How the Honor Code restricts beliefs ---
So, turns out LDS students are kicked out of BYU if they convert to a different religion, even if their moral conduct is in line with the Honor Code.
This is due to the mandatory endorsement policy in the Honor Code, which states: “Students who are not in good Honor Code standing are not eligible for graduation, even if they have otherwise completed all necessary coursework. Excommunication, disfellowshipment, or disaffiliation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints automatically results in the withdrawal of the student’s ecclesiastical endorsement and the loss of good Honor Code standing.”
In effect, this policy restricts religious freedom for 98 percent of BYU’s student population. It also ultimately penalizes other churches who wish to proselytize to the BYU population because if students listen to them, they run the risk of being denied a diploma and for those who would shrug this off, consider the best one and a half/two years of your life you spent fighting against such prejudice.
This article is not designed to talk about whether it’s right to leave the Church, or how we should treat those who do — it is about how BYU’s current policy possibly impedes the Church’s own interest of spreading the gospel.
The Church is a strong advocate for religious freedom, as evidenced by the 11th Article of Faith which calls for men to be permitted to worship “how, where, or what they may.” Furthermore, at the request of the First Presidency, Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also a former president of BYU) has testified in support of religious freedom before members of Congress.
Even more recently, on Feb. 4 2011, during an interview with Chapman* University, Elder Oaks said religious freedom is a “fundamental right” and “[a]ll who believe in [the importance of religious voice] should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are.”
The reason why the Church has an incredible interest in religious freedom is because without it, the Gospel cannot flourish.
There are still many countries that do not allow the Church to proselytize. To change this, BYU hosts an annual symposium on international religious freedom. According to Elizabeth Clark, the symposium’s associate director, the purpose of the symposium is to “help share experiences and information on how to promote religious freedom throughout the world.”
The symposium invites delegates from all over the world. For example, while volunteering there, I met a high-ranking Mexican government official who was in charge of deciding how many visas are granted to Mormon missionaries in Mexico. The Church paid for her travel, hotel rooms, food and entertainment for a week in Provo so that she could attend the symposium and therefore understand the importance of promoting religious freedom in her country.
Imagine if she, being a Catholic, was told that if an LDS student converted to Catholicism he’d be kicked out of BYU?
According to Carri Jenkins, BYU’s director of communications, “BYU has not considered changing this policy. BYU has been very open and forthcoming about [it].”
When asked if there are legitimate reasons not to change the policy, Jenkins said that the best way she could answer was to direct me back to what the Honor Code says. However, the Honor Code states that BYU’s purpose is “to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of the Church…[which atmosphere] is created and preserved through commitment to conduct that reflects those ideals and principles.”
Brad Carmack**, a recent BYU JD Graduate, asks, “Wouldn’t it make sense to ensure robust religious freedom first at BYU before seeking to teach the world what religious freedom means?”
Carmack goes on to suggest what I believe is a policy that is more consistent with the Church’s interest of promoting religious freedom: Remove the honor code’s no-graduation-for-you punishment on LDS students’ choice of religion, and replace it with the tuition hike that already applies to non-LDS students. Allow those former-LDS students to get their “honor code endorsement” through the BYU chaplain, just like non-LDS students already do.
I believe the leaders of our church are divinely inspired, and BYU officials are trying their best to promote the Church. This is one change that will help. After all, according to a Church News’ August 22 article, Joseph Smith himself said, “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.”
Photo by Ken Lund, Flickr.
**Originally Cormack was published in place of Carmack. This has now been corrected.
*Elder Oaks was interviewed by Chapman University not Chaplan University. This has now been corrected.
125 comments
JM says:
Jan 14, 2012
THANK YOU for this article–more people need to be aware of this policy, and of the students it affects.
I began my studies at BYU as an LDS student, but my beliefs changed significantly halfway through my degree. I still agreed whole-heartedly with the honor code, and enjoyed being at BYU very much, but no longer considered myself LDS. I wrote an anonymous letter to BYU officials seeking to change my status from “LDS” to “non-LDS”, affirming my desire to obey the honor code, pay the higher tuition, but be honest about my beliefs.
BYU responded as this article reports: that a person can change from Catholic to Bhuddist, or from Baptist to LDS, but no one is allowed to change from LDS to anything else. I was told that if I openly demonstrated my change in beliefs, I would forfeit my place at the university. (I later met a student who started BYU as a Catholic, joined the church, then decided she had made a mistake and asked to switch back to her Catholic status, only to be told she couldn’t.) I ended up deciding to stay anyway and finish my degree, rather than transfer and add another year to my studies, but this policy was very detrimental to my emotional and social life, and its only consequence was giving me very negative feelings towards the school and church. Forcing someone to either undertake a sometimes costly transfer or be dishonest about their beliefs is no way to treat a genuine seeker of truth. Why is it okay for any honor-code abiding Bhuddist or Christian or atheist to attend BYU, but not for me to become one while I’m there?
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 16, 2012
Thanks for your comment, JM. As many emergent adulthood (18-30) scholars will attest, it is common for college students to depart from the faith of their childhood during the exploratory decade or so following high school- the time that many, including BYU students, are in college. Every time I write about religious freedom at BYU, I get comments from folks like you who closeted their feelings, struggles, and true beliefs while at BYU in order to get by. As we write, there are hundreds at BYU who are either atheist, agnostic, believe in another faith, or are uncertain as to their religious beliefs. Most of these choose to perform the necessary LDS practices (e.g. populating the pews) to avoid the radar. (Though a few, like my brother, refuse to hide the conviction of their consciences and are consequently barred from graduating).
Jim Ean says:
Jan 14, 2012
Dear Student Review,
I enjoy many of your articles, but stop posting ridiculous posts like this. If you hate the policies of BYU, then leave. You are paying dirt-cheap tuition for a top-notch education. There are plenty of universities out there that don’t care about what religion you decide to be a part of. I understand where this article is coming from, but BYU is a PRIVATE university, they can whatever the hell they want.
Dave says:
Jan 16, 2012
Wow, JM. As a church member and BYU grad, I’m ashamed of your comments. If you hate the fact that a group of thoughtful individuals is discussing possible ways to improve BYU policies, maybe YOU should go somewhere else to read whatever it is you like to read.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 16, 2012
Jim Ean, might it be that you have miscategorized the assertion being made as a “can,” rather than a “should,” argument? I see nowhere in the article claiming that BYU can’t burden the religious freedom of the majority of its community; rather, support is provided for the claim that BYU _should_, instead, protect religious freedom. Also, the comment might be somewhat hasty in that it fails to consider the case of a student who begins as a genuine believer, but a year or two later genuinely feels to follow Mohammed. Last, there is the loss to the school to consider. Those who leave are no different from those who stay in that they are performing excellent research, volunteering in BYU organizations, and contributing their scholarship. They constitute a valuable part of the community.
I explore this issue cluster in greater detail on my blog (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2011/01/religious-freedom-not-at-byu.html). If you’re _really_ interested in the subject, email me (bradleycarmackatgmail) and I will also send you my thirty pager on religious, speech, and press freedoms at BYU.
Brett says:
Jan 18, 2012
Jim
BYU CANNOT do whatever they want. They are NOT privately funded. Every cent paid to BYU is tax deductible and therefore funded by American taxpayers. Furthermore, 68% of ALL tithing collected in Canada went directly to BYU (and not a single cent to any kind of humanitarian effort or charity) So you are totally wrong. BYU does not have the right to “do whatever they want” If they want to do whatever the hell they want, then they should not accept hard-earned tithing money and their fees should not be tax-deductible. Until then, they should act within the bounds of honesty and community standards.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
So you don’t think that helping people attain higher education is charitable? Also do you understand what tax-deductible means? Lets say a person earns $10,000 and gives $2,000 to a charity. They will be fully taxed on the $8,000 that they have left. Of the $2,000 only about 20% might have gone to taxes. Maybe you understood this but your wording makes it sound like you think every dollar is pulled out of taxes. Anyways the reason that tithing and the churches expenses are tax deductible is because they are legally in that realm and when they are not the church pays taxes. The laws are set up this way because it is generally and historically how the people want it. If you are strongly opposed to how taxes are handled you should enter in politics and change it or find a place that is more closely aligned with your views.
Erik says:
Jan 22, 2012
Hmmm…. yes, it is a private university, and yes it can do whatever the hell it wants.
It is also a university that represents the LDS Church, which represents us as members. Many of us see BYU’s policies as a misrepresentation of our beliefs. I strive to be more christlike, the church teaches us to be more christlike. Surely BYU could do the same.
Louisajo says:
Jan 14, 2012
In reply to JM, I think it has something to do with the fact that BYU officials believe (rightly, in my opinion) that leaving the church is a serious sin, the same way a sexual transgression is a serious sin because it is breaking solemn covenants. Leaving the church is another way to break those covenants, and there is serious damage when that happens. I don’t know of any other religions that make as serious covenants as we make, or who go through as lengthy a process to re-baptize a former member.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 16, 2012
I respect your opinion that leaving the church is a serious sin.
However, it is not the responsibility of the saints to inflict punishment on sinners! A better model for the LDS community is one of a hospital for sinners. Casting darts at those who leave does scare many people into staying, but it is unlikely to persuade the emigrants to return: love is a far superior recipe. (I presume that most here feel that souls returning to the fold is a good thing).
Also, why is the gravity of covenant-making a factor relevant to the analysis of what BYU’s religious freedom policy should be? Is it a moral breach to be true to one’s conscience when it directs you to break a commitment you made as a teenager, while surrounded by your most potent social influences (family), and which you had been carefully groomed for through over a decade of childhood indoctrination? The apostasy as sin only makes sense from the perspective of a believer- which is not the perspective of one whose conscience dictates otherwise (say, to follow Mohammed). Indeed, to do otherwise might for them bring more condemnation: “I had received an answer to my prayer, and I knew it, and I knew God knew it, and I could not deny it; neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by doing so I would offend God (Joseph Smith History 1:25).”
There are many religions that deal quite harshly with those who apostatize (think some segments of Islam, where the traditional view is that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment-by-repentance for adult men of a sound mind). The freedom to apostatize is one of the key sticks in the bundle or privileges we think of as religious freedom. The farther we stray from that ideal, the farther we stray from our commitment to Article of Faith 11, which does NOT say “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men [except LDS students at BYU] the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Ben says:
Jan 14, 2012
Louisajo, I can understand why BYU has this policy, but your comment that you “don’t know of any other religions that make as serious covenants as [Mormons] make” shows the kind of disregard for other religions that people see in this policy. What about monks or nuns who make vows to serve God for their entire lives, or people of any other faith who dress, eat, or live in certain ways because of their commitment to their God? Mormons do not corner the market on devotion to God.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 16, 2012
Ben, I think you make a good point, and would add that the claim of LDS superiority is arrogant at best and inconsistent at worst, as we have no basis on which to conclude that our epistemology is better than any other persons. The standing we have before God is that of His child; in prayer, we at best offer Him our sincerity. Picture a woman who kneels before God, prays with sincerity, and is answered that she should join Catholicism. Would we not affirm her decision to follow the revelation she receives? If not, have we any reason to follow our own?
However, I would ask you Ben, why does BYU have the policy, as you understand it? Sure, you might have a slightly higher percentage LDS, a little more tithing paid by the students, and you might scare some people away from thinking or doubting overmuch. However, is coercing college students into attending church and paying tithing, and restraining free exploration of religious ideas, really something BYU or LDSaints should be interested in?
BYU has the right to have the policy- but having the right doesn’t make it right. What legitimate reasons justify the status quo policy? I see no net gain, and indeed hardly anything at all in the pro column.
Dave says:
Jan 18, 2012
Another good source by Joseph Smith is from his Liberty Jail letter to the Saints. In it, he describes the peculiar relationship each religious community has with God and demands a reciprocity of religious freedoms: “Our religion is between us and our God, their religion is between them and their God[.] There is a tie which belongs from God that should be exercised towards those of our faith who walk uprightly which is peculiar to itself but it is without prejudice but gives scope to the mind which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality toward all others that are not of our faith that what they exercise towards one another[.] These principles approximate nearer to the mind of God because it is like God or God like.”
Emphasis on the “greater liberality toward all others that are not of our faith” that Mormonism demands of its practitioners.
Joshua says:
Jan 14, 2012
“In effect, this policy restricts religious freedom for 98 percent of BYU’s student population.”
So would a bar that a Latter-day Saint frequents with friends restrict that Saint’s religious freedom by discontinuing sales of non-alcoholic drinks? No. That Saint would be 100% free to practice their religion and buy some mocktails somewhere that sells them. BYU is a private university that sells education to those living their honor code. That honor code includes keeping covenants that have been made to the church. If you chose to abandon those covenants then you chose to shop for your education somewhere else. You signed a contract (the honor code) when you came to BYU. If you violate any part of that contract (including disaffiliating yourself from the church) BYU has every right to terminate their end of the agreement (offering their service of a university education) and no one’s religious freedom has been threatened or limited. It’s impossible for a former Latter-day Saint to keep the honor code as well as someone who’s never been LDS because the honor code includes not disaffiliating yourself from the church. That’s a violation of the honor code that is constantly extant unless the person is re-baptized. BYU is a private religious university. What you are suggesting would be that they deny their religious freedom of offering services to those they deem worthy in order to make others happy. That’s exactly what the church is talking about when they speak of religious freedom. You can’t tell religions and religious institutions what they can/can’t, should/shouldn’t do because others feel offended by their actions or practices. So in fact, BYU caving to the influence of others and changing their policy would essentially be BYU caving on their principles and belief in religious freedom in our nation.
“It also ultimately penalizes other churches who wish to proselytize to the BYU population because if students listen to them, they run the risk of being denied a diploma…”
You fail to explain how those churches are penalized. From the LDS perspective they’re being done a favor. Why make it easier for them to lead God’s covenant people away from their covenants? Them not proselytizing BYU’s LDS students would be in the best eternal interest of both the churches and the students. That being said, there’s still nothing stopping them from proselytizing to whoever wants to listen. If a student converts to their church from the LDS faith, they are free to get their degree elsewhere. It’s not like most of BYU’s credits wouldn’t transfer to most other universities in the nation.
“…and for those who would shrug this off, consider the best one and a half/two years of your life you spent fighting against such prejudice.”
I spent two years of my life preaching the truth, not making it less painful for people to separate themselves from it. I spent two years preaching the truth for which some sacrificed everything they knew. Some of them want to come to BYU and can’t because there’s not enough room. When someone no longer accepts the fullness of that truth, is it too much to swallow that they be politely denied an opportunity they no longer fully recognize to make room for someone who does? I think not.
“…it is about how BYU’s current policy possibly impedes the Church’s own interest of spreading the gospel.”
If one were to think that the LDS church was false and convert to another would they not want to bring their “deceived” LDS associates to the “truth” they had discovered even more than someone who’d never been so “deceived”? This would be more of a hindrance to the spread of the gospel than their removal from the BYU community and their place being filled with a faithful Latter-day Saint. You quoted Joseph Smith in your article. Here’s something else he said:
“When the Prophet [Joseph Smith] had ended telling how he had been treated [by apostates], Brother Behunnin remarked; ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’ The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunnin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’ He [further] emphasized the fact that a man or woman who had not taken sides either with Christ or Belial could maintain a neutral position, but when they enlisted under either the one or the other they left the neutral ground forever.” (Juvenile Instructor, Aug. 15, 1892, p. 492 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 228) Are many former Latter-day Saints wonderful people? Of course, but are they that much more likely to be influenced by Satan and that much more likely to lead Saints away? Yes, at least according to what Joseph Smith said. BYU has to care for the other students who may be negatively affected by any one student who turned away from the church.
Would BYU changing or maintaining the current policy be more in line with providing ‘an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of the Church’? Would the change or maintenance of this policy better reflect ‘commitment to conduct that reflects those ideals and principles’? Maintaining this policy would. Not only is the current policy in line with the ideal of religious freedom but also many other ideals and principles held by the church.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
“That honor code includes keeping covenants that have been made to the church. If you chose to abandon those covenants then you chose to shop for your education somewhere else.”
>Perhaps so Joshua, but up to this point you have yet to address _why_ keeping LDS covenants should be a part of the honor code. One might consider the case of a Protestant BYU student who, as a teenager, made comparable serious commitments to his sect, including the promise that she would keep the faith until deat. If she converts to our faith junior year, should she be similarly prohibited from enrolling in classes? Is she obligated to be faithful to her sect for the rest of her life, regardless of the further revelation and light she subsequently receives? The core question here is whether fidelity to one’s conscience, even when it dictates to an LDS student to depart the faith, should be considered a breach of a code that appeals to “honor.” How honorable is it to deny your moral conscience in the sacred matter of religion?
“You signed a contract (the honor code) when you came to BYU. If you violate any part of that contract (including disaffiliating yourself from the church) BYU has every right to terminate their end of the agreement (offering their service of a university education)”
>I would agree as to BYU’s right to enforce the contract- but again, having a right does not make it right. I have yet to see your moral analysis justifying the policy as-is.
“and no one’s religious freedom has been threatened or limited.”
> Here I differ. The core concept here is the difference between alienable and inalienable rights. One could easily imagine a school which required its students to commit themselves to lifelong slavery in exchange for admission. Even if some students were willing to make this commitment, most of us recognize that certain rights (like thought and agency) just can’t be contracted away, i.e. they’re inalienable. There’s a strong argument that one’s religious beliefs deserve a place next to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the kind of thing you just can’t sell.
Additionally, limits to the scope of contracts have a long history of recognition in the law (e.g. duress is a good reason to invalidate a contract, and those who are too young can’t make a contract binding against them). Most students that sign the honor code are young (many still in HS), naive, and at the _commencement_ of a college education that will expand their maturity and equip them with critical thinking skills. Extracting the uttermost farthing from folks you contracted with when they were young, ignorant, and vulnerable requires impressive justification gymnastics.
“So in fact, BYU caving to the influence of others and changing their policy would essentially be BYU caving on their principles and belief in religious freedom in our nation.”
> ? I think you may be avoiding the argument here. What if BYU caved to the influence of the Board of Trustees (of which the First Presidency is part) and changed the policy so that LDS students can join another faith and be treated the same as other non-LDS students (i.e. higher tuition + get your endorsement through the campus chaplain)? Would that be evidence of BYU caving in on their religious freedom principles? The policy should stand on its own, without respect to _who_ is opposing or supporting it. I’m beginning to wonder if you are a troll.
“You fail to explain how those churches are penalized. From the LDS perspective they’re being done a favor… I spent two years of my life preaching the truth, not making it less painful for people to separate themselves from it. ”
> I’m wavering between deeming you a troll and moving on vs. continuing to engage your arguments. Religious freedom is pretty empty if it acknowledges only one religious perspective. Your argument would also support a policy of murdering apostates, as refraining from murdering apostates would also make it less painful for people to separate themselves. I pray that attitude is never around if stoning is re-instituted: my brother wouldn’t be with us today.
“If a student converts to their church from the LDS faith, they are free to get their degree elsewhere. It’s not like most of BYU’s credits wouldn’t transfer to most other universities in the nation.”
> I would dispute the accuracy here. In addition to the many costs associated with leaving while in the midst of a program (research opportunities, travel costs, the mentorship and resources you came here for initially, the relationships built, etc.), many of BYU’s credits do not transfer, especially the religious ones. For graduate students the situation is even worse- an MPA or JD student (the two programs I can speak to) in her last or penultimate semester would lose between 30 and 60 graduate credits by transferring!
“This would be more of a hindrance to the spread of the gospel than their removal from the BYU community and their place being filled with a faithful Latter-day Saint.”
If your objective is to fill the BYU community with faithful Latter-day Saints, then to be be fair you’ll have to kick out and stop admitting the hundreds of non-LDS students at BYU. Are you willing to do that?
“Are many former Latter-day Saints wonderful people? Of course”
> OK, maybe you’re not a troll after all. That’s a realistic concession.
“are they that much more likely to be influenced by Satan”
> Why presume that apostates are more likely to be influenced by Satan, rather than presume that they are sincere? Would you consider yourself a religious fundamentalist? If so, would you be willing to kill people who leave the faith in order to preserve it? If not, where do you draw the line- how much punishment are you willing to inflict on those you decide are apostates to Satan? I’m looking for actual answers to these inquiries, as opposed to using them rhetorically.
Joshua says:
Jan 17, 2012
Brad, it seems like you barely read any of my comment so I guess I’ll just point out specific parts and clarify some points rather than cutting and pasting the whole thing…
“…you have yet to address _why_ keeping LDS covenants should be a part of the honor code.” See the quote from Joseph Smith. That’s why.
“The core question here is whether fidelity to one’s conscience, even when it dictates to an LDS student to depart the faith, should be considered a breach of a code that appeals to “honor.” How honorable is it to deny your moral conscience in the sacred matter of religion?”
The honor code is what sets forth the conduct of honor to be understood by both parties of the agreement. If we all just used our “conscience” to decide what “honor” was some people would be justified in killing most of our student body if their “conscience” led them to unite themselves to a belief system that found such an act to be honorable. That’s why things are spelled out in the honor code. Why is the stipulation about disaffiliation spelled out in there? Because that’s part of what the board of trustees feels to be honorable so they included it. Why do they consider it so? See the quote from Joseph Smith in my first comment.
“I have yet to see your moral analysis justifying the policy as-is.” Again, see the Joseph Smith reference.
“The core concept here is the difference between alienable and inalienable rights.” No, the core concept is whether or not BYU is limiting students’ freedom of religion. They are not. They cannot. Only the government has power to do so. You are subject to BYU only by choice. See my analogy of the bar discontinuing sales of non-alcoholic drinks.
If you want to argue contract terms and acceptable conditions of breach then you can hire a lawyer and take it up with the board of trustees. I’m sure they’re on firm legal ground.
If -and that’s a BIG IF- the policy is ever changed then I’ll argue that point with you. You said the policy should stand on its own. See the quote from Joseph Smith. That’s why the policy stands on its own.
Now we’re trying to invalidate arguments by accusing people of being trolls? Okay. From the sheer number of comments you posted here as compared to my one (before this comment) you’d be the more likely of us to be the troll. Furthermore I’m the one defending the institution without which there would be no student review, but whatever. Anyone smart enough can see past your hollow accusation, not to mention your straw man and red herring fallacies, and see the content of our comments for what they are.
“Religious freedom is pretty empty if it acknowledges only one religious perspective.” Religious freedom is not in any way threatened, nor can it be, by a private institution that has only as much power over you as you have willfully given it. See bar analogy and pretty much the whole first paragraph of my first comment.
“Your argument would also support a policy of murdering apostates, as refraining from murdering apostates would also make it less painful for people to separate themselves.”
*cough* red herring *cough* No, I was arguing against making it easier, not for making it harder. There is a difference. If you didn’t catch it reread the statement.
“many of BYU’s credits do not transfer, especially the religious ones.”
I said most of BYU’s credits transfer. Not all. Furthermore, whether they transfer or not is actually up to the other university. So by your argument does any university not accepting BYU credits limit my religious freedom? (A bit of a red herring there myself but I just had to point out the ridiculous implications of the author’s argument.)
“If your objective is to fill the BYU community with faithful Latter-day Saints…” Did I ever say that? Nope, I didn’t.
“Why presume that apostates are more likely to be influenced by Satan…” I’m not presuming. I’m restating a fact as originally stated by Joseph Smith. I hope you’ve read that quote by now…
I espouse the teachings and policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That should answer your last few questions if you’re at all familiar with those.
Jake says:
Jan 18, 2012
With defenders of the faith like you Joshua, equipped with the sword of circular logic, the shield of confusion, the helmet of narrow-mindedness, and the breastplate of dogma, I can sleep at night knowing that the church is in good hands. The perpetuation of the church is assured.
Joshua says:
Jan 18, 2012
If the argument I make is so flawed then fix it. Anyone can make hollow accusations. Name calling and mud slinging do nothing to solve problems.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
You know I read Joshua’s stuff and it I don’t think your comment is fair. It’s very hard to cover so many points systematically. I think Joshua and Brad do a pretty good job of explaining their differing views. I was able to clearly understand the logic behind multiple good points from each of them.
Jon says:
Jan 15, 2012
Interesting article Student Review,
I’m not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it does bring up a very serious and touchy issue and explore it, for which I congratulate the author. However I fear that this article is a horrific example of what journalism really is: providing an unbiased presentation of facts to the public, allowing them to take sides, if necessary, for themselves. This article displays overpowering subjectivity and an obvious slant to one side, with a pathetic attempt to provide the “other side” at the very end. this article was obviously written in a bout of emotion stemming from the author’s inner beliefs.
I refuse to take a side. I am a Mormon, and I think that if everybody was an active, practicing Mormon at BYU we wouldn’t have the problems we have. Likewise, if the world was full of active, non-hypocritical members of any church (Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Jew, etc.) I think the world would be a better place. No one inherently wants to cut others down, or belittle them or depreciate them. I encourage the reader to not only look at this from the point of view of someone affiliated with a different church, but also from the point of view of someone with an understanding of the LDS church as well. Please try to understand why this private university (and really, the decision comes from the General Authorities of the church) would enact such a rule. I recommend that the author learn from this and try to include a more objective display of information in his next article.
Thank you for your research!
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
“Please try to understand why this private university (and really, the decision comes from the General Authorities of the church) would enact such a rule.”
> I agree that the decision comes from general authorities, because the decision was made and has been sustained against subsequent challenges by the same body, namely, the BYU Board of Trustees (as shown above, primarily constituted by FP and apostles). However, you have not explained why they would enact this rule. How then is the author to understand? I suggest you provide a reasonable explanation.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
Brad, if the Board of Trustees has had this presented to them multiple times and decided not to make changes, what does this mean? When the FP and Apostles make decisions on the board are they acting in their church callings or is it separate? Is it harder for them to receive revelation for BYU related stuff? I don’t know. If they are acting as church leadership and you are a believing church member, you should support their decisions as you try to understand why they’ve made them. If you are not a believing church member then understand that most BYU students will be taking this route because they really believe that the prophets receive revelation from God. If you could show the BYU Board saying they are not acting as prophets when on the Board then a larger part of the student body would probably support seeking change. There’s also the possibility that the issue hasn’t been presented in the right way. Maybe it has only arisen when specific people are receiving disciplinary action and the Board didn’t deem any of those cases an exception to the rule. Maybe we need to go through the right channels and rather than demanding explanations for what we deem to be bad decisions, we should just make a clear case for the good that a change could bring. It’s possible that that hasn’t actually happened yet. I don’t know, what do you think?
Jess says:
Jan 19, 2012
‘objective’ means a ‘view that more closely resembles yours’ apparently. This article brings up an important issue and you just write is off as ‘not objective due to me not agreeing with it and thinking that the world would be just dandy if everyone went to church.’ interesting.
Jeff says:
Jan 16, 2012
Jon, thanks for pointing out the fact that this article should be a “viewpoint” article. It has since been changed.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
When the director of communications said, “BYU has not considered changing this policy.”, did that mean that it has not actually been discussed and voted on or that it has been discussed and voted against?
Kristin says:
Jan 16, 2012
If you don’t like this policy you don’t have to go to this school. I find this article very one sided and insulting.
Bean says:
Jan 16, 2012
The comments here show just how unwilling members of the LDS church can be to even CONSIDER the possibility that the church they belong to may not be the only true religion. This, to me, is evidence of extreme ethno-/culture- centrism.
Dave says:
Jan 16, 2012
Bean, I can see how you could perceive Mormons as elitist in their belief that theirs is the one true church, but I think there is an important distinction between cultures and faiths. If a religion is just a cultural phenomenon, then either there is a plurality of gods or religion itself is a cultural fabrication.
I’ll be the first to admit that Utah Mormon culture isn’t the most exciting thing in the world, but when it comes to faiths and creeds, most Mormons would say that if there is one God, there must be only one truth, and eventually all faiths will converge upon it or reject it. I happen to believe that the LDS faith contains that truth, and that it is for every culture.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
You may be right, Bean. However, the argument survives even for one who refuses to consider that possibility. It’s the age-old golden rule: put yourself in the other’s shoes. If you grew up Catholic and went to a Catholic school but then felt inspired to join the LDS church, would you condone a policy that deprived you of your ability to finish your program because of the exercise of your religious choice? That situation does not require considering the possibility that the LDS church is not “the only true and living,” and sustains the same opposition to the policy as-is.
DeShawn Martin says:
Jan 16, 2012
This article is another example of what is wrong with the student review. In an attempt to be counter culture, you have posted an article that is insanely biased. I get what the author is trying to say, but my little sister applied to byu and would LOVE to come out to byu but instead spots are taken by people who only want to bash an administration that wants the members of the church who attend their university to stay members. Novel concept. Please change SR, it’s getting old really fast
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Deshawn, I can see why you would feel defensive about wanting your sister to be able to come here.
However, there are proper and improper ways to get LDS BYU students to stay members. I think you would agree that threatening death to apostates would be inappropriate. Would you also agree that being nice to them might be more persuasive than punishing them?
“Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind.”
History of the Church, 5:23–24.
In any case, it is only the members who are honest about their misfit religious beliefs that are kicked out to make room for your sister. Passionate atheists and converted Muslims alike walk the halls under the guise of a membership they would gladly shed but for the rule.
One might also challenge you on where you would draw the line to kick students out. If a student had a single doubt about Joseph, would that suffice? Perhaps lots of doubts about the Book of Mormon’s historicity? A smidgeon of belief in the Prophet Mohammed? A passionate love affair with the Qur’an? Which of these should be cut off to make room for your sister? Again, these are actual, rather than rhetorical questions.
Zephyr says:
Jan 17, 2012
Brad:
“Would you also agree that being nice to them might be more persuasive than punishing them?”
In your opinion, what constitutes being nice? I agree that, as you quoted, watching over others with tenderness is the way to lead people to forsake sin. However, I cannot see how your argument is a matter of forsaking sin, unless you intend to backtrack on your point that changing to another faith is truly a matter of a sincere conviction of conscience. If you do backtrack on your point, then I would like to remind you that we cannot take by the hand and lead those who have no desire to return to where we are going.
I understand that there may be some who did not realize their personal convictions would change and made the decision to attend BYU and sign the honor code when they were young. We do not get to choose the consequences of our actions. Let’s not coddle those who break their word into believing that it is so. They get what they signed up for. If they don’t like where they set the ball of their education rolling when they first signed the honor code, sign up somewhere else.
As part of the same flag of religious freedom that you have been waving, it is BYU’s right as a private religious institution to institute their own rules. It may not sit well with your personal morals, but it sits well with those of the General Authorities. And, since Latter-Day Saints believe that the General Authorities promote morals from God, their subsequent decisions are supported by Latter-Day Saints. That’s a major point of the moral justification you’ve been rooting for. It doesn’t concern BYU too much if you personally think that their policy is morally right, because they really care if God thinks it is morally right. I know as a Latter-Day Saint that it is not my place nor responsibility to tell the General Authorities that I think what they are preaching is not from God because it unsettles me. It is rather my duty to have the desire and faith to search the scriptures, pray, and ask whether or not these things are His will while seeking for an answer. It is my belief that I am to align myself with God’s will, not align God’s will to my personal convictions of conscience.
Maybe instead of changing the policy for those who currently attend BYU, there should be a better attempt at making it more clear what will happen to those that agree to attend BYU if they choose to change their religious beliefs while attending. Granted, as I think you may possibly mention if you have been reading closely, most people confronted by this policy didn’t know that their religious convictions were going to change. The board of trustees likely has little desire to lead their members away from what they believe to be eternal salvation. The belief in one true church as professed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may seem elitist, but if you held what you believed to be an infinite supply of eternal truth and joy, you would not want anyone that you care about to leave once they came to it. The leadership of this church does care for its members, those who attend BYU and otherwise. They respect the freedom to choose religion, and do not deny it to those who choose to keep themselves free of covenants, commitments, and codes of moral conduct. They do not, however, preach that those who make a decision should be pardoned from the consequences. (And if you begin to combat this idea with basic beliefs from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, let me remind you that even with the miracle of the Atonement to pardon you from eternal torment, sin will still have unpleasant consequences.)
“In any case, it is only the members who are honest about their misfit religious beliefs that are kicked out [...]”
If they choose to practice their preferred religious beliefs while still going through the motions of supporting the honor code, then that is on his or her head. The honor code is meant for the honorable, but you can’t stop every dishonorable person.
“One might also challenge you on where you would draw the line to kick students out.”
A line was drawn. BYU students put their word on that line. It’s called the honor code, and you can read it online: http://honorcode.byu.edu/ Additionally, this very article outlines one of the lines they drew, which you can read by scrolling up to the top of the page. I’ll reference part of it here:
“The term ‘good Honor Code standing’ means that a student’s conduct is consistent with the Honor Code and the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Once again, it is about the Latter-day Saint belief that the ideals and principles of the Church come from God. Not your personal morals or what one outlines as right due to the passions related to a personal or relative’s or friend’s experience.
I do indeed fear offending God by denying the things that I believe I have received and believe to be true. Yes, no one can tell me what my personal convictions are, nor is it my right to deny others of what they feel their personal convictions to be. But I believe that God has spoken to His servants, and they are doing everything they can for the members to bring them to what they believe to be eternal life and salvation. So I don’t kick back. I listen and give up my convictions that are out of line, because I find happiness in following what I believe to be from God.
Nathan Grout says:
Jan 17, 2012
“This article is another example of what is wrong with the student review. ”
I’m afraid I disagree. I think people often forget that it was students who first started the honor code. It is valuable to have an on-going discussion of how we apply our *values* apply to how we *act*.
I’d even go so far as to say that the introspection and conversation is more valuable than having the way we should act handed to us in an existing honor code. I’d love to see the honor code be opened to change by students to foster such discussion even if they didn’t actually change it.
Nathan Grout says:
Jan 17, 2012
Please forgive the extra “apply.”
NoCoolName_Tom says:
Jan 18, 2012
“This article is another example of what is wrong with the student review. ”
Actually, this article is another example of why I think the SR is important and serves a useful function in the BYU community.
And comments like yours are what has impelled me to actually go over and click on the “Donations” link and give a donation like I’ve meant to for a while now.
SR editors, this is exactly what Provo needs. Please keep up the good work of inspiring thought and debate.
Tom Doggett says:
Jan 18, 2012
Er, I posted that under my Internet “non-de-plume”.
Em says:
Jan 16, 2012
I think this policy has its roots in Church members’ inability to believe that anyone would want to voluntarily leave the Church. My sister is Catholic and whenever people here that, they automatically assume that I am the convert. Wrong. I was BIC and so was she. She wasn’t excommunicated, or disfellowshipped. She didn’t leave because she had sinned and it was easier to stop attending church than it was to repent. She simply felt that the Catholic church was, and is, true. Just like converts to the LDS faith feel like our church is true.
Joshua- I think you missed the point. Yes, at this juncture, the university has every right to kick you out for disaffiliating yourself with the church. The point of this article is that this particular policy is hypocritical and a violation of the freedom of religion. They should change the policy, thereby changing the contract.
I’d like to point out, Joshua, that the Honor Code does not mention anything about church covenants. Instead it says:
“LDS students must fulfill their duty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attend Church meetings, and abide by the rules and standards of the Church on and off campus.
Students who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also expected to maintain the same standards of conduct. They are encouraged to participate in services of their preferred religion. All students must be in good Honor Code standing to graduate, to receive a diploma, and to have the degree posted.”
Nothing about covenants. Also, if a student converts to another religion, then they should qualify for eligibility under the circumstances of that second paragraph. Also, assuming that the student leaving the church is not endowed, then they have made no specific covenant with the Church itself, considering that the baptismal covenant only binds one to do three things: 1. take Christ’s name 2. obey his teachings and 3. serve him. Each part of this covenant, or contract, including later discussions on renewing said convenant through the partaking of the sacrament, are open to quite a bit of interpretation on how a person fulfills that covenant.
And yes, BYU is a private institution and they can do whatever they like. However, because it is run by the church (by which I mean that the President of the Church is also Head of the Board of Trustees and the school is heavily funded with church funds), shouldn’t it’s policies better reflect the teachings and policies of the Church? If the Honor Code is based only in part on what we, as members of the LDS church believe, then why do we expect students to follow it on the basis of that belief? It seems a bit hinky and hypocritical to leave this policy as such. And the only was it can be changed is if tithing payers know about this policy (I certainly didn’t when I applied to BYU. This policy is not explicitly stated on the Ecclesiastical Endorsement that I signed. It, like many other Honor Code policies, is only found in the fine print). Students should know what they’re signing up for.
Also, Jon, perhaps you should take a class in journalism before you spout off what journalism today should be or look like. Subjective reporting is what they teach now. If you want a more “objective display of information,” try an encyclopedia. Especially considering that the name of this specific publication (The Student *Review*) should have tipped you off to its tendencies to present a subjective analysis.
Bean says:
Jan 16, 2012
Such a good post, EM.
Matt says:
Jan 16, 2012
Thank you EM for expressing exactly what I was thinking but didn’t know how to say.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Great points, Em.
Joshua says:
Jan 19, 2012
Sorry EM, you seem to have missed my entire first paragraph.
You said that I seemed to have missed the article’s point that “this particular policy is hypocritical and a violation of the freedom of religion.” I more than adequately addressed that in my first paragraph. This policy in no way threatens or lessens religious freedom and thus is in no way hypocritical.
Also, just because the honor code doesn’t spell out the word “covenant” doesn’t mean it doesn’t refer to them. How are you supposed to disaffiliate yourself from the church if you’ve never made the covenant necessary to affiliate yourself with it? As far as the interpretation on how one fulfills baptismal covenants you have to remember the interpretation that would be used is that of the Board of Trustees. I don’t think I need to explain what their interpretation of keeping baptismal covenants would be.
j says:
Jan 16, 2012
Kristin, you’re missing the point. The author never says he doesn’t dislike the school. In fact, he is suggesting how the school can be that much better by changing a policy that conflicts with the Church’s own interest of establishing religious freedom. I would hope that BYU students come to BYU hoping to make it an even better institution.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Good call, J. Certainly the presumption of loyalty should be granted to those who seek changes at BYU- else it might never improve!
CR says:
Jan 16, 2012
It appears as if most of the negative comments on this article articulate the same idea: BYU is a private university and if an individual doesn’t like the rules, he or she has the freedom to transfer.
They’re right, of course, but I think they are missing the overall point of this article. Jeffrey Stott is taking issue with the Honor Code in the context of the Church’s stance on religious freedoms. He argues, with good reason, that the university’s strict policy towards ex-Mormons is not in keeping with Church teachings and rhetoric on the freedom of religious expression.
I’m really impressed by students like Jeffrey at the SR who are raising questions about university policies. What I learned during my time at BYU is that it is OKAY to question the university’s rules without questioning the Church as a whole. University rules evolve and change all the time. The major tenets of Mormonism don’t (or shouldn’t).
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Good points, CR. I agree that holding the policy up against Church teachings and rhetoric is entirely appropriate.
Another example we might look to is Nauvoo. Despite the Mormon supermajority and the recent persecutions, in charter and in practice Nauvoo upheld a robust religious freedom standard that protected the non-Mormon minority. This contrasts with the Puritans who, after escaping religious persecution on one side of the Atlantic, promptly instigated it on the other:
“The Puritans were not fighting for religious freedom when they opposed the established Church of England. They were fighting for the right to replace that authority with one of their own. Democracy, religious toleration and separation of church and state were equally distasteful to the ruling elders. From the start, the Bay Colony confined voting to members of the approved Puritan churches, denied freedom of speech to its opponents and insisted that all persons subject themselves to the authority of its magistrates.
The life of the colony and of its people, the clothes they should wear, the length of their hair, their labors and pastimes, were all supervised and regulated in accordance with the clergy’s interpretation of the scriptures.”
Indeed, the Church stridently lays claim on religious freedom for itself. As a minority religion, we abundantly reap the fruits that flow from the legal protection of religious freedom. The test then is how we, in turn, treat the minorities in _our_ midst. Do we grant them the same presumptions and privileges we enjoy, or instead tell ourselves stories about how they are led by Satan (literally, demonizing them) in order to justify our persecution of and opposition to them? I can think of no more maligned, stigmatized, and unpopular minority in the Mormon community than the group of those labeled as apostates. (Except maybe for those who choose homosexual companionship, but that would be a whole other enchilada).
As for me, I say the Nauvoo model beats the Puritan one by a mile.
Diego says:
Jan 16, 2012
Accusations that this article is unfair are astounding. In what was does it insult anyone?
This is an outstanding article which brings attention to a little-known issue facing more students than the school would be comfortable to admit. Thank you for publishing it.
As long as The Student Review publishes articles that cause BYU students to think about their surroundings, I will continue to support it. I have just submitted another donation to The Student Review and I will continue to do so as long as it produces articles that induce critical thinking.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Diego, I think you’re right that this matter is not widely understood. As I’ve agitated this issue over the past year, I have been surprised by how little it is known! Many LDSaints simply aren’t aware that pew populating and tithe paying is insured by the threat of withholding diplomas. Students also sacrifice candor in their interviews with their priesthood leaders, realizing that being open about their conduct and religious beliefs can lead to their inability to graduate.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
Brad do you have any numbers on how much of the churches tithing income comes from BYU students. I graduated from BYU and the amount of tithing I payed while there was was very little and certainly did not amount to part of my tuition that was payed out of the tithing fund. If my experience is common then it would seem more likely that regulations on tithing are for the purpose of motivating students to keep a commandment than insuring tithing income.
Brad Carmack says:
Feb 14, 2012
Kris,
I’m sorry but I don’t have data on the % of church tithing revenues that derive from BYU students. My guess is such a figure would be difficult to obtain for a number of logistical reasons, though I can also think of a number of ways to arrive at a ballpark figure.
The tithing dollar Q does elicit another relevant financial point though: the monetary interest of the institution in choosing a more flexible policy. My brother wrote:
“I’m sure you remember me making this argument before but it doesn’t seem to me that it is in their best interest to be rigid. Once again let’s take people in my situation. I went there in good faith, I can no longer continue that way [i.e. conscience dictates atheism]. At this point every tithing dollar you have spent on me is a sunk cost. You can’t consider it at all. The question you have to ask is whether the future money you would spend on allowing me to complete the education is a good investment. In my case the potential money lost would have been marginal; I wasn’t planning on ever going back, merely taking online courses. So if you took 1000 people like me (and there are plenty) you would think having just one more come back to the church with a more lenient policy as opposed to the current rigid policy would pay for the added cost for all 1000. And to be honest it wouldn’t even be close. It would be a HUGE net gain in money. Even if not one person comes back, you would gain a lot in good publicity. I tell people that BYU screwed me over and that they wouldn’t let me graduate. I tell them they try to hook you young and then make it very hard to leave. I don’t do it because I’m irrationally bitter, I do it because it’s the truth. It always cracks me up when I read, or hear, from your posts about these supposed apostates who won’t leave the church alone etc. or bad mouth it. I’m sorry but if a bank pulled that crap on someone it is completely unreasonable to expect that person to say good things about their association with the bank.”
I took a look at the math with some (obviously very rough) figures. A year of LDS tuition is 4,560. A common figure is that LDS tuition is 30% of the annual per-student cost (thus, 15,200). Subtract the two and you get the annual per-student subsidy by the Church: 10640.
If the median college grad makes 50,000 for 43 years (67-24), then 10% of their earnings during that period is $215,000 from one lifetime tithe payer. That would cover the LDS subsidy for about 20 student-years.
If a student makes, say, 10K in a year, 10% would be about 1K worth of tithing a year, or 1/15 of the annual cost for a BYU student-year. It would seem post-graduation earnings are paying the lion’s share.
Jacob says:
Jan 16, 2012
Elder Oaks spoke at Chapman University, not Chaplain University
Rich says:
Jan 16, 2012
I agree that this provision in the honor code should be taken out. Here’s why: you don’t know where life will take you in the future. When an LDS student chooses to go to BYU, they do not expect to ever leave the Church. So of course they sign the Honor Code and promise to live it. But throughout school, some of those students WILL leave the church, statistically speaking. Some of the students’ beliefs will change. Maybe BYU would rather those particular students lie and remain in a faith they no longer believe. But for a Church that preaches religious freedom, it seems hypocritical not to practice it with the students at BYU.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Seems common sense to me. I’m not sure what would be lost, either- the structure for non-LDS students already exists, and a community where people freely choose to attend and worship would surely be more convincing of peoples’ hearts than a flock of disciples herded about with carrots and sticks.
CG says:
Jan 16, 2012
Guys, look at us! Discussion like this is wonderful. I honestly get more of a kick reading the responses. I support the Student Review because, as DIEGO said, it causes people to think and also provides experience for the questions we will encounter when we leave BYU or happy valley and meet opposition. We are entering a time where we all need to be able to hear, listen, and respectfully respond to honest points that arise. Some are opposed to the Student Review because they strongly disagree with it’s arguments. My thought is: are you going to go through life only reading words that already agree with you? Are you only going to associate with people who agree with you? Come now.
I’m disappointed when people, especially my fellow Latter-day saints, respond to such things by lashing out, being disrespectful, or turning their backs with an “I’m insulted!” instead of listening, keeping calm, and thinking before they speak. I would not call that Christlike.
Ben says:
Jan 16, 2012
Hear, hear!
Ginger says:
Jan 16, 2012
The university, as a private institution, ABSOLUTELY has a right to have this policy. If they wanted to, they also have the right to require all students to wear a purple wig every other Tuesday. The question the article raises isn’t “can they”, it’s “should they”. In my opinion, they shouldn’t. Students should be free to choose their religious affiliation regardless of what it was when they gained entrance to the university.
Additionally, some of the arguments about spaces for good upstanding members being taken by those who choose to disaffiliate themselves from the church make me wonder if those people believe that BYU should admit any non-members at all. Aren’t those Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews (among others) taking up spaces for members of the church too? Please note that this question is not inflammatory, but quite sincere (despite the sarcastic tone text on the Internet tends to lend to everything).
Brett says:
Jan 18, 2012
If BYU has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to have this policy, then as a Canadian, I have an ABSOLUTE right to have BYU refund 68% of all the tithing I ever paid, because that’s the percentage of tithing the so-called church paid to BYU. And American taxpayers that do not support religious facism have an ABSOLUTE right to demand their tax dollars be returned by BYU. Just because Brigham Young was an intolerant vindictive judgemental man does not mean that the so-called university with his name must act in the same way.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
Brett, bummer you didn’t realize that the money you payed was a donation and you weren’t supposed to have a say in how it was spent. You could ask or sue the church for your money back; it’s possible you’ll get it. I’m not sure what the church’s policy or the laws are on this. However if the laws don’t support you getting your money back you can’t really complain- I mean Canada’s awesome and there’s good reason behind most of Her legislation. Help make the changes you’d like to see and stay positive.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 17, 2012
Rock on, CG. I look forward to continued dialogue, too.
Also, I apologize if I’ve been too sharp anywhere- I know how it feels to have your emotions or arguments stomped on (it sucks).
’til next time,
BYU Honor Code restricts religious freedom according to The Student Review « unambiguous says:
Jan 17, 2012
[...] author at The Student Review, “an independent paper revival,” claims the BYU Honor Code restricts religious freedom. He makes a compelling case, quoting Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Joseph Smith, the LDS [...]
SRL says:
Jan 17, 2012
I don’t understand why BYU has what seems to be a hypocritical policy, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking why it is this way. Have you read the comments? Maybe it does have something to do with the breaking of covenants that non-LDS students have never made, but in that case, shouldn’t there be a distinction between whether someone has made temple covenants as opposed to just baptismal covenants, since the consequences for breaking temple covenants are more severe than breaking baptismal covenants? What about making the student take a semester deferment, instead of barring them from graduating completely? Something similar to honor code probation.
I also think there are sometimes rules that seem harsh to the individual that ARE instituted by the Lord. Think of how under the Mosaic law, if a child was born as a bastard, then he or she was to be cast out for having no father. Seems super harsh, right? It wasn’t the child’s fault for being born out of adultery. But it wasn’t about the child at all. It was a symbol of how we would be if there was no atonement – completely cut off from God and without a Father. God has the ability to make any wrong to the child right in the eternities, and is concerned with teaching us an eternal perspective.
I’m not saying that’s what is happening here, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to right the injustices we see in this world. I’m just saying that there could be a lot more to it than we with our limited mortal minds can comprehend.
Sam Bergin says:
Jan 17, 2012
I think that some people commenting on this article are a little bit too quick to villainize the author and/or BYU’s administration. Do you think that the administration may have legitimate reasons for their actions? Probably. My interactions with Samuelson and other administrators do not leave me thinking, “What a tyrant?” And, Jeff is also a very tolerant and amiable person. I see little commentary on the theology that produces the policy.
Mormons in fact do believe that we are the one true religion; we are not relativistic about it, but rather very binary. To change from Mormonism to another religion potentially includes violating multiple levels of covenants. So how does a violation like that of Brandon Davies line up against one of switching religions? I mean the comparison in the perspective of religious doctrine, not school sanctions.
Laura says:
Jan 17, 2012
I would like to voice my support of the BYU honor code without apology. All seekers of truth, be it religious or secular, are invited to “enter to learn…” Our culture is enriched and our narrow minds are expanded as students and professors from all backgrounds are invited to collaborate on BYU campus.
Now, I don’t believe that it is the intention of BYU’s Honor Code office to teach us spiritual truths through lofty, metaphorical object lessons. But school policy is consistent with church doctrine. According to that doctrine, denial of the faith is not tolerated. According to school policy, denial of the faith is still not tolerated. I’m not sure if I’m oversimplifying the matter or blowing it out of proportion. Either way, I hope that my exaggeration has illustrated an interesting parallel between school policy and church doctrine.
Continuing studies at BYU and ultimate eternal destiny really have nothing in common. But in LIFE, one must be willing to deal with the consequences.
TH says:
Jan 17, 2012
“But school policy is consistent with church doctrine. According to that doctrine, denial of the faith is not tolerated. According to school policy, denial of the faith is still not tolerated.”
If that were really the case, then BYU should not allow anyone who is not LDS enter their school. If denial of the LDS faith is not tolerated, then people who are not willing to be baptized into the church before they enroll would, by this logic, not be tolerated. I’m sure that most, if not all, of the students who are not members of the LDS religion are given ample opportunity to learn about the LDS church and to convert if they choose to do so; if they reject it, they are not kicked out of the school. They are allowed to continue as a member of a different faith, or not as a member of any faith at all.
This article astutely identifies the divergence in the policy – (1) denial of the faith, as long as you were never part of the LDS church, is tolerable, but (2) denial of the faith, if you were once a member of the LDS church, is not tolerable. There is a serious amount of cognitive dissonance required for this to be acceptable policy.
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
I don’t think Laura was trying to say that school and church policy are or should be perfectly synchronous. I think she was saying it was an interesting parallel that might give insight to why school policy is how it is.
Joe says:
Jan 17, 2012
As an older(27) single guy at BYU I have had doubts about certain gospel principles. Specifically marriage, I date, I want to get married but for what ever reason, I still find my self single asking God why. I have recently been having serious doubts about temple marriage, and ultimately the church because of it.
I have been a member all my life, served an honorable full-time mission, however my doubts have driven me to seriously consider leaving the Church. The consequences would be drastic, as a employee at BYU I would loose my job, not graduate and to make matters worse, living in BYU approved housing requires obeying( which I do) the Honor code, which would lead to getting kicked out of my apartment.
While I can’t say what the solution should be on this issue, it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed outside of the opinions and comments section of paper.
McKenna says:
Jan 18, 2012
Amen Joe. I was in the same boat as you until someone exposed me to some things I was not aware of previously. I wish you luck on that tightrope.
C says:
Jan 17, 2012
Anytime any positive suggestion is made about BYU, be prepared for those who come out to defend it, all or nothing. They will tell you, “Don’t like it? THEN LEAVE!” as if wanting to improve the Honor Code, or make the University a better place is blasphemous. The Honor Code isn’t the word of God; the students came up with it themselves a couple decades ago. A mustache being the only acceptable form of facial hair is not scripture. I don’t understand where the attitude of BYU being the pinnacle of educational perfection comes from, but it will never improve as a school or a culture if anytime a someone makes a suggestion they’re told to leave.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Good point, C.
Dave says:
Jan 17, 2012
Thanks for this article. I read it a while back and almost cried with joy. While I am comfortable in my LDS faith I find the notion that we should even think about penalizing others for their faith, which we so often fail to notice has helped shape and preserve moral truths that have become parts of our own so that these moral truths didn’t need to be restored, quite abhorrent.
Just to stir the pot a little more, I’m glad that the church subsidizes my education but I also wonder why we have decided to charge more to students not of our faith who nonetheless choose to keep the honor code. Strangely enough you can remain in good standing and have subsidized tuition without paying tithing, or contributing in any significant way to the ward in which you reside, and I think we all have at least a few people in our own wards who do so. Furthermore, why should we provide an incentive to non-LDS students to be baptized in the form of tuition cuts? God has promised those who accept and keep covenants administered by his authorized servants eternal life. Does a tuition break really compare? Now of course this is not our intention in subsidizing LDS tuition, but regrettably every year at least a few students are baptized to save a few thousand dollars. What a shame. I’d be willing to pay the extra $50 or so a semester that it would cost to make up the lost tuition from non-LDS students, so we could create a flat tuition for all students.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Bless your generous soul, Dave. There’s a man who’ll put his money where his mouth is when it comes to his view on another’s religous exercise.
From the school’s perspective, there is the reputational value to consider as well. How much is the university willing to pay to avoid the negative press associated with this controversial and unnecessary policy? It is only a matter of time before an LDS faculty or student’s religious choice becomes a media event.
Davey says:
Jan 17, 2012
In addition to what’s already been said, one of my biggest issues with this policy is that I don’t think most students who sign the Honor Code know that this is what they’re signing on for. I knew when I signed the Honor Code that I was agreeing to abide by the principles of the Church as stated therein, and to maintain a current ecclesiastical endorsement. But I also knew that you didn’t have to be a member of the Church to be a student at BYU, and I knew students at BYU who were not LDS. Not that I had any plans to leave the Church, but, had I known that, in the event of a very real crisis of faith and a change in my belief system, I would have to choose between keeping quiet and being dishonest (to myself and others) or transferring to another school (which, as others have mentioned, comes with a very real loss in the academic progress and networking associated with time spent at a specific school, not to mention, of course, any credits that don’t carry over)–well, if I’d known all that, then I probably would have thought twice about signing.
As it turns out, I did have a bit of a crisis of faith (for me it was more a series of minor crises) and some definite changes in my belief system. My experience at BYU (and, more significantly, as a young person with a developing mind) led me to question many of the things I’d been taught and believed all my life, and I’m grateful for the opportunities I had at BYU to synthesize faith and critical thinking in some very challenging and ultimately very rewarding ways. My own spiritual journey has kept me in the Church as an active, believing member, but I certainly can’t judge my many friends who have faced some of these same questions and challenges, had their own experiences, and arrived at different conclusions. These people left not because they wanted to (it was generally very, very painful for them), but because they felt that, given the information and experiences they had had, they could no longer believe the same things they once did. After the incredibly vulnerable spiritual experience of losing one’s faith, it seems like adding an insult to an injury to kick someone out of school.
I completely understand and endorse the university’s policies encouraging students to obey the Word of Wisdom, to avoid pre- or extra-marital sexual activity, etc.–those are all decision-based actions, and someone can choose to do or not do those things (and, if a student makes an error, there is the opportunity for repentance). But belief is not always (or even often) a choice. I don’t choose to believe in gravity–I am compelled to believe in it by the evidence. Those who have not received a spiritual witness that the LDS church is true–or those who have received a spiritual witness that it is not, or that another religion or belief system is true instead–do not have the evidence they would need in order to believe. Only the Spirit can persuade someone to believe, and for an institution to make it a requirement for continued academic progress feels to me like unrighteous dominion. Of course, it’s possible for one to go to church without believing it, but do we really want to maintain our membership by compelling activity from students on threat of expulsion?
I think those who wrote and maintain the policy mean well. I even think it’s possible that it could do some good (though I’ve yet to hear a really convincing argument in its favor). Still, like others, I see far more cons than pros, and I think at the very least that it should be made clearer to students entering BYU just what they’re agreeing to do while they’re there.
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
Thanks for sharing your experience. This is a very articulate and powerful evaluation of the policy in question. If only more empathy and understanding were present at BYU…
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Wow, great points Davey.
Locke says:
Jan 17, 2012
After carefully reading the comments above, I find myself surprised at both the empathy some are able to feel and the harsh, stinging words some have said. This article did a great job of raising a point, and providing solid evidence, that some university policies may not be in line with the Church as a whole’s policies.
As some have mentioned before, the idea of Mormons believing that they are in fact the one true religion may have something to do with this policy. An institution that considers itself to be the only true and correct institution would obviously be very opposed to it’s members leaving to join another institution which they consider to be wrong. The proposed solution to amend the honor code could provide a fix to this situation, but I don’t know if it is the right solution.
I have struggled with this issue myself during my time here, and have had to make some hard decisions about how I live my life, but as some others have said, it is extremely hard for me to go against my moral code to tell the truth, in order to remain at an University that I cherish and enjoy my time at. I believe that just because my religious and theological beliefs have changed (partly because of the higher education and some classes I have taken at BYU), should not require me to leave an institution where I agree with most if not all of the policies involving the Honor Code.
This article is raising debate on a current and timely topic, and I believe that is part of what The Student Reviews mission should be. So, thank you to the author, and to all of you fellow students and readers for discussing a topic that we all have differing views on.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
I respect the tension you’ve felt as you’ve wrestled with this issue, Locke.
I think many whose beliefs _do_ change (often without their intending them to) struggle with the demands of integrity as they view it, vs. the practical consequences of coming clean with their authentic beliefs. It can be a very scary and isolating experience. Many of them derived their intense valuing of truth-telling from their religious upbringing- but that value often persists as other beliefs shift.
Austin Smith says:
Jan 17, 2012
I think one important distinction between this policy and requiring all BYU students to abstain from drinking alcohol or not engage in pre-marital sex etc. is that those things are actions. This policy is an effort to prevent people from thinking or believing certain things. We are a church that asks thousands, maybe millions, of people in person each year to change religions–why don’t we allow our own members the same opportunity?
I believe that this is a very counter-productive policy. It punishes honesty and integrity, encouraging hundreds of students to live a lie. Yes, no one is forcing students to stay at BYU, but there are huge costs to leaving. Yes, these students agreed to maintain certain standards, but if you think that you can predict what you believe after 2 or 3 years of college, you’re wrong (for a lot of people). I hope and pray that this policy will be changed.
As Hugh B. Brown said, “Only error needs to fear freedom of expression.” I know the church is true and that it doesn’t need to punish people (beyond excommunication) who choose to leave it.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Like
seriously you guys are stupid says:
Jan 17, 2012
You guys are acting like 5 year olds. This is rather amusing to a 13-year-old. Respect people & get on with your life.
McKenna says:
Jan 18, 2012
Spoken like a true thirteen year old
muucavwon says:
Jan 17, 2012
Acknowledging the 11th Article of Faith, I’m not sure how one can then argue that according to church doctrine, denial of the faith is not tolerated. Yes, one can dig up quotes about blood atonement from Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, but I doubt anyone arguing against the position of this article would advocate killing apostates because the idea is revolting.
I think the author and commenters make persuasively argue that 1. an alternative policy could improve BYU (hence, let’s talk about the potential benefits and costs rather than spouting “if you don’t like it leave”), 2. those proposing alternative policy are genuinely interested and invested in the success of BYU, 3. BYU policies are not the same thing as LDS doctrines and there is nothing unfaithful about discussing them (Hugh Nibley loved to rip on the Dress and Grooming Standards).
Thanks Student Review for the well-articulated piece and the discussion it generated.
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
Honestly, this discussion is so awesome and informative compared to the drivel I remember reading on the 100 Hour Board as a BYU freshman… I am really proud of my school when I can see such an open discussion about a very real example of discrimination. This school has come a long way in even the past few years. More power to you!
Thayne Warner says:
Jan 18, 2012
Great article. In response to all the “covenants” arguments by some of the volunteer defenders, I’d like to quote Richard Packham:
4.
“Suppose I tell you that I have a million dollars to give away, and I promise to give you that million if you promise to be my servant for a year. And I want our little bargain to be our secret (I don’t want to have to pay Social Security and workers’ comp insurance.) You agree, and we shake hands, and call it a “solemn covenant.” But after just a week, you learn that I don’t have any money at all, let alone a million dollars. Do you feel obligated to continue working for me for the rest of the year? And do you feel obligated (remember: you promised not to tell!) to keep the secret? Or would you feel justified in going to the authorities?”
Furthermore, as Packham points out:
“If I had been initiated into a voodoo cult, during which I made an oath to the voodoo god Bukuluku, would you feel I had acted immorally if you found I had not kept the oath I made to Bukuluku? Would you feel that it would have been wrong if one of the Gadianton robbers (Helaman 6) decided that he was going to leave the band because it was evil, and violated the oath of secrecy he had made to the robber band?”
Again, great article. Love the work you’re doing
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
But Bukuluku isn’t true, and the largest faction of the LDS church is! So they have the right to discriminate against former members! They have the right to wage WAR if God told them to, because God is OBVIOUSLY on their side! How can anyone disagree?? DuUuUuUuhHhHhHhHhHhHhH!!!!!
Queso says:
Jan 18, 2012
The article and many commenters are missing the bigger issue. The Church is very interested in freedom of religious expression. This policy of expelling students who leave the Church is not meant as a punishment for apostates (this is a harsh but accurate term, as the church defines apostasy as “abandoning one’s religious beliefs or departing from the truth”). This policy is about maintaining the viability of BYU as a Church-sponsored organization.
Here’s how the logic of the BOT on this policy goes:
1. The LDS church is the one true Church put on earth by God.
2. Anything that pulls people away from this truth is due to the influence of the adversary, therefore
3. Active LDS students who leave the church due so because they accept this evil influence, regardless of how subtle it may seem.
4. Active LDS students leaving the Church is a type of apostasy.
5. Generally speaking, apostates tend to drag other Church members away with them, as has been shown by millenia of Church history, for example: Nauvoo (Sidney Rigdon), Kirtland (Kirtland Apostasy), and ancient Greece (Paul’s Epistles), the last of these resulted in the Great Apostasy which destroyed the ancient Church all together. Therefore
6. Apostasy is THE biggest threat to the viability of LDS Church organizations, therefore
7. BYU students who apostatize must leave the university, in order for the university as a Church-owned organization to survive.
Please don’t consider me insensitive on the issue. I have known many friends and family who have left the Church, so I am not unsympathetic to the hurt feelings, confusion, and sadness this policy must cause. However, as with so many hard truths the Church must deal with every day, this issue is NOT about people’s feelings or personal prerogatives, this is about holding a Church together in a world that has as its primary goal that Church’s destruction.
When you step off the fence and onto the Lord’s side, you cannot climb back onto the fence. You are no longer an unbiased observer, and cannot be treated as such by the Church.
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
Please, someone read this and tell me that LDS people don’t have an arrogant, narrow-minded worldview… It’s your way or the highway. To question the validity of the church (or to come to a conclusion that is different than your own) is SATANIC… I mean, there’s just NO other option, right? Stay classy my friend.
Locke says:
Jan 18, 2012
Bean, as I was reading Queso’s post i found myself thinking the exact same thing. According to Queso, since LDS believe that anything other than their version of the “truth” is wrong and evil, anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe should just what? Go to hell? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Andrew C says:
Apr 5, 2012
I’m coming to this so late in the game that it’s likely I’m the only person who will ever read this, but I feel to write it anyway.
If I understand my LDS theology correctly–which I’ve been hearing and studying for 34 years now, assuming my parents were talking about it in my infancy–then there were two primary components to Satan’s proposal for how to run this earth. First, he wanted the glory (clearly selfish and not to be emulated). The second was that he would save everyone. There would be no agency, only salvation.
Recently I’ve been thinking about our tendency to want to tidy up the gospel, to shape it into a clear set of rules, specific lists of activities that, once completed, will let us know that we’re okay, we’ve made it, we’re saved. It’s actually reminiscent of the Law of Moses: here’s what you do, when you do it, keep the rules, make the sacrifices. Yes, there’s a parallel here: attend church, pay tithing, no sex outside of marriage. These are all things I do and believe in–though I need to write a check this Sunday, please remind me–but these are not what will give me the salvation I hope for in the end.
My salvation will come only in and through a life spent seeking (and, I hope, finding!) Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life.
So when we try to protect our religion by anything that would coerce people into checking off boxes in a list–pay tithing, attend church, do this sacrifice on this day–it strikes me that we’re not choosing the plan we think we are. Everything I know about the Gospel of Jesus Christ indicates to me that we should offer loving invitation (and, when needed, correction, which I have certainly required so often in my own life), but never, never, ever coercion.
And lets not deceive ourselves: money and the prospect of losing months of effort can be pretty coercive.
Karly says:
Jan 18, 2012
Do we not have enough negative press right now? I found this because a friend shared it on Facebook, and all sorts of people are making horrible comments about the Church because of it. You know the policy isn’t going to change so all of you need to get over it and bark up another tree. How about some good press about byu and the church for a change?
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
My goodness, you poor soul… Face it, the church and BYU bring this bad press on themselves. Stop blaming the victims for the crime. Actually, you’re not even blaming the victim, you’re blaming the messenger… ridiculous.
Provost says:
Jan 18, 2012
Karly, the rise of awareness about Mormonism is inextricably connected with increased public attention of both positive and negative kinds. Get used to “negative” press. Ever hear that parable of Jesus’ about the wheat and the tares growing together? And you want only positive press about BYU? Negative press is a necessary evil.
Perhaps the negative press is warranted from time to time. The Church is by no means a perfect institution. In fact, the historical followers of God have usually harbored the worst behavior toward their fellow human beings because of their perceived self-righteousness. Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for the members of the covenant and spent his time with the sinners. When Mormons try to protect their image, maybe they’re just spending too much time being self-conscious and self-righteous. They should shrug it off and get Christian for a minute and maybe consider the possibility of reaching out across chasms of profound difference and showing love. Just a thought.
Hermes says:
Jan 18, 2012
Spiro T. Agnew’s BYU: “Love it or leave it!”
Jordan says:
Jan 18, 2012
I’m sorry, Jeff, I know this is an opinion piece but I think your article is too one-sided in its approach to this issue. Also I think that you have misunderstood both religious freedom as a human right and the religious freedom that the Church is looking to grow in other countries.
The word “freedom” is wholly misunderstood by our generation to mean “entitlements;” this is not the case. Religious freedom in America means that you may practice the 11th article of faith: how, WHERE, or what they may. Since your article looks deeply at the syntax, let me break this one down for you. The religious freedom in our country allows you to go anywhere to practice your religion, and in this sense of the word BYU allows you to go somewhere else to practice your religion because it is a free country. I think your article spins freedom to be an entitlement without consequence. BYU student are free to choose what religion they wish to practice, and they can leave BYU to do so. BYU students have been applying the same rational as you have to BYU standards for some time: the Honor Code doesn’t represent my personal viewpoints, which I think many people share, so the Church should change it to fit our opinion. This line of rational would suggest that gay rights supporters would be justified in saying that the Church should allow openly homosexual students attend as long as they keep to the chastity standards. And maybe you would agree with that, but I believe that you would find that opinion is not shared by many of your BYU peers. Religious freedom is mobility and tolerance but not acceptance.
In regards to the Church’s efforts to spread religious freedom in other countries, I believe that you have missed the chance in this article to dive into the real issues at hand. I know this concept is difficult for many Americans (which I think you understand this Jeff, you just failed to put this in your article) that freedom does not exist the same way that it does here in America. Other countries may be labeled as a country that supports freedom of religion but defines it in a way that you would not understand it if you saw it. Therefore, the Church’s efforts in propagating Americanized religious freedom are focused on promoting that mobility, as I mentioned previously, at the government level. The Church is trying to influence governments to establish policies that allow people to “worship how, where, or what they may.” In America former-LDS students, who wish to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, may do so at another university. In other countries this right would probably not be afforded to these students.
A fact that I will not address is how this article fails to look at the spiritual implications of these BYU students who turn away from the faith, but I feel that is something that each of us should consider individually. All too often BYU students wish to criticize both the Church and BYU for anything that doesn’t seem to fit their ideology. Also, I find the agnostic tone of this article to be discomforting. I am tired of hearing people scream for tolerance when they really mean acceptance. As my first amendment right protects my right to believe what I want, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept what you or anyone else believes.
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
“The campus is our world.”
How dare this article suggest that BYU, let alone the church, could do anything wrong, or suggest that there be a valid reason for a moral, well-adjusted person to leave this church.
–And isn’t that kind that BYU “allows” someone to leave the school if they no longer believe… That should say, they REQUIRE you to leave, even if you wish to continue to worship at BYU within another belief system, no matter the merits of that alternative belief.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 21, 2012
Thanks for your thoughts, Jordan! A couple responses.
“The religious freedom in our country allows you to go anywhere to practice your religion, and in this sense of the word BYU allows you to go somewhere else to practice your religion because it is a free country.”
> Perhaps a narrow interpretation of religious freedom under the US constitution would support this view- but LDS folks have their own, additional standard of religious freedom established by Joseph Smith’s teachings, as well as early church practice. Many here have based their arguments on LDS statements and traditions (i.e. Nauvoo, AofF 11, and Joseph’s statements such as “I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves”) rather than a constitutional analysis. I would note that LDS students that convert to another faith or whose consciences convict them as agnostics or atheists are an unpopular and weak minority at BYU.
“I think your article spins freedom to be an entitlement without consequence.”
It would be helpful to talk in a little greater detail about what religious freedom is. One wrote:
‘Before I get into what BYU should do respecting these freedoms, let me clarify briefly what I mean by religious freedom. Religious freedom has three important, basic aspects:
1. Letting people say in public and private what religion or beliefs they espouse with little or no penalty
2. Letting people change their religion (apostatize) or not follow any religion, with no strings attached
3. Letting people practice their religion with little or no unnecessary penalties
Religious freedom is NOT the mere assertion that someone can choose how to worship. Colonial Quakers had the agency to choose to practice their faith, but they did not experience religious freedom because they were persecuted by the Puritan magistrates on the basis of their worship. In the time of Maimonides, Jews could choose to worship Jehovah- but that choice was accompanied by death at the hands of their Islamic masters.’
Religious freedom is mostly about the scope and magnitude of the burden on religious choices, and infringements are measured by that same yardstick. At BYU, LDS students are quite limited in scope because even the mere profession of doubt, agnosticism, atheism, or faith in an alternate religion exposes them to a heavy (expulsion is about the most serious thing BYU could legally do to a student) consequence because of the unfettered discretion of their Bishops. Bishops can withdraw or refuse to issue an ecclesiastical endorsement for any (or no) reason, and not have that decision reviewed or questioned. That gives bishops an incredible power- and many students know that even a titch of hearsay from a roommate or ward member could (and too often does) result in being called in, denied an endorsement, etc. Plus, there’s the chilling effect to consider- since the Bishop is not obligated to adhere to any consistent standard (e.g. how much doubt or love for Allah must a student have or manifest before she crosses the invisible line? and will Bishop A place that line the same place as Bishop B? what kind of evidence will various bishops use when making that determination?), a rational student hides her questioning or conversion as deep in the closet corner as possible (no doubt crowding out the many gay students already huddled there). The absence of checks and balances, such as a meaningful review process or a formal, safe route for those questioning or alternatively believing, limits the scope.
As to the burden’s magnitude, those costs have mostly been illustrated above. To summarize, they are not extreme (life and liberty are not threatened), but they are significant (losing opportunities for research appointments that derive from being known by professors, losing credits that won’t transfer, losing time when graduation is consequently delayed, losing relationships when geography changes, losing the counsel of a local ecclesiastical leader who may be helping them navigate a transgression or faith crisis, losing access to the HBLL, etc., and all this in addition to the personal and family toil that usually accompany such a transition). And we all know what a boon is access to the one-and-only HBLL!
As to the discrimination you make between tolerance and acceptance, I’m not really sure what exactly you mean. Whichever it is, as long as we are willing to eat what we dish out by applying the Golden Rule of religious freedom Joseph articulated, I think we are in safe territory. If we are uncomfortable with the idea of a college student at a private Episcopalian university being shown the door when she converts to Mormonism a semester before graduating, then perhaps we should take a look at the inner vessel.
Tanner Renshaw says:
Jan 18, 2012
im all for religious freedom but if you want to go to Byu then you have to agree to live by the standards it sets. if you don’t want to live by those standards then go to a different university.
Bean says:
Jan 19, 2012
This argument an extremely unrealistic thought-terminating cliche. It’s something you’ve heard and which sounds like a fair demand, but in reality it prevents you from thinking honestly about the intricacies of the situation presented.
Tanner Renshaw says:
Jan 18, 2012
brad carmack if you “a reasonable explanation” as to why this policy is in place would be “the general authorities said so”. if you know they are called of God what more reason does one need?
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Answer: at least some additional moral justification. The general authorities quite readily admit that not every pronouncement or program that originates with them is flawless. Additionally, the honor code has itself been revised a number of times (twice in recent years alone, both regarding homosexuality). Would the revisers be guilty of breaching a moral imperative? Thus, even if it is established that “the general authorities said so” (a suspect proposition in this case, given the Honor Code’s origin and evolution), the analysis cannot stop there.
LS says:
Jan 18, 2012
Wow, this article was a total waste of my time. When in the history of the church, have decisions been made from the bottom up? The board is the first presidency and they receive their instructions from God, if someone doesn’t like it, go to another school. The argument that because we are tax exempt we are funded by taxpayers is total rubbish and whoever shows that makes his or her own ignorance about the tax code transparent. And no, people PAYING TITHING DOES NOT MAKE YOU A SHAREHOLDER IN THE CHURCH, because you pay your tithing in Canada doesn’t mean that you have a say over what money goes where, or how much of it should go to the BYU schools. I can’t believe I’m even wasting my time writing this comment; this kind of trashy journalism is appalling.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
SteveS says:
Jan 18, 2012
Its (mostly) about the money, folks: the LDS Church subsidizes 70% of every student’s education at BYU, and wants good return on investment, inasmuch as that sort of thing is possible in matters of faith and devotion to religion. They know that BYU grads will likely stay active in the Church throughout their lifetimes, contributing way more money than their education cost through tithing and offerings, and in giving freely of their free time to serve in numerous callings. The Church isn’t really interested in paying for a student’s education who is interested in leaving that institution for another; they’ll never recuperate the money they spend subsidizing that student’s education.
I’m not saying I agree with the policy–I see the inherent hypocrisy of the policy as it now stands–but the decision to expel students, faculty, and employees who leave the Church is less about keeping the waters “pure” as much as it is about protecting future revenue and service capital.
Meanwhile, there are students who leave the University every year to study elsewhere because their religious beliefs no longer match those of the LDS Church. It’s painful sure, and a net loss, imo, to the BYU community, portions of which seem to perceive itself as homogeneous. But those who leave often feel relief and enjoy opportunities for study, friendship networks, and other benefits at their new university that weren’t available to them at BYU.
My hope is that people will make the decision that is right for THEM, whether it be to stay and stick it out for another year or two so that they can walk away with a degree in hand, or to leave and finish their education elsewhere. Either way, if they want to leave the Church, they may do so. For those of us who stay HERE, though, it’s our job to be compassionate and encouraging to all people as they seek their intellectual and spiritual paths, even if their path doesn’t match up with our own. Good will and non-judgement go a long way in keeping ties of friendship (and fellowship) strong. Cheers.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
Good thoughts, SteveS. I share your hope that students will make choices they feel are right for them re: staying or going. I also agree about our duty as to being compassionate and encouraging to folks as they seek their spiritual and intellectual paths, including those that lead them to Allah or atheism. Your point about good will and non-judgment is also well taken.
Regarding the finances argument- it could be about the money. However those who, in retrospect, are offended/angry about the burden on their religious freedom are arguably less likely to return/pay tithing, etc. The research on emerging adolescence shows that many college-age folks lose their childhood faith during their 20′s, but return to it when they raise their own kids. If the students whose beliefs change while at BYU are free to “come out” about those beliefs, perhaps a greater proportion of them will return, and their tithing contributions with them, in future years. In either case, either the loss will be less, or the net benefit greater (two sides of the same coin).
Also, out of those that leave, only a certain percentage will continue on and graduate. At the margin, since folks with degrees usually earn more over a lifetime, it may be in the bottom line’s interest to ensure graduation for as many possible returners (read: tithepayers) as possible.
George says:
Jan 18, 2012
I propose a possible reasoning why BYU may have this policy in place. I don’t think they are worried about 1 or 2 people who may want to change religions. What they are worried about is that 1 or 2 becoming 10 or 20, 100 or 200, 1000 or 2000.
Imagine if a classmate, a roommate, or a friend on campus left the LDS church and joined another religion and were allowed to stay on campus.
Would you not ask them why they made that decision? What if some/many/all of their reasons made perfect sense? What if you were interested in exploring the same path and then shared your experiences with others?
The fact of the matter is, that once people start exploring reasons for leaving the church, they may find that many of these reasons may be valid and do not involve being offended or wanting to sin. The amount of reasons (including many valid ones) that people have for leaving the church is very high. Once someone leaves the church for valid reasons and goes as far as joining another church, the university is vested in getting rid of this “bad apple”. Their influence will spread if not removed, and quickly.
Also, the tuition increase argument does not hold. This is NOT about replacing tuition at the non-LDS rate. This is about 10% of your earning potential for the rest of your life. BYU is not cheap. BYU comes at a up-front cheap tuition, but if you make $100K/year for the next 40 years, the church stands to make much MUCH more than 2-3 years of increased tuition at the non-LDS rate.
Bean says:
Jan 18, 2012
Absolutely. Also, I think, if LDS people at BYU were truly allowed to discuss their serious doubts openly, the community would be STUNNED to find out that many of their closest friends (who are probably great people) have similar doubts about the history and validity of the church. There are more of you than you think… just look at this thread (and dare I say, look it up online).
Locke says:
Jan 18, 2012
George, I can’t tell if you are making the point that the LDS church is afraid of students deciding to leave the church for valid reasons that don’t involve being offended or wanting to sin so the Church is trying to stamp out any free-thinking? Or are you making the point that the Church just wants the tithing money and doesn’t care about belief or faith? I’m sorry I just cannot tell if you are for or against the change proposed in the article.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 20, 2012
I think you have a strong point here, and have identified an advantage to the status quo policy (though I think the disadvantages still outweigh it). A larger exodus might reduce short-term student tithing receipts, damage BYU’s reputation as a testimony-strengthening place parents want to pay for their kids to go to, and damage long-term tithing receipts from those who would have otherwise married a pious spouse (or otherwise make long-term commitments likely to result in their life-long payment of tithes).
It is entirely likely that lessening the current disincentives would result in, at least, a brief rush for the closet door as stifled students breathe deeply the air of authenticity regarding their religious beliefs. This type of event could have a number of consequences, many of them potentially negative for the university and its reputation.
Alan says:
Jan 18, 2012
I think what should be made clear is that BYU was not created to be a bastion of “religious freedom” (though I think the author is confusing the concept here with “religious plurality”); rather, BYU was created to sustain the Church through educating its young adult adherents to be productive citizens inside and outside the Church. It would be hard to sustain the Church if one of the policies was that you could do whatever you wanted. So, the way I look at this, BYU is an extension of the Church. It certainly is treated as an extension when it comes to nondiscrimination laws — it’s exempt from them, since the university is owned by the Church.
Sure, non-Mormons are invited to apply to BYU, but I suspect the admissions office limits the number of non-Mormons who are actually admitted. Therefore, “religious discrimination” (or a lack of “religious plurality,” if you will) doesn’t start with the Honor Code, it starts with admissions. I think at BYU there’s something like 1 to 1.5% non-Mormons during any given year.
As a non-Mormon who does not attend BYU and would never think to attend BYU because I consider the Honor Code waaay too invasive (including, yes, discriminatory against other people’s beliefs), I still think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Church to have a dedicated space to educate its adherents. If society doesn’t like what’s happening at BYU and the Church, it will find ways to express discontent (such as the boycotts on BYU sports in the 1970s over the Church’s policy against black ordination).
Kris says:
Jan 19, 2012
Good points Alan. You’ve given a refreshing take on this. A little less emotionally charged than some of the other commentators.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 21, 2012
Alan- you might a good point, in that BYU’s function is neither only nor primarily to stand as a bastion of religious freedom. However, the LDS context is one of robust religious freedom (well, I suppose it’s a mixed bag- Brigham wasn’t always the most tolerant of proselyters from other faiths, but in Nauvoo Joseph did a decent job of protecting the minority religions, and made a number of strong statements about protecting others’ religious beliefs and exercise- including the “how where or what they may” clause)- so it is more consistent for BYU to also stand as an example of the LDS commitment to religious freedom (all else being equal).
I also agree that religious freedom probably starts with admissions. It is nearly certain that the number of non-LDS admissions is chosen before reviewing merits.
Like you, I think it’s reasonable for the Church to have a dedicated space to educate its adherents. I also think this could and should be done with a mitigated burden on LDS students whose beliefs change during their time here.
Mary Z says:
Jan 18, 2012
It’s just that they lose their ecclesiastical support…letter of reference, whatever. Just amend the code to make it possible for someone wanting to join another faith to get a letter to submit in place of their original Bishop’s letter. What do people who aren’t LDS have to do when they apply for BYU?
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 21, 2012
That seems a reasonable resolution, Mary.
I don’t know what non-LDS applicants do- but my understanding is they pay the elevated tuition, and have to submit ecclesiastical endorsements as often as any student. I believe they can have the BYU Chaplain (a friendly Mormon fellow who works in a back office on the 3rd floor of the WILk, in the BYUSSA section) sign the required form if for some reason their pastor or whatnot can’t or won’t sign it for them.
Mórrígan says:
Jan 18, 2012
An excellent article; I am deeply disturbed by this particular policy. It is entirely hypocritical to go on and on about religious freedom (especially in the discussion of gay marriage and other political issues) and to allow, and in fact endorse, such clear infringement of religious freedom at BYU.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 21, 2012
Mórrígan: for good or ill, I think many people will agree with you.
Randall says:
Jan 19, 2012
lol at The Church paying for the Mexican official’s “entertainment” in Provo.
“…and here are two passes for a FREE GAME of bowling at Fat Cat’s!”
*fumbles through pocket, pulling out a wrinkled slip of paper*
“..annnd 15% off a burrito at Costa Vida! I think it’s expired but they hardly ever check.”
Fredco says:
Jan 19, 2012
Newsflash! The BYU administration and the LDS Church are complete hypocrites.
Brad Carmack says:
Jan 21, 2012
Now now Fredco, play nice (and remind me to do the same when I step out of line). http://gordonhinckley.com/12/civility
A bit of relevant humor for those chill and so inclined (http://www.mormongags.com/content/spiritual-feelings#node-inner).
Maintaining Positive Relationships through…coming out « Irresistible (Dis)Grace says:
Jan 22, 2012
[...] Pioneering isn’t *just* about non-Mormon ancestors becoming Mormon (in the same way that religious freedom isn’t just freedom for Mormons to be Mormon), often at great personal cost. Pioneering can also be about someone who grew up several-generation [...]
@arin5000 says:
Jan 25, 2012
BYU I miss you. Mormon culture is fascinating.
Brian says:
Jan 25, 2012
They should not be kicked out but should have their tuition price raised since they are no longer supporting the church that subsidizes their education.
Dallin says:
Jan 27, 2012
member of the lds church pay way less in tuition because part of their education and buy is funded by tithe layers of the church. If they leave the church, it does not make sense for the tithe pagers of said church to continue to fund their education. It makes sense. Someone who gets a sports scholarship for example would have to continue in that sport to have their tuition paid for. If they leave the sport, they generally leave the school as well because they cannot afford it. Same concept. Makes sense to me. Church funds education, leave church, no more funded education
LS says:
Jan 27, 2012
The policy looks like it’s a safeguard to allow BYU to deny a student continuing education for extremist attitudes that have a significant enough impact as to cause disfellowship or excommunication, even if their conduct is not specifically immoral. For example, if a student authored a controversial book about why the Church is a hoax, that publication is not against the honor code but would certainly reflect negatively on the professional and harmonic image of BYU. That seems to be the kind of scenario they are trying to protect themselves from… by granting themselves the option to disassociate themselves with people who choose to disassociate themselves with the Church.
I’m sure that the intention of the policy is NOT to prevent people from following their heart. The official doctrine of the LDS church is that “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” If there is a barrier to converting to another church, I’m sure there is a darn good reason for it. Where is the history behind this policy? It’s the journalist’s job to do that research.
I do know, as a Journalism student, that it is pretty easy to write a skewed article on any topic. The fact that Stott failed to include comments from the leaders of BYU or the LDS church when writing this article and give them a chance to comment on the policy does not give him very good credit as a journalist and leaves me wondering what the rest of the story really is. The Director of Communications is not the right person to ask about that policy… it’s not her department, so she’s not educated on the topic and it’s not in her power to do anything about it. They should have talked to the Honor Code office. This is a published rant, not a professionally thrown red flag.
Furthermore, I know Brad Carmack, the recent graduate quoted in this article. He’s a friend of mine. As much as I like him personally however, his heart has been very much at war with BYU and LDS policies for the last two years. His ability to graduate from BYU because of some of his writings was in serious question last year, so this is a touchy subject for him. If you look, he’s been trolling the comments below the article. His confrontational demeanor does not give me confidence that his opinions are formed with the objective care necessary to appropriately justify an argument.
Just my two cents.
Lynley says:
Jan 29, 2012
Couple of comments after reading this very long, but well-discussed thread:
The honor code is policy, not doctrine. Policy within the church has changed many, many times throughout the years since Joseph Smith. Policy clings closely to culture, though is guided by doctrine on a fundamental level- meaning God works his law of love and justice through what we can understand and handle according to our time and age. This is shown throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon and U.S. and world History, quite frankly.
Most policy change that comes within the church has already been heavily debated and analyzed years before the actual change. It’s good to bring up these questions that don’t sit right with what we believe. It can start the ball of change, rolling. True religious freedom HAS to give rights to the individual, not just the institution. (yes, we have some grass roots) I don’t think the author is throwing out his religion because of this policy- he is simply stating that he doesn’t believe its right. But he continues to support the decision, until it’s reversed. He has hope. And that’s the pattern of change that has existed within the church. We definitely shouldn’t be a church of: “Well, the authorities say so, so that’s that!” History shows that leaders make mistakes. Of course, the hard part is following policy, when you don’t agree with it. And so we write reviews.
Another valid argument that the opposing side takes: these students that leave the church will take others with them. However,I just don’t think that’s a good reason. Our LDS world is rapidly changing. There is so much information out there on the internet and in public forums, that will shake people’s testimonies- we can’t try and put a curtain over it anymore. We have to take it off the shelf and examine it, get through it and figure it out. We can’t be afraid of open discussion. We used to be able to stifle information, very few people were diligent or curious enough to read the history books, mostly just the academia, but with the bloggernacle, its a whole other ballgame.
Making people leave because they changed their beliefs is a negative impact. It sours their opinions even further, with a longer net impact, meaning for the rest of their lives. Most people who change their beliefs and choose to stay at the Y, are usually fairly mild. They aren’t evil, following Satan or the strange dogma that some previous commentators have expressed. They simply don’t believe anymore, usually for fairly rational reasons. After all, in the end, its the spirit that converts. Allowing them to stay out their education at BYU is the right thing to do. I really think BYU should change this part of the Honor Code. And if they are worried about nay-sayers, they might add some sort of clause that if you are actively, caustically opposing the church’s beliefs, than you will be asked to leave. (or is this already in there?)
Great Thread everyone.
Brad Carmack says:
Feb 13, 2012
Great points, Lynley.
You won’t see THAT in the Daily Universe | Confessions of an oxymormon says:
Feb 1, 2012
[...] http://thestudentreview.org/2012/01/13/religious-freedom-at-byu/ [...]
notatroll says:
Mar 25, 2012
It is a pretty clear issue.
Unfortunately, it is clear in two different ways to two different sets of people:
1) For individuals of faith, the issue is whether one can uphold the values of BYU as a nonmember. I would say that one can. I knew several nonmember students while I taught at BYU, and they enriched the religious learning experience for everyone, without threatening institutional values. I would argue that surrounding yourself with only those who agree with you on everything is a terrible way to develop in your faith.
2) For the church administration, the issue is whether there is a difference between a non-LDS student at BYU and an LDS student. Their answer is YES. Before working at BYU, I interviewed with a church official. He pointed out to me that, as a nonmember, I was not a source of concern. They are much more worried about LDS members who are not fully toeing the line. They see BYU as a potential source of doctrine change within the church, and they are doing everything they can to prevent this. He made it clear that the church does not want possibly liberalizing ideas coming out of an institute of learning. Students who leave the church are a potential source of doubt for those around them — much more so than a student of another faith. The church must keep such doubt at bay.
The Catholic church teaches that doubt is an important part of faith. I wish there were more churches that acknowledged that doubt can be a positive thing, instead of loudly declaring absolute knowledge of truth and firm conviction in knowing what God wants. Zealotry evaporates in the light of skepticism (and the admission that you cannot know everything), while real faith grows stronger.