BYU ballplayer kicked out of school
 

Didn't attend church enough - ecclesiastical endorsement not renewed.


http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8149321

"They said he didn't participate in the ward enough, hadn't been to church enough and hadn't gone in and asked for a calling," Kenneth Walton said. "All the stake president would say was, 'I hope you don't hurt your son by making a big issue out of this.' "

Yikes.

I just saw that. If that is all there is to the story (and it sounds like it could be from Drew's blog entry today), that is shocking and disappointing. I get the feeling that the bishop made a decision to withdraw his endorsement because of a lack of church attendance, and that withdrawal is effectively expelling Walton from the school. I think that bishop is taking things way too far. If I were Walton, I would go to a pastor of any other church and get them to write an endorsement, assuming I wanted anything to do with BYU after that.

It seems that's all there is to the story from that article. Wow, I guess I could have been kicked out my freshman year. One thing I learned at BYU was that there were a lot of different kinds of Bishops out there. Some are interested in helping and some apparently are not. I thought the comment "he never came in and asked for a calling" was kind of a sad one. Since when are we supposed to do that?

There could be more to the story, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't. There are alot of dick Bishops at BYU. I'm lucky I never had one.

If it is solely as reported, that is ridiculous. A bishop run amuck.

Didn't come in for a calling? Jeez the lad should be commended not kicked out of school. Where did they get these yokals? And no probationary option provided?

Who is running the ship there?

Could an attorney be of any help in this situation?

No way is that all there is to the story. Half of BYU would be kicked out if during any 11 weeks strech they only attended 60% of the time. I find it impossible to believe that that was the sole reason.

The reason I find it very believable is because there are hundreds of wards. It's not at all hard to imagine a few over the top bishops. I had one the first year back from my mission who was very similar to the one in this story.

The article also noted the Waltons were reluctant to do much, so that the player could be re-admitted.

It is as silly thing as can be. Maybe the EE needs to be re-evaluated.

If you receive one from home bishop, why should the university quasi-bishop be allowed to disown the student?

This bishop and stake president seem to have run amuck. It's completely bizarre. The story has an aura of authenticity, and it's disconcerting that President Samuelson didn't over-rule the ridiculous decision. "He didn't come in for a calling." What the heck.

The Mormiban strikes again. Defiling the museum is up next.

I'm sure the U of U is making hundreds of reprints of this story to include in their recruiting packets with the message, come to the U where you can be with fellow LDS members but not subject to Taliban-like monitoring and subjective judgements of your worthiness to attend the school.

The Bishop and SP look pretty bad in this instance just on it's face as reported.

However, I don't think we have both sides of the story at all and I don't think the Father did his son any favors by agreeing to speak with the press and shooting his mouth off. The church doesn't publicly comment on ones worthiness and therefore isn't going to express their side of it and the Father knows that.....For all he knows his son could be lying his butt off to him regarding the real reasons....ala Ryan Kessman lying to his father.

In any event, it's pretty sad all around.

I think the HC office would be involved though if anything but this EE were a part of the equation. I keep thinking there's gotta be more to this story but I honestly won't be surprised if there isn't.

I just re-read the article and this quote jumped out at me:
I wonder if they'll keep up the fight.

On its face, the story makes the bishop sound stupid, but I try never to accept such stories at face value. The action has apparently been reviewed by the bishop, stake president (who I believe to be a very bright and savvy guy), President Samuelson and an apostle. The likelihood of administrative stupidity decreases (but admittedly doesn’t disappear) with so many involved.

I was also amused by the sentence: “An anonymous e-mail alerted The Tribune to the situation, not the Walton family.” I assume the Trib author meant “An anonymous e-mail, not from the Walton family, alerted The Tribune to the situation.” Isn’t the statement inherently self-contradicting? If the e-mail author were truly anonymous how could we know it wasn’t from the Waltons?

The biggest problem I have with the story is that we’re unlikely ever to know the truth. The only persons who are quoted with respect to the facts of the case are the Waltons who can’t be expected to be objective. And the apparent bad guys in the story cannot comment. If they’re withholding information that would vindicate them, I honor their fidelity to their obligations of confidentiality. At the moment, we just don’t know if they’re heroes or jerks.

He must have done something much worse than Tavernari.

They could have asked the Waltons if they had sent it. In fact, a reporter would be dumb not to ask. The situation could then be rephrased to, "The Walton's deny sending the tip.", but that has a perjorative tone. Maybe the reporter knows but promised not to reveal the identity of the tipster. My WAG: it was a friend or teammate who is upset about the situation.

MY comments and opinon here should be taken based on suppositions I am making. I am freely admitting I don't know the whole story.

I can see though how even if Samuelson or an Apostle disagreed, there is nothing they could do. The churches very discipline and lack of chaos is based on strict adherance to it's structure. The Bishop determines worthiness. Can you imagine if in this case he was overruled.

They are many within BYU and outside of BYU that think atletics gets too much emphasis and attention. Many would just as soon do away with the programs.

Can you imagine if it got around a Bishop was overruled in an athletes case. Now, there we would have a story. It is possible something unfair can occur and let go for the sake of the greater goal of maintaining structure and discipline.

Since my divorce my attendance at church hasn't been exemplary. I haven't attended Sunday School in 15 years. I have had Bishops sign my Temple Recommend no problem. I had one who refused to 3 years ago unless my attendance including SS got in line with his thinking. I haven't attended the Temple since.

I am not blaming him and believe he had every right as the Bishop to require that. Perhaps I have hurt myself and that is why I am more rebellious than I used to be.

The Lord and I will have to sort it out. For those of you who are concerned about my soul and wish to lecture me, don't. :)

BYU71, do you attend priesthood, or just sacrament mtg? Because if your order is sacrament meeting, then skip sunday school, then attend priesthood, that describes about half the men in the church. :)

Do you honestly believe that every student in this players ward were attending more than 60% of the time? If not, we would have heard of others getting the boot from that ward. There has to be more to the story.

LOL. I used my own personal example to point out Bishops have different criteria. I probably shouldn't have exposed myself.

I used to attend Priesthood Meeting and Sacrament at least 3 out of 4. It wasn't just SS, he didn't think the 3 out of 4 without being sick wasn't good. I found I started skipping Priesthood too and now I am down to Sacrament meeting.

For me it is habit. I don't mind being blasted on this one, but I haven't found I have missed much by not being at Priesthood. Most of the lessons and rightly so are about family. I am single.

My lack of attendance has cost me in participating in going to the Temple. That is the real loss, because of the great peace and comfort I felt when I attended.

I had an experience at BYU that makes it easy for me to believe this could happen. And I don't think that in situations like this that everyone is getting the same treatment. This guy's attitude may have been deemed poor and then maybe he gets the stricter treatment. We'll probably never know.

the worst thing about this is the kid has no recourse. The bishop made up his mind now he is gone. Its one of the many things that piss me off about byu.

It's kind of weird to go to a school, where your entire education could be ruined by one man.

The reason that it cannot be disputed is because we believe that such decisions come to the Bishop from God.

To have some kind of administrative process as an appeal would be like second-guessing God the Father. And you can't have that.

So there will always be those, that are struck down by God, through his Bishops and other leaders.

Best I can say, is if you are struck down, and you feel you are in the right, try not to be too bitter and move on with your life. The guy probably did your a favor, and you will realize it later.

Shouldnt a school that is run by a church claiming to be the true church of christ act in the way that Jesus Christ would act? Would Jesus Christ kick someone out of school because they didnt ask for a calling?

It should but some of those BYU bishops are total jackasses. Some are totally cool and some are complete nerds.

The mistake the jocks make is to remain in the wards where the jackasses are. Wayne Childs must be a Ute fan.

Think about how many bishops they need. Then consider how near the bottom of the barrel they must be scraping to get those numbers.

I don't take the article at face value. However, it does bring up the issue of unrighteous dominion and how it can impact an individual.

What do they have 14 stakes times 8 wards? or is it 20 stakes?

There is not always equal quality. However, I can see some power manipulative bishop thinking, Jeez I'll show BYU. I'm certain there are BYU hating bishops there. The lone quote attributable to Wayne Mullah Childs, "He didn't even come in to get a calling," tells me all I need to know about the bastard.

My only question is if there is something really serious that the kid did, would he appeal to Samuelson and a GA. Would the athletic department support the kid. I guess the kid could be lieing to everyone and the Bishop has the inspiration to recognize it.

Wow Kearl is the SP here. He's an Econ prof at BYU and he's a dick. So I believe this story.

Read the bishop's quote, "he didn't even come in for a calling."

Gime a break. He's probably going to his girlfriend's ward, and with traveling for sports, doesn't really want a calling. You can be active without having a calling for crying out loud. The bishop is a dick.

I never had a single calling while at BYU. I gave a talk once.

I never turned down a calling, nor turned down an invitation to speak.

Should I have been kicked out of school?

Where can I read this? All I've seen are comments from the kid's dad and roommate. I've been under the impression the bishop hasn't commented. If he has, and that was the best he could offer for the EE's withdrawal, then I agree the bishop is out of line.

It was the dad quoting the bishop. From Trib article:

Quoting from memory, especially one as old as mine, sometimes causes insertions which aren't there. I especially like the veiled threat by Economics Professor and dick stake president James Kearl. Unfortunately, he appears to be right minded on economics but wrong headed on athletics.

http://fhss.byu.edu/econ/faculty/kearl/

I am going to reserve judgement. I don't doubt there could be a Bishop that has much stricter interpretations than I do.

It is his calling and he brings his beliefs to the calling as do all Bishops. If we have what has been said, I am more upset with the system than I am the Bishop.

I don't care for people questionning my beliefs and so while I may have another opinion, I won't condemn him for his. Someone put him in this position. Apparently no one who counts is telling him he is wrong.

Well, it looks like a flawed system. A guy can yank an endorsement midstream even though it's not "chastity" based. What's up with that. That system needs revision.

I got into it with on of Kearl's Econ TA's. I was in the lab working on a problem and got help from a TA who proceeded to workout the entire problem for me. So I turned in my homework. Picked up my assignment a week later and the problem the TA did for me was wrong. I was livid. I spotted the TA in the lab and went up to him and told him thanks for nothing. He told me, "Sorry. I didn't grade your paper." I couldn't believe that this was his response.

So I took it up with Kearl who sided with his TA and basically dismissed what I his TA had done and said as if he hires only competent and the best TAs so he wouldn't have done something like that.

I can completely see him siding with the Bishop without even investigating the issue himself here.

I can also see that he's not loyal to BYU sports, here's where he got his undergrad:

He thereafter went to MIT for economics.

So he's an Aggie with a hatred for BYU sports.

Let me play my brother's advocate.

The kids knows of the requirement to maintain an EE, just like every other student. Did the Bishop just spring this on him? None of us know the Bishop's side to this and probably never will. As Mike has pointed out many times, tithing funds subsidize tuition in a very significant way (would it be unreasonable to say that BYU students pay only 10% of the costs invovled?). We all know that supply does not meet demand for those wanting to go to BYU.

Then why should a kid, regardless of whether or not he/she is an athlete, be allowed to attend if he/she cannot maintain an EE? It's very simple and the easiest aspect of staying qualified to attend the university. Or is much of this just about how it appears to the outside world?

I have little sympathy for people who can't follow simple instructions. Kind of like those folks in Florida in 2000 who wanted to vote for Al Gore but ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.

I guess this puts me firmly in the mullah camp.

I hope you aren't a mullah or I would have to fall in that camp too. I support the Bishop's right to do what he did. I do not feel I have the right to attack him personally. He didn't molest a child after all.

I do feel I have the right to disagree though with what he did. I look at it as having a difference of opinion. If in fact this kid is attending 50% of his meetings I find it hard to believe all Bishops wouldn't give this kid a EE. If this is the case, then you can't say EE is a standard that all kids are held the same too.

Can't you see the "anti-athlete" type seeing this as a power struggle? I can.

I can believe it wasn't a morality issue. And to pull it midsemester is obscene. You work on some type of probation. I've just seen some of those weird actions from BYU bishops, so the Drew story sounds very plausible to me. Only six times last semester? That still makes him active under Church standards. Why would the BYU bishop have that sort of power? It seems it should be decided upon by the home bishop not some rent-a-bishop from Springville Utah of mullah fame.
Wayne Childs (435) 865-6608 295 N 325th E,Kanarraville, UT 84742

Where is that? What is SAAS in Utah?