OLB wrote:

etyotx wrote:

I haven't heard that it is req'd that one only attend his own ward.

After I got married while going to school at BYU, my wife and I attended the Provo 9th Ward in the Provo East Stake. (As a side note, the Provo 9th Ward no longer exists as ward boundries were reshuffled about 2.5 years ago, and ward were given "geographic" names).

While we were in the Provo 9th Ward, I served as Executive Secretary and then later as Ward Clerk. I can tell you that, having attended many Bishopric and PEC meetings, that one topic for discussion were the couples/families that never could quite make it to our ward -- because they were constantly attending church somewhere else. One week they'd be at "his" parents ward. The next week they were at "her" parents ward. The next week they were at some homecoming/farewell. The next week they were at a baby blessing of a friend. Yes they were attending church, but the point is they were going to church without having to commit or actively help build up the kingdom. Because their attendance was so infrequent to their own ward, the Bishopric felt like they didn't really know the members well enough to give them a calling. Additionally, they sometimes felt that these traveling church goers wouldn't be at church every Sunday in order to fulfill their callings.

On the flip side, we always had frequent visitors (people that always came because they were "visiting" someone in our ward). If you didn't know better, you'd think they were a member of the 9th Ward. But we couldn't extend callings to these people, because they weren't in our ward.

People are required to attend their own ward. Ask any Stake President. That is where we give of our time, talents and energy in building up the kingdom. When you travel so much, you are basically getting a free ride to church services, one for which you are not paying back by contributing to your own ward through service in a calling.

I see your point but still feel getting kicked out of school is going to the extreme. Makes me all the more glad I never tried to attend BYU. I will be comfortable just being a fan of the school's athletics because there is no way in he..ck I could have handled this type of action. I would be perfectly understanding if this player and his family are bitter at the Church. And yet, someone who's been away from it for an extended period of time and engaged in MANY immoral and illegal practices could be welcomed back to Church? It doesn't make any sense. I know this young man could have engaged more in ward activity, we all can, but to kick him out of the university? C'mon, this is embarassing for him, his family and the Church. It is why I have to keep reminding myself that the Gospel is perfect, not the people.

Slugger wrote:

no way in he..ck

It's got to be a bunch of mormons on this board. Can't even get a word like that out without masking it somehow...

Im really confused by this!! Is it "legal" to do this? I understand that the school has its policies, but is it mandatory for every student athlete to attend church, every sunday?
It sounds like a really bad case of religous politics to me! Sometimes when you give someone power, they take it to the extreme and abuse it.

splitbamboo wrote:

Slugger wrote:

no way in he..ck

It's got to be a bunch of mormons on this board. Can't even get a word like that out without masking it somehow... :laugh:

Ha ha, no...it's part of my "daily repentance" to avoid choice words which seem to come quite easily for me. Hey, at least I'm trying!

I have seen once or twice now that a few would be offended if this happened to them. I have also seen a few comments saying that they would totally understand if this family affected by this situation would be bitter or upset at the Church. May I suggest a conference talk from October 2006. It is found in the November 2006 Ensign or on the LDS.org website. The talk is by Elder Bednar called "And Nothing Shall Offend Them". I would link directly to the talk but this website is still not fixed with the __underscore___ issue.

I know that I have benefitted from reading this conference talk and inspired words of admonition anytime I get feelings of such similar nature.

OLB wrote:

lawman wrote:

My sense is that once the bishop and the stake president made their decision, there was no way that a general authority could come in to overrule them. It's kind of like where an official makes a bad call that decides the outcome of the game, they don't go back and overturn the result (i.e. Oregon at Oklahoma football a couple of years back).

I totally disagree with this. Do you really think that some General Authority, or a member of the Twelve is going to feel pressure not to over turn this type of ruling. Pressure from who? Some student ward Bishop and a student stake President. Those guys are a dime-a-dozen. If anything, the high-ranking Church leaders would feel pressure not to overturn the decision.

Stake Presidents having their policies/decisions slapped down all the time. It is just part of being a Stake President.

One thing nobody has talked about yet is if this guy is going to file an appeal -- rather, appeal directly to a GA or a member of the Twelve. I know that Kearl and the Bishop already got the sign-off from a member of the Twelve, but it doesn't preclude the student from appealing the decision himself.

I actually know of a situation that happened where a GA called a bishop and told him he needed to apologize for a decision/action he made. Of course, the bishop explained what happened the GA said nevermind. It turns out that the parents' side of the story lacked a few details when being conveyed to the GA

The fact that this reached a member of the qourom of the twelve and was not reversed tells me that they agreed. I fully believe that a special witness of a just God would reverse an injustice made on a member of the just God's church if that were the case.