BYU Idaho bans skinny jeans.

[Commando]

Or perhaps, "notitsbutgreatasscoug"

My favorite kind of coug!

[The Rambam]

To hijack the thread back to BYU-I and their more stringent dress standards (although the testing center has been rebuffed on the "skinny jeans" ban apparently):

There seems to be competing ideas about God at play here.

Some believe that God wants our total submission. He demands slaves quick to observe God's word (most often passed to you by a man), no matter what that word is--from wearing only one earring and no capri pants up to and including the slitting of your son's throat on an alter with no reason given.

Others view God as a man like ourselves, our Father and our potential. He doesn't want us to be unthinking slaves who obey without understanding. He wants us to question and ponder, study and debate. He wants us to become like him, not through a process of giving up our agency, but through a process of making choices that lead eventually to our becoming like him--filled with love and compassion and charity and empathy, a broken heart and contrite spirit.

I hear both views of God taught in Mormondom, but it seems that many are more comfortable with the former God and his autocratic control, than with the latter God and the messy, wandering path to godhood he has set forth.

To the extent that BYU-I embraces the path of complete submission based on an authority argument, I don't want my kids to go there. I appreciated the path of exploration and discovery embraced by the Honors Department at BYU-Provo during my years in Provo.

[HauteCoug]

[wuapinmon]

I miss Babs. She would own this thread.

Honestly, I was hoping that all of this would force her out of retirement. She at least would've been brutally condescending to me; all hottie can muster is some token righteous indignation.

For the record, I don't really think that hottie's comment was off base, I was just seeing how she'd react to some piss and vinegar (as indicated in white font somewhere above) about what she said, so, nikuman and Tick may stand down if they wish.

[myboynoah]

To hijack the thread back to BYU-I and their more stringent dress standards (although the testing center has been rebuffed on the "skinny jeans" ban apparently):

There seems to be competing ideas about God at play here.

Some believe that God wants our total submission. He demands slaves quick to observe God's word (most often passed to you by a man), no matter what that word is--from wearing only one earring and no capri pants up to and including the slitting of your son's throat on an alter with no reason given.

Others view God as a man like ourselves, our Father and our potential. He doesn't want us to be unthinking slaves who obey without understanding. He wants us to question and ponder, study and debate. He wants us to become like him, not through a process of giving up our agency, but through a process of making choices that lead eventually to our becoming like him--filled with love and compassion and charity and empathy, a broken heart and contrite spirit.

I hear both views of God taught in Mormondom, but it seems that many are more comfortable with the former God and his autocratic control, than with the latter God and the messy, wandering path to godhood he has set forth.

To the extent that BYU-I embraces the path of complete submission based on an authority argument, I don't want my kids to go there. I appreciated the path of exploration and discovery embraced by the Honors Department at BYU-Provo during my years in Provo.

Just take God out of the equation, it's not that difficult.

[Mrs. Funk]

Urgh. Modesty. Can we get over that word already? It seems to me that wearing excessively small pants is less an issue of modesty than it is an issue of good taste.

[lambdacoug]

What?! That is crazy talk!

[The Rambam]

Just take God out of the equation, it's not that difficult.

If God is out of the equation, then do the laws of happiness still apply? I'd think they do (e.g., addiction results in a loss of freedom, dishonesty results in alienation from others, greed results in harming man and nature for personal gain).

And if the laws of happiness still apply absent a God, then the analysis is pretty much still the same.

Do you follow earthly authority (Church leaders, school administrators) without questioning or do you reason it out for yourself? All you have done by removing God is to shift the argument to an absurd one--because no one has argued that anyone should abdicate their agency to another human unconditionally. At least not in rational public circles.

I'm not sure I get your point.

[Eddie]

If God is out of the equation, then do the laws of happiness still apply? I'd think they do (e.g., addiction results in a loss of freedom, dishonesty results in alienation from others, greed results in harming man and nature for personal gain).

And if the laws of happiness still apply absent a God, then the analysis is pretty much still the same.

Do you follow earthly authority (Church leaders, school administrators) without questioning or do you reason it out for yourself? All you have done by removing God is to shift the argument to an absurd one--because no one has argued that anyone should abdicate their agency to another human unconditionally. At least not in rational public circles.

I'm not sure I get your point.

Is there a place for God to be a little of both?

Most of the time I allow my children to learn some things on their own. I mean, I teach them general principles and let them apply them themselves. Sometimes I even go so far as to advise them of a number of choices, tell them what I would do, and then leave them to decide what they will do.

Yet even in the midst of allowing them to learn through experience and their own development of thought, I also want their exact and precise obedience at certain times. Of course, usually those are things like "GET OUT OF THE ROAD!", "DON'T LIGHT THAT ON FIRE!" or "DON'T YOU DARE TAKE THE LAST COOKIE!"

Sometimes I need them to move - like get out of the road - immediately so as to keep them from getting killed. Sometimes there isn't time to give them all of the background - I just need for them to trust that I care about them, have their best interest at heart, and expect them to do exactly what I say without debating it first.

[LA Ute]

Do you follow earthly authority (Church leaders, school administrators) without questioning or do you reason it out for yourself?

How do you define "reason it out for yourself?" Lately (around here, at least) in your posts that seems to mean "disagree with everything the earthly authorities say and express that disagreement as colorfully and with as much vituperation and personal attack as possible."

[Moliere]

How do you define "reason it out for yourself?" Lately (around here, at least) that seems to mean "disagree with everything the earthly authorities say and express that disagreement as colorfully and with as much vituperation and personal attack as possible."

The Foyer actually seems pretty tame lately.

[LiveCoug]

Thankfully, it was just an overly zealous testing center employee and not an official university sponsored sign.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...idaho.html.csp

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thankfully, it was just an overly zealous testing center employee and not an official university sponsored sign.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...idaho.html.csp

Incredible to me that someone would go to the effort to do that. Knucklehead.

[Donuthole]

Thankfully, it was just an overly zealous testing center employee and not an official university sponsored sign.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...idaho.html.csp

Whoever crafted that sign should be completely embarrassed, as should BYU-I. Seriously, that last sentence isn't doing the "we couldn't get accepted into BYU" stereotype any favors.

[Green Monstah]

Incredible to me that someone would go to the effort to do that. Knucklehead.

There are crazies everywhere, but there are a disproportionate amount in Rexburg.

I knew dozens of kids who would have written the same thing.