Topic From the Radio

I know most of you don't like listening to local sports talk, and I can understand why. However, yesterday Hans and Monson were talking about the 3 things that they would work on if they were put into the AD position tomorrow and were to have the job for 1 year. I thought it was an interesting conversation, and I can't remember exactly what their answers were, but I have 3 suggestions of the things I'd change if I could (and nothing as silly as firing the Head Coach). I also wonder what your ideas would be.



1. Ask the board of trustees if they are prepared to fund the athletic department to the level that it needs to be funded to compete at the level they say they want it to. The athletic department can't be a high level P5 program on high level G5 money. This includes money for facility improvements, head and assistant coaches, stipends/insurance/etc (all of the things the upper level P5 programs will be doing).



2. Ask that the honor code department be removed from the institution and that all honor code violations be handled between bishop/clergy as it is in the rest of the church. I'm not asking BYU to give up it's stance on Sunday play, just the tattle tale component of the honor code. The honor code is too punitive.



3. Pursue scheduling agreements with the Pac 12 for 3 games a year (including the Utah game), and the Big 12 for 3 games a year. Those games, along with the games with BSU and USU annually are 8 built in games. I am then left with only finding 4 games a year instead of 12. With the P5 conferences looking for improved scheduling (ie Baylor wishing they had a BYU on their OOC schedule compared to what they have), now is the time to start locking these types of things down. Also, it builds in 3 really nice home games a year. I would also try and schedule one of my road games a year as a neutral site game.



Those are my 3. I know at least 2 of them are highly unlikely, even though they are the 2 that would help the sports programs the most.

With #2 -- removing the Honor Code



I suspect BYU will cease to be a university before the Honor Code is removed. I agree it would wildly change how we could recruit etc.



Here I suspect are the two reasons why:



--BYU sports support BYU's mission-- They are not BYU's mission.



--What would the point of BYU be without an honor code? Education is available elsewhere.

Should the armed forces school get ride of there honor code? No, BYU forces nobody to sign it and we win with class. I not selling BYU's soul to win some football games. We all seen what happens when you bring in guys that can't handle the Lds environment..disaster.

I'm not saying necessarily get rid of the honor code (although some changes would be nice), but to remove the honor code office and have it handled through bishops or other clergy.



And honestly, the only people getting kicked out for honor code violations are when it's a criminal or potentially criminal act or someone gets pregnant. Not much would really change if it were handled by bishops.

BYU would be just fine with the honor code as is, if #1 and #3 improved.



I would add - may be as an offset of #3, that BYU be included at some level in the bowl options for both the PAC 12 and Big 12. For instance, BYU would be eligible to play in each conference bowl games outside of the NY6 - but, with some sort of limitation, such as no bowl game in more than 1 out of 4 years or so. Also, I would convince the Big 12 to add the Las Vegas Bowl to their lineup and the PAC 12 to add the Armed Forces Bowl to their lineup, such there would be 4 bowl games in which the matchup could be BYU-PAC 12, BYU-Big 12, or PAC 12-Big 12 (Alamo, Cactus, Las Vegas, and Armed Forces Bowls).



Also, as part of the PAC 12 and Big 12 scheduling agreements, I would look to include 3 basketball games with each conference per year.

I would pursue a bowl agreement with another conference. We might have to give up something but with a chance to improve our bowl situation, that might help the local fans feel like we have something to play for. I could see it helping the conference negotiate a better bowl lineup.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
I'm not saying necessarily get rid of the honor code (although some changes would be nice), but to remove the honor code office and have it handled through bishops or other clergy.



And honestly, the only people getting kicked out for honor code violations are when it's a criminal or potentially criminal act or someone gets pregnant. Not much would really change if it were handled by bishops.

Honor code issues are already handled by local clergy (bishops). The Honor Code office serves as a liaison between the University and the bishop. Bishops resolve honor code issues.

One of the points being made on the radio is that the honor code shouldn't be more difficult to live than getting a temple recommend is and that BYU students shouldn't have to live something that is beyond what an active, faithful church member lives.



I can totally understand and get behind that. Don't make recruits live a law that is higher than temple worthiness...

BYU is not the church and it's not the temple. If the leaders at BYU feel that the honor code needs to be more stringent than the lowest common denominator so that they can preserve a unique atmosphere there, then I support that, because I believe that having that atmosphere is a big part of why BYU exists in the first place.

Temple recommends measure worthiness. The honor code is a standard of conduct behavior and appearance. There is overlap to be sure, but the two are really doing two different things.

The Honor Code suggestion comes across as "Let's make the Honor Code harder to enforce and easier for these guys to disregard." That position would preclude that person from consideration for the position as the AD at BYU--they'd never get past President Worthen, much less the BoT.

I have no problem whatsoever with the church determining that to attend BYU you must abide by an honor code above and beyond what the average member lives.



If I had kids that attended a private K-12 school I would expect them to have an honor code that includes dress and grooming standards. When I travel and meet with clients for work I have a dress and grooming standard to follow as well. It's about representing something more than just yourself, and by joining yourself to that institution you're agreeing to follow their guidelines of how they want to be represented.

Well, I guess I'm outvoted on the Honor Code issue.



When a simple survey taken on campus shows that 60% of women on campus have had some sort of sexual activity that would be against the honor code (was sited in a sltrib story a few years ago, but wasn't a study done by the trib), and really only students who end up pregnant or the father, are arrested, or who's names show up in the newspaper are punished, I'm not really advocating that the honor code become easier to get around. It's already pretty easy to do so.

My fear is that athletic competition at BYU, as we know it now, will end. The only good part of that is I won't have to listen to the Sunday morning QB Monson. IMO, What an arrogant idiot..,

stuckinbig10country wrote:
Well, I guess I'm outvoted on the Honor Code issue.



When a simple survey taken on campus shows that 60% of women on campus have had some sort of sexual activity that would be against the honor code (was sited in a sltrib story a few years ago, but wasn't a study done by the trib), and really only students who end up pregnant or the father, are arrested, or who's names show up in the newspaper are punished, I'm not really advocating that the honor code become easier to get around. It's already pretty easy to do so.

I'm with you on this.



The grooming standards are just to put a nice wrapper on the student body. If BYU Bishops actually reported everything they hear to the HC office there would be half as many students.



I am fine with BYU having a standard for its students, but in my opinion it shouldn't be any more than what is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Temple worthiness isn't the lowest denominator. It's the highest denominator. Anything "above" temple worthiness is Sadducees/Pharisees junk - "Hey, look, I'm more righteous than you because I went to BYU and lived higher than the highest standards of worthiness! Go me!"



The problem with the HC is it is superficial. It puts emphasis on the appearance of righteousness over actual righteousness - "As long as my hair is neat, no one will know..."



It's human nature to compare, so the HC with its superficial standards fosters an environment where everyone one is comparing their righteousness to others and definitely keeping their unrighteousness hidden.



Anyone that's studied psychology will tell you secrecy and repression are the biggest catalysts for compulsive/destructive behavior. The first step in getting someone to change is to acknowledge the behavior. The HC encourages the exact opposite. People make mistakes - we all have need of healing - but the HC with it shinny wrapper of righteousness incentives people to keep their weakness hidden and that secrecy just fuels the compulsions.



There's a reason Utah has the highest per capita use of porn in the US, the highest per capita use of anti-depressants (particularly among women), and the highest per capita use of plastic surgery (have to keep up with the image of perfection).

I disagree that temple worthiness is the highest denominator. That's a hurdle to cross on the way to something greater, not the end of the road.



Do you also think that the Church needs to do away with the more stringent rules/dress code they impose upon the missionaries and General Authorities? Don't the same arguments that are being made here also bear against the GA and missionary dress and behavior regulations?

If we only let guys have long hair and beards and girls to wear slutty clothes then porn usage will stop!



It should also be noted that that Utah has highest porn usage wives tell has long since been debunked by actual studies.

snoscythe wrote:
I disagree that temple worthiness is the highest denominator. That's a hurdle to cross on the way to something greater, not the end of the road.



Do you also think that the Church needs to do away with the more stringent rules/dress code they impose upon the missionaries and General Authorities? Don't the same arguments that are being made here also bear against the GA and missionary dress and behavior regulations?

If one is worthy to enter the temple, one is worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. What's higher than the Celestial Kingdom? It's not the end of the road, but it's the ticket that gets you there. Right now, I am worthy enough to qualify for the full blessings of the atonement and enter the presence of God. I am, however, not worthy enough to attend BYU because I have a beard, never mind the fact there's a good chance God also has a beard, in which case he couldn't go to BYU either. :bug:



For most people that haven't grown up surrounded by people seemingly temple worthy, temple worthiness is actually a really hard thing to obtain and sustain. So while it may be ho-hum to you - big deal everyone is temple worthy - I actually look at it as quite the accomplishment and the HC actually waters down this accomplishment - temple worthiness is great and all, but if you're REALLY righteous you abide by the HC. :roll:



GA and missionaries are called and set apart to be special witnesses of Christ. In the case of GAs they are paid and like any job have a "uniform" that they are supposed to wear. Comparing students at BYU to ordained missionaries is apples and oranges. Do you wear a suit wherever you go because you're Mormon and Mormon missionaries where suits?



No student is called or set apart to attend BYU. God didn't not come to me or through one of his ordained representatives and ask me to attend BYU. I applied. I got good grades, took a test, filled out an application and crossed my fingers as anyone in the entire world can do regardless of faith. An atheist could attend BYU if they wanted to. Me attending BYU or not has no consequence of failing to serve the Lord.



There is a time and season for all things. Missionary work is not student work.



Furthermore, the dress and grooming standards of missionaries conform to society's standard of cleanliness and presentability. 120 years ago just about every male LDS missionary and GA had a beard.



Like it or not, but the Church's "standards" for modesty and grooming change.

Gunk wrote:

I disagree that temple worthiness is the highest denominator. That's a hurdle to cross on the way to something greater, not the end of the road.



Do you also think that the Church needs to do away with the more stringent rules/dress code they impose upon the missionaries and General Authorities? Don't the same arguments that are being made here also bear against the GA and missionary dress and behavior regulations?

If one is worthy to enter the temple, one is worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. What's higher than the Celestial Kingdom? It's not the end of the road, but it's the ticket that gets you there. Right now, I am worthy enough to qualify for the full blessings of the atonement and enter the presence of God. I am, however, not worthy enough to attend BYU because I have a beard, never mind the fact there's a good chance God also has a beard, in which case he couldn't go to BYU either. :bug:



For most people that haven't grown up surrounded by people seemingly temple worthy, temple worthiness is actually a really hard thing to obtain and sustain. So while it may be ho-hum to you - big deal everyone is temple worthy - I actually look at it as quite the accomplishment and the HC actually waters down this accomplishment - temple worthiness is great and all, but if you're REALLY righteous you abide by the HC. :roll:



GA and missionaries are called and set apart to be special witnesses of Christ. In the case of GAs they are paid and like any job have a "uniform" that they are supposed to wear. Comparing students at BYU to ordained missionaries is apples and oranges. Do you wear a suit wherever you go because you're Mormon and Mormon missionaries where suits?



No student is called or set apart to attend BYU. God didn't not come to me or through one of his ordained representatives and ask me to attend BYU. I applied. I got good grades, took a test, filled out an application and crossed my fingers as anyone in the entire world can do regardless of faith. An atheist could attend BYU if they wanted to. Me attending BYU or not has no consequence of failing to serve the Lord.



There is a time and season for all things. Missionary work is not student work.



Furthermore, the dress and grooming standards of missionaries conform to society's standard of cleanliness and presentability. 120 years ago just about every male LDS missionary and GA had a beard.



Like it or not, but the Church's "standards" for modesty and grooming change.

I'm pretty sure that a missionary is not a "special witness of Christ." A missionary is an ordained minister, but is not one of Christ’s special witnesses, that’s a title given only to an Apostle (I believe).

Further, your beard doesn’t make you “unworthy” to attend BYU. You appear to be mixing your ‘zukes and your cuce’s. Having a beard is not a worthiness issue, choosing to obey the honor code is a decision that is made beforehand – it is an eligibility requirement. much like graduating high school or taking the ACT.

It bugs me that the beard zealots use the hackneyed argument that Brigham Young couldn’t attend the school, or God couldn’t attend the school. Guess what – it’s a stupid argument. Brigham Young cannot attend the school because he’s DEAD! Also, it’s God’s School. If he wanted beards at BYU don’t you think that they’d be allowed? Are you seriously arguing that God wants BYU to have beards, but the Prophet and Apostles are actively keeping that from happening? The Brethren are literally thwarting God’s every intention to bring Beards to his own school? Because that’s the only logical conclusion I get from you bringing him into the discussion… If, on the other hand, God is willing to allow those issues to be sorted out without his micromanaging, isn’t it awfully disingenuous to bring him into the discussion?



The only way having a beard becomes a worthiness issue is if you agree to not have one, and then despite your agreement, choose to have one. Then, you are not only not worthy to go to BYU but also unworthy to go to the temple, because you are at that time not honest in your dealings with your fellow men.

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for beards, and I'm bearded myself--HW and Spiff can attest, but when I went to BYU, and when I went on my mission I was clean shaven when it was asked of me. I knew it was a requirement when I applied to BYU, and I knew it was a requirement when I submitted my papers. Complaining about it would be like someone who borrowed money and then threw a fit when the bank wanted me to pay them back a little each month because it wasn't fair--what exactly were you expecting??



Jesus, Brigham Young, and any other historical figure who had a beard could totally be a GA or attend BYU today. They'd just have to shave--it would be a choice for them just like everyone else today. It's not like Lorenzo Snow's beard is a permanent attachment to his face.



That argument is like saying "Jesus, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Snow couldn't fly on an airplane if they lived today because they never had a government issued ID!!!" It makes you stupider for having said it.