RMGuy

Validation usually feels good.

JAG, it looks like he is...he's been in deseretnews a few times as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Paredes

A bishops take on the election results: http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/good_riddance_to_harry_reid_the_mormon_senate_leader

Non-LDS troop.

TFP, if your local or stake leaders believe that your asking these questions lead members to question their faith, or worse leave, they will invite you to come in and give an accounting of yourself. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is useful. Shake some members testimonies and the leaders will pretty quickly act to protect the good name of the church.

@Avatar, You will find no argument from me regarding the idea that there are still real problems throughout the world. However, it is still my premise that the world is getting better, not worse. Yes, slavery still exists and I agree that sexual slavery is particularly pernicious. However, my statement stands that there is less slavery in the world than throuout history. If you have data that suggests otherwise, I would be interested in reading your citations.

You can get invited to a court of love simply for speaking the truth. Good luck with the survey however, I'm quite interested in your results.

I like OWH on this one, "your right to swing your fists ends where the other mans nose begins."

Letter of the law? Spirit of the law? Interpretation of the law? Which one ya want?

Sell all that thou hast and follow me. A lot of people want to claim discipleship, but can't seem to let go of their comfort. I'm not there myself, but I will say that the older I get the more I see the prosperity gospel as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

Such as: "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday." Why not just call a spade a spade. She was 14. I too am glad they released the essays and are being more open than in the past. This however is a good example of the 'spin' PV was referencing.

Yes. Living in a time when at least one state issues an extermination order against you based on your religion, the federal government sends an army to your door based on rumors and heresay, the Irish starving, spiritualism and seance sweeping the US, rampant Cholera - typhus - tuberculosis, Astor Place riots, passage of the fugitive slave act, Dred Scott decision, Civil War, Excessive poverty, work houses, Edmunds-Tucker act and church disenfranchised, syphillis hits its all time peak, whiskey ring bribery, Sumner caning, Philip Key killing, the Wounded Knee murders, Sage dynamite attack, The homestead steel strike, mountain meadows, and of course we could go on. Yes, that sounds like a wonderful time to live. I'll respond line by line if I may: Is more divorce a good thing or a bad thing? Better to stay in abusive relationships? You see physical discipline of children as a good thing? I'm not sure that your poverty demographics are accurate. Poverty was rampant in inner cities throughout history. Church membership increase and diversity is a good thing is it not? Access to information is a good thing, I don't know that we have increased ignorance. $$ spent on entertainment could be better spend elsewhere, no question. Why do we have specific roles for genders anyway? My daughters are just as capable as my son and vice-versa. Is class a good thing? Really? Have you read the Elizabethan sumptuary laws. Now there is regulation for you. I don't see children as assets or liabilities. I see them as people. This is clearly a bad thing, if you agree with what is being taught. Yep. Not sure the intent here with dating and dances. Yes, we deride "nerds" yet nearly worship their creations. An interesting dichotomy.

I have to go with the world is a better place now than at any time in recorded history. Yes, there are issues. Clearly there is evil. Yet, would anyone really want to live at another time in history. We have better opportunities. Less disease. Less slavery, oppression, and death. While we hear about bad things happening it is easy to lose sight of the good around us. If we think life was somehow better historically, we need to o more study of history.

I'm not a fan of what we did to God save the Queen either. Respectful to whom?

I refuse to sing it, but for a different reason. Here are the real lyrics: High in the misty Highlands Out by the purple islands, Brave are the hearts that beat Beneath Scottish skies. Wild are the winds to meet you, Staunch are the friends that greet you, Kind as the love that shines from fair maidens' eyes. Towering in gallant fame, Scotland my mountain hame, High may your proud standards gloriously wave, Land of my high endeavour, Land of the shining river, Land of my heart for ever, Scotland the brave. Thousands hold that tune sacred. I view what we did to it as asking to someone parading around in temple robes on Saturday Night Live. Disgusting.

JAG, This policy applies to ALL campus groups. That means that you, as a white guy could join the NAACP chapter on campus. You could even run for office. Lions, and tigers and bears...oh my!

It s not just religious organizations that are impacted. Political ones face the same challenge. College democrats for example must follow the same rules. <gasp>! What if a republican tries to join and take over?!?! If LDSSA is a church organization then it should follow the rules of the church. If LDSSA is a University of California organization then it should follow the rules of the University of California If it attempts to be both then it needs to be subject to both, or make a decision as to which one it wants to affiliate with if both are impossible. After all, no man can serve two masters...and we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law... Or is that only when the outcome is favorable to us?

Many individuals here seem to be taking the stance that an organization should be free to determine its own rules and then simultaneously denying that right to the larger organization. If a student organization is allowed to set its own rules governing its operation, then why is not the parent organization permitted to do the same? The problem here is that these are not independent student organizations but rather organizations that are sponsored by and affiliated with the attendant university and as such different laws apply to universities (particularly public ones) than apply to religious organizations. Should a bishop be allowed to ordain women if the majority of his congregants support that? No! Why? Because the affiliated with a larger church organization that sets other guidelines. That bishop and ward membership would be free to start their own church and set whatever rules they want, but they are not free to call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor to continue to use the ward building. The church is and probably would excommunicate them for not "following the rules." Rightly so. It is the same thing here. No one is saying that these groups may not form, nor that these groups may meet, nor establish whatever rules that they see fit for membership or leadership. What is being said is that the parent organization (in this case the university) gets a say in what those rules are. If you don't agree then you cannot be a UNIVERSITY Club.

PC, I don't take issue with Christian groups wanting to have their leaders affirm their beliefs. Please don't misunderstand me, I fully support them doing so. On our campus we have numerous christian groups of various denominations. Many of them are RSO (registered student organizations) and as "student organizations" they are governed my the office of student life. Including the requirement that they not discriminate with regards to membership or leadership eligibility. I am unaware of any problems of them being overrun by the heathen hordes. Most of students who don't believe in God or agree with the precepts of an organization simply don't join it. I am sure it is possible, but I'm not really a fan of discriminating against others on the basis of what might possibly happen. There are other christian and non-christian organizations in our community that students participate in (LDSSA for one) that are not RSO's. The university does not inhibit those institutions in anyway, because they are not part of the university nor recognized by it. They meet in locations of their choice, allow or disallow members as they see fit, and select their leaders as they wish. Back in 1987, I heard a number of people complain about how allowing women into Rotary was going to ruin the organization. I know individuals who resigned their membership because they shouldn't have to allow women into their club if they didn't want to. The ones who lost out were the ones that left. I think it is a more vibrant organization because of it.

..or consider it this way. I would like to bring my non-member neighbor in to see the celestial room. I pay tithing after all so I should be permitted to do this, correct? No? Why not? Because the building is owned by the church. They are permitted to set the rules governing who is admitted or not and under what conditions. The university or college is permitted the same right. They own the buildings and the power to recognize registered student organizations or not. That doesn't mean the students can't organize, and it doesn't mean they can't meet. It just means they can't reserve a room at the university or call themselves a university group if they aren't willing to abide by the rules the governing organization has set, which rules are not based on a whim, but in compliance with applicable law.

Let's try this from a slightly different standpoint though completely hypothetical. Let's assume for a moment that a muslim group forms on a local campus. Their stated goal is to study the Koran to better understand the words of Allah. Jim Jones from backwoods middle of nowhere is attending the university. He is an atheist. In his required math 101 class he meets Ibrahim, a member of our muslim group. Ibrahim invites Jim to their next meeting. Jim decides to attend why not, he is friends with Ibrahim and is curious about his religion and culture. A. He shows up at the meeting and is told he may not join because he is not Muslim. Even though the group is meeting in a building funded by Jim's tuition dollars and his parents taxes. B. He shows up and is welcomed to join the group. We go with scenario B. Jim attends the meeting and at the end decides to join the group. He is still an athiest and there is a lot of suspicion among some members of the group. Jim attends meetings and activities regularly. He makes a number of friends. Though he still doesn't believe in Allah or Islam he still finds value in his participation. 3 years later Jim is a senior. Some of his closest friends on campus are members of the group. He decides to run through the election process for treasurer. That is when is is told: A. Sorry, no one can have a leadership position in this student group unless they are Islamic and appointed by the local Imam. B. Please feel free to run. The members of the group will vote you in or out as they deem fit. Why are we so afraid of second option in both of these instances? All the school is saying is that if you want to use our facilities then you have to provide equal access to all students. The group is still free to not vote for the atheist in the second instance. If you want to discriminate against LEGALLY PROTECTED CLASSES then we cannot be a party to that discrimination. You will need to do so on your own time, your own location, and at your own expense. If this muslim student group meets at the local mosque they are free to not allow anyone in their doors they choose. They are free to select their leaders anyway they like. Seems pretty simple to me.

If you are worried that they won't accurately represent you, then don't vote for them. That doesn't mean that you prohibit them from leadership positions simply because you don't agree with them.

As an example of that philosophy MoE, our current campus LGBTQIA group is led by a straight female. They elected her president at the end of last year for the 2014-15 academic year.

That is excellent. Good for bot the club and your friends friend. I would bet that if she is a member of the club and decides to run for office and wins election they would welcome her in that role as well. Which is how it should be at a publicly funded institution and university. If that is not the case (see institute) then they should not be supported with public funds.