BYU dismisses player

[Palodios]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

[Emmz]

So, what you're saying is you are defending the decision even though you know it's illogical. Defending the school's decision is being an advocate for it, any way you slice it. The punishment did not fit the "crime." End of story.

 

As for doing thorough research on this subject, nuh-uh. I don't care enough about Mormons or the Book of Mormon to waste my time.

 

1. I never considered it "illogical". I don't agree with them, however, they're entitled to their belief system, and they're allowed to enforce their honor code.

 

2. Once again, the punishment didn't fit the crime in your opinion. We've already established you disagree with them, so let's not waste our time on it anymore.

 

3. I don't expect you to care about the Mormons, but it is expected to know what you're talking about.

[Emmz]

So does post-marital sex. We should prohibit that as well.

 

Sort of irrelevant, isn't it?

[Keeper]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

Did you just say ridicurous?

[Emmz]

Did you just say ridicurous?

 

You know, you're NOT Chinese.

[Keeper]

1. I never considered it "illogical". I don't agree with them, however, they're entitled to their belief system, and they're allowed to enforce their honor code.

 

2. Once again, the punishment didn't fit the crime in your opinion. We've already established you disagree with them, so let's not waste our time on it anymore.

 

3. I don't expect you to care about the Mormons, but it is expected to know what you're talking about.

 

If prohibiting premarital sex isn't illogical, what is it? How exactly don't you agree with them?

 

And once again, it should be self-evident to just about any rational person that the punishment did not fit the crime. As I am generally a rational person, I think my opinion is applicable to a lot of people.

 

I do know what I'm talking about. Just because I haven't read the Book of Mormon doesn't mean I don't have an informed opinion on BYU's decision.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I'm still trying to figure out what is you guys are arguing about.

[Cocos Disciples]

I'm with Emmz on this. I am not Mormon but I know a few. Polygamy is absolutely not practiced, except in the very most extreme cases. You know what you're signing up for by going to BYU, it's an honor code and they should be expected to abide by it.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

They have the right to believe in their religion, just as much as you have the right to not follow one. Why do you want to take away their rights? The beauty of it is choice-- if you want to go there and follow their beliefs, you have the option. If not, go to one of the other 3000 schools in the country that don't give a flying f*** about who you have sex with.

 

If you can't tolerate other view points, how does that make you any better than those who follow control-based religions? Tolerance, and openness are the solutions to all religous-conflicts.

 

Isn't that what I said? He should've gone to another school? Oh, and I never said I wanted to take away anyone's rights, I am, again, stating my opinion on it. Someone can express their disdain for something without lobbying to take the option away.

 

The game as you see it is not the way others see it.

 

And I care... why?

[Emmz]

And I care... why?

 

Dunno, I always hated being hypocritical, I thought maybe you were the same way.

 

Either way, this post pretty much takes away the merit of your entire argument. You're intolerant, but accusing them of intolerance.

[Emmz]

If prohibiting premarital sex isn't illogical, what is it? How exactly don't you agree with them?

 

And once again, it should be self-evident to just about any rational person that the punishment did not fit the crime. As I am generally a rational person, I think my opinion is applicable to a lot of people.

 

I do know what I'm talking about. Just because I haven't read the Book of Mormon doesn't mean I don't have an informed opinion on BYU's decision.

 

1. There are consequences, so it certainly is not "illogical".

 

2. I do not agree with the code, I never said I would agree to an honor code that prohibits premarital sex. However, the student in question did. He should be punished for breaking an agreement. He was punished, which is what I agree with.

 

3. You might think you're a rational person, others might think you're a rational person, but so far you've yet to display any substantial backing to your original statement, or even towards the argument that BYU is in the wrong.

 

4. You're avoiding this. The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with your argument against BYU, the Book of Mormon has to do with your argument that Mormons practice polygamy, which is prohibited by the Book of Mormon.

[Palodios]

And once again' date=' it should be self-evident to just about any rational person that the punishment did not fit the crime.[/quote']

 

I just don't see this as any different than how the NFL reacts to personal mishaps. Just like the NFL, colleges like to have certain reputations. This player went against their reputation in a big way, even if its not something that you or I believe is wrong. Do you want to know what the Mormon schools in the country are? BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and LDS. That's it.

[Emmz]

I just don't see this as any different than how the NFL reacts to personal mishaps. Just like the NFL' date=' colleges like to have certain reputations. This player went against their reputation in a big way, even if its not something that you or I believe is wrong.[/b'] Do you want to know what the Mormon schools in the country are? BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and LDS. That's it.

 

The bolded pretty much sums this up in the best way. I would never agree with those terms, but if I for some reason did, I would be expected to follow them.

[Keeper]

1. There are consequences, so it certainly is not "illogical".

 

2. I do not agree with the code, I never said I would agree to an honor code that prohibits premarital sex. However, the student in question did. He should be punished for breaking an agreement. He was punished, which is what I agree with.

 

3. You might think you're a rational person, others might think you're a rational person, but so far you've yet to display any substantial backing to your original statement, or even towards the argument that BYU is in the wrong.

 

4. You're avoiding this. The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with your argument against BYU, the Book of Mormon has to do with your argument that Mormons practice polygamy, which is prohibited by the Book of Mormon.

 

1. That's weak. So if an action has consequences and that action is banned, there is definitely logic to banning that action? And don't say I'm putting words in your mouth because that is exactly what you just said.

 

2. He was punished severely for breaking a blatantly stupid code, yes. If a code says I can't drink soda with a straw, and I break that code, should I be punished? It's not about following rules and regulations; it's about whether or not those rules and regulations are justified.

 

3. Again, self-evident. There is nothing inherently wrong with premarital sex. On a purely biological level, premarital sex is no different than post-marital sex. And what is ethically wrong with it? Just because the puritanical prudes turn their noses up at it doesn't mean it's wrong. If I haven't said anything of substance, then you haven't either.

 

4. But there are Mormons who do practice polygamy! They may be in the minority, as you say, but there are thousands of them out there. It wouldn't be the first time that a religious group hasn't followed its text. Christians and Jews and Muslims who say they are devout frequently do things that their teachings explicitly tell them not to do. And the religious leaders are no exception.

[Emmz]

1. That's weak. So if an action has consequences and that action is banned, there is definitely logic to banning that action? And don't say I'm putting words in your mouth because that is exactly what you just said.

 

2. He was punished severely for breaking a blatantly stupid code, yes. If a code says I can't drink soda with a straw, and I break that code, should I be punished? It's not about following rules and regulations; it's about whether or not those rules and regulations are justified.

 

3. Again, self-evident. There is nothing inherently wrong with premarital sex. On a purely biological level, premarital sex is no different than post-marital sex. And what is ethically wrong with it? Just because the puritanical prudes turn their noses up at it doesn't mean it's wrong. If I haven't said anything of substance, then you haven't either.

 

4. But there are Mormons who do practice polygamy! They may be in the minority, as you say, but there are thousands of them out there. It wouldn't be the first time that a religious group hasn't followed its text. Christians and Jews and Muslims who say they are devout frequently do things that their teachings explicitly tell them not to do. And the religious leaders are no exception.

 

1. Illogical means that there's no logic. There definitely is a logical reason, I named just one of those reasons, another is simply that it is their belief system, something that you're in compliance with simply by attending the school.

 

2. We've been through this several times, and we've established you're intolerant of their religious views. However, your opinion really doesn't cut it in this argument when you're putting it above the opinions of others.

 

As for your other point, that's incorrect, the rules are justified. It's not a high school, it's a religious, private institution, where they're allowed to have their own regulations, as long as they cooperate with the laws of the United States. Your comparison is just silly and irrational.

 

3. They have their own principles, we have ours. He agreed to the rules, that's really all there is to it.

 

4. Logical fallacy, you implied that BYU condones polygamy, which I will repeat again, is prohibited by the Book of Mormon. You're really starting to backpedal.

 

I think what is getting lost in this discussion about following the rules of the school is this is actually a really good point.

 

It's extremely hypocritical for Mormons to condemn premarital sex while condoning the boning of multiple spouses. They need a morality reality check.

[Keeper]

3. Again' date=' self-evident. There is nothing inherently wrong with premarital sex. On a purely biological level, premarital sex is no different than post-marital sex. And what is ethically wrong with it? Just because the puritanical prudes turn their noses up at it doesn't mean it's wrong.[/quote']

 

Care to respond? Because this is really the heart of the matter.

 

I should have also said it's about whether or not the rules and regulations are justified and have merit.

 

I'm not intolerant of Mormons; I'm intolerant of stupidity. If by backpedaling, you mean beating you in this argument, then yes I am backpedaling big time.

[Emmz]

If you were beating me, you wouldn't have to try to make this an uncivilized argument. You are backpedaling, your argument, as I pointed out with your earlier post, has changed very much since the start of this discussion.

 

Anyways, I did respond, which you chose to ignore. Either way, I choose to not carry this discussion any further, because it appears that you can't continue in a civilized manner.

[Keeper]

Yes, I've been so uncivilized...

[italstallianion]

At least they let the player cut part of the netting down when BYU clinched the MWC title.

[snydersminipretzels]

I'm not sure what Brandon Davies has to do with polygamy, but the founder of Mormonism condoned polygamy and enthusiastically practiced it. Also, Brigham Young sealed many of Smith's plural marriages, and the Book of Mormon contradicts itself on the issue of polygamy. I'd guess the mainstream Mormons abandoned the practice for the same reasons that they stopped calling blacks "the people of Ham."

[Emmz]

Yes he did, however, in those days there really weren't laws in place to prohibit polygamy. In those times, you could enslave human beings. It doesn't make it right, it was always wrong (at least in my mind), however, religions tend to evolve with the times. As with all religious ideas, as they evolve, they tend to "contradict each other".

 

This is 2011, and you did not mention where it says in the Book of Mormon that disobeying the law is sinful (This maybe is what you mean by contradicting their ideas on polygamy).

 

Regardless, I agree that Mormons used to practice polygamy, but that's not the point. In fact, the whole discussion on polygamy is sort of irrelevant to the actual issue. It was brought up irrationally.

[snydersminipretzels]

I mean that there are texts in the Book of Mormon in Doctrine & Covenants that explicitly condone polygamy.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

If you were beating me' date=' you wouldn't have to try to make this an uncivilized argument.[/quote']

 

Yeah, cause you never do this.

[Emmz]

Yeah' date=' cause you never do this.[/quote']

 

Yes, but who's doing it now?

[Emmz]

I mean that there are texts in the Book of Mormon in Doctrine & Covenants that explicitly condone polygamy.

 

Agreed.

 

I agree that Mormons used to practice polygamy

 

But, there are texts that explicitly forbid breaking the law, regardless of what country you live in. This is the important piece of information, which I have repeated several times.

[Flynnatic10]

I don't get this thread.

[italstallianion]

Just look at the first few posts in the first page and call it a day. After that it goes in a downward spiral, which I would like to make a note that I had nothing to do with.

[Emmz]

Not too much of a downward spiral, it's not often that religion discussion goes that long in a civilized manner.

[Dojji]

I'm with Emmz on this. I am not Mormon but I know a few. Polygamy is absolutely not practiced' date=' except in the very most extreme cases. You know what you're signing up for by going to BYU, it's an honor code and they should be expected to abide by it.[/quote']

 

Actually, the practice of polygamy is firmly banned in the modern Church, and has been explicitly banned since around the turn of the century when the federal government threatened to dissolve the church and seize our temples if we didn't abandon the practice. The decision at the time was that you could do everything you had to do to be a good Mormon and not practice plural marriage, so the practice was banned by the Church in compliance with law. The reason you still have a handful of Utah polygamists is because this is, after all, a religion, and every religion has a few nuts who take a single point of doctrine beyond all sanity, much less law.

 

Anyway, the point is that far from condoning the practice,. those caught practicing it are immediately excommunicated.

 

If you people are looking for the proclamation in Mormon scripture that confirms the ban, it isn't in the Book of Mormon. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants,, Joseph Smith's book of modern revelation (as opposed to the Book of Mormon, which per canon is a translated book of ancient revelation).

 

Yes, I'm a Mormon. No, I have no intention of getting into an extended religious discussion. I'm just here to flesh out a few facts and then duck and run.

 

For the record, the Mormon church has an open canon. What that means is that modern revelation is not just a reinterpretation of ancient revelation. Entirely new knowledge can be added, and is added, to the canon on a semi regular basis. The most recent was in 1978, granting the right of priesthood to all males regardless of race. This doesn't make what was said in the past wrong, what was said was correct when it's said, it's just that we've received new instructions that are more relevant now. In practice, then, modern revelation can replace the instructions from ancient revelation, since we believe in modern Prophets being equivalent in authority and more relevant in practice than ancient ones.

 

That makes a discussion of the LDS canon a little dicey compared to reinterpretationist faiths, such as much of Christianity, which evolve by rereading a closed canon differently. I only bring this up because it's relevant to the polygamy subdiscussion. You have to understand this to recognize why we don't consider seeming contradictions with ancient law to be a problem.

[Dojji]

If prohibiting premarital sex isn't illogical, what is it? How exactly don't you agree with them?

 

And once again, it should be self-evident to just about any rational person that the punishment did not fit the crime. As I am generally a rational person, I think my opinion is applicable to a lot of people.

 

I do know what I'm talking about. Just because I haven't read the Book of Mormon doesn't mean I don't have an informed opinion on BYU's decision.

 

Any particular reason why you're acting like you're on trial here? I'm curious why you're so very invested emotionally in this discussion.

 

And actually, taking the time to understand my faith might be very informative in the quest to understand why Mormons take marital fidelity so very seriously. There IS a reason, and it's CRUCIALLY important to the way we look at things.

 

BTW this is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter exactly what the rules of the honor code were. They could ban walking around dressed like a chicken, getting a tat, wearing gang colors, doing illegal drugs, doesn't matter. If you do what the rules say you aren't supposed to do, you incur the consequence. Sucks for the kid, sucks for the team, but this isn't unfair. Things that suck are not unfair by definition.