Skip to main content

BYU and the Sunday Compromise?

I read an article by Brad Rock this morning where he quoted heavily from Dr. Thomas Forsthoefel who was giving his opinion on religious institutions being involved in sports. BYU, of course, came up.

I think Forsthoefel came off sounding a bit misinformed about the culture, drive, mission, etc. of BYU. Below is the email that I sent to Brad Rock this morning after finishing the article:

Brad -

That was an interesting article. I tend to disagree with Forsthoefel, though, or at least disagree with what I may have read into his comments.

A quote in your article says:

"There may be a kind of growing pain. BYU is in the real world and the real world works on Sunday. Can we (BYU) live with the adjustment? I'm empathetic with that, whatever decision is made, people are going to be unhappy.… Some will say get with the program, we'll be OK at the next level, others will say we've sold out and we've made a deal with the world."

This seems to suggest one or two things; first, that in order to get to the next level, BYU will need to be willing to play on Sunday, and, second, that BYU will pay that price instead of staying where they are at. I half-disagree with the first and almost completely disagree with the second.

A lot of people consider that their allegiance to a faith is mostly to help them be better people, feel better about their problems and the world's problems, etc., and I think that is missing the mark a bit. Certainly, all people of faith are comforted by what their faith assures them of, but Mormons (and certainly some other faiths) tend to see this as less of a factor. I find that the character of Latter-Day Saint institutions is definitely that adherence to their faith, above all, serves God, obeys His will, and molds them to Him, not Him to them.

The first approach makes it a lot easier to justify "compromises" because really in the end if the faith is supposed to just help those who claim it, why not make concessions in order to better serve the whole? The second approach, while still allowing for change, gives a much lower priority to whether these kids have a super-high-profile college career.

Another quote:

"the institution itself, be it BYU or Mercyhurst, has to attend to the overall needs and make some compromises. If your A.D. (athletics director) can't do that, it's probably not a good place to be."

I agree with this, if maybe interpreting his comment differently than intended. BYU does have to attend to the overall need which is to create an institution that adheres to God's law. If the A.D. at BYU can't do that, then I wouldn't want to be there either.

Last one:

"It's not all bad, because it's forcing the BYU community to really gaze at themselves and sort out who they are and what they're about and how to take that and move into the next 15, 20, 30, 40 years. It's anxiety-provoking right now."

This sounds pretty trite (and Disney-like) and a bit misunderstanding to me. I could be misinformed--maybe BYU's recent rise in notoriety really has created an identity crisis for the BYU community; however, when I hear "forcing the BYU community" in the context of how they run their institution, I implicitly hear "forcing the Brethren". You've got to be kidding me that those that run BYU as an institution don't already know "who they are" and "what they're about!"

Anyway, Forsthoefel may have just been trying to be ecumenical/diplomatic, and I can respect that. The reality is, though, that the honor code and the no-Sunday play are seen much more as God's direction than men's ideas on how to best mold college kids into upstanding adults. He may also be right that ultimately BYU's hand will be forced by the invisible hand of economics. Personally, I believe that BYU would forfeit their football program before doing that.

Thanks for the article. It made me think.


So what do you think? Will BYU inevitably allow its football team to play on Sunday one day, maybe even relax or drop the honor code, in order to accommodate a continued rise in notoriety?


Unknown said…
Very cool! I just received a reply from Brad Rock. That's awesome. He's got to be a busy guy, and to have him take time to respond makes me respect him.
Mishqueen said…
What did the reply say?
Unknown said…
He basically thanked me for taking the time to write and shared his personal opinion on a couple of the points I made. You'd have to ask him for the rest. =]

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Teeth Does The Tooth Fairy Pick Up Each Night in Utah?

Somebody asked me a question about my Tooth Fairy post the other day that got me thinking. How many baby teeth are lost every day in Utah?

I began with Googling. Surely someone else has thought of this and run some numbers, right? Lo, there is a tooth fairy site that claims that the Tooth Fairy collects 300,000 teeth per night.

That's a lot; however, when I ran the numbers, it started to seem awfully low.

Let's assume that the Tooth Fairy collects all baby teeth regardless of quality and we assume that all children lose all their baby teeth. The world population of children sits at 2.2 billion, with 74.2 million of them in the United States. Of those, approximately 896,961 of them are in Utah. This means that somewhere around .04077% of the world's children are in Utah.

If we assume that kids in Utah lose teeth at the same rate as all other children in the world and that each day in the year is just as likely as the rest to lose a tooth, then we have that of the alleged …

Mental Math Tricks: Is this divisible by 17?

Image via WikipediaSo, most know how to tell if something is divisible by 2 or 5, and many know how to tell if something is divisible by 9. What about other numbers?

So, here are strategies for discovering divisibility from 2 to 10, and then we'll talk about some rarer, more surprising divisibility tricks:

Divisible by two:If the number ends in 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8, it is divisible by 2.

Divisible by five:If the number ends in 0 or 5, it is divisible by 5.

Divisible by ten:If the number ends in 0, it is divisible by 10.

Divisible by nine: If you add all the digits in a number together and that new number is divisible by 9, then it is also divisible by 9.

Example #1: 189 -> 1 + 8 + 9 = 18, 18 is divisible by 9, so 189 is also divisible by 9
Example #2: 137781 -> 1 + 3 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 1 = 27, 27 is divisible by 9, so 137781 is also divisible by 9
(Note: If adding six numbers together in your head seems difficult, look for my next post on number-grouping tricks. Soon, adding six numbe…

I don't know you from Adam OR How to Tie Yourself Back to Adam in 150 Easy Steps

Last Sunday, I was working on my genealogy on, a free site provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for doing pretty extensive family history. While looking for information about a Thomas Neal, I found an individual who had done a bunch of work on his family including is tie into the Garland family, which tied in through Thomas's wife.

So, while I was pondering what to do about Thomas Neal (who's parents I still haven't found), I clicked up the Garland line. It was pretty cool because it went really far back; it's always fun to see that there were real people who you are really related to back in the 14th century or what not.
As I worked my way back through the tree, I noticed it dead-ended at Sir Thomas Morieux, who, according to the chart, was the maternal grandfather-in-law of Humphy Garland (b. 1376).  The name sounded pretty official, so I thought I'd Google him. I learned from Wikipedia that Sir Thomas Morieux married Blanc…