conclude from what she said, that she is hoping or wishing for their violent deaths? Great. Cold and ugly are great descriptions of her post btw and not overwrought at all. 

I don’t know whether she’s hoping for it or not. You just agreed with Bluebell that she might want the Church to take a certain course which would be dependent on the immediate deaths of its two highest leaders. If that be the case, it’s reasonable to suppose she <is> hoping for precisely that.

And not just quietly dying in their sleep; she’s specifying a horrible death by car crash.