Sometime T & S and BCC commenter Jim Lucas points out this interesting story. Daniel Arkell, an LDS student at Washburn University Law School in Kansas, joined the Christian Legal Society. When the group decided to start a Bible study program, he was one of the volunteers to lead the study. However, the group then decided that he could not lead the Bible study, or become an officer of the group. Arkell filed a discrimination complaint with the university, which then revoked the CLS’s charter. The CLS is now suing the university in federal court.
What are Mormons to make of this? I’m not sure. A google search shows that one church member strongly disagrees with Arkell, see this letter (scroll down or search “Arkell”). I’m unsure if how his actions might impact any LDS student organizations (of which Arkell appears to be a member; I’m not sure if they are also campus-funded).
I haven’t looked at anything other than the news stories, and they leave a lot to be desired. It’s not entirely clear to me what the best resolution is. In addition, my tentative idea is that the resolution depends on facts which are not clear from the news stories. In particular, two key points are the school’s rules, and the CLS rules or beliefs.
I’m not sure what the school’s policy is. If it prohibits all religious exclusion, my initial reaction is that that is not a good idea. Religious organizations often have legitimate reasons to exclude non-compliant viewpoints. The Jewish student association should be a place for Jewish students, the Baptist association a place for Baptists, and so forth. An overarching rule of “no religious exclusion” seems like a bad idea, on policy grounds, for all religious groups including Mormons. After all, I would hope that the J. Reuben Clark Society could exclude anti-Mormons, or FLDS nutcases.
The second major factual problem is a lot less clear. What exactly was the CLS policy, and why was Arkell excluded? The CLS website lists five points of faith. They are:
One God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
The Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; His vicarious death for our sins through which we receive eternal life; His bodily resurrection and personal return.
The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration.
The Bible as the inspired Word of God.
There is nothing in Mormon belief that necessarily goes against these principles. The Godhead is a little tricky, and might turn on interpretation, but the CLS statement is similar to many Book of Mormon formulations, and must be considered reconcilable with LDS beliefs.
It’s not clear from the news stories, but a major potential issue here seems to be selective application of rules. The society states that CLS “affirms that the Society welcomes believers in Jesus Christ of all denominations and traditions consistent with the Christian Legal Society Statement of Faith.” Given this statement, if Arkell can meet the basic ideological requirements (which it appears that he can) then adding further, ad hoc religious requirements may be viewed as arbitrary and perhaps discriminatory.
In any event, it’s an interesting situation. My opinion is tentative and subject to change. If anyone knows some more of the background facts in this case, I would be interested in hearing them, either by comment or by e-mail.
Kaimi,
I share your ambiguous feelings concerning this. First, I find it of dubious worth to force “acceptance” on people who are bigoted. I also agree that some groups should be able to exclude certain people. Moreover Arkell seems to have saved the patent by killing him. Nevertheless, if the group wanted to exclude Mormons, then it should have done so in a better way.
Kaimi: I agree that the ultimate merits turn on facts not available in the news story. On the other hand, I am a lot more sympathetic than you are to ad hoc religious discrimination by these sorts of groups. It seems to me that such choices could reflect legitimate issues of expressive association even if the decisions do not flow cleaningly from previously stated rules
Have you checked out “Mormon Wasp?”
http://mormonwasp.blogspot.com/ ?
He blogged about this on Friday, and has an update today with links to some documents.
I could not find Arkell on the list of members of the Washburn J. Reuben Clark Law Society. Was his name removed or something?
I believe that Arkell actually did lead the study group on one occasion, which he took as an opportunity to explain why he disagreed with each of the points in the CLS statement of faith. At that point, the CLS said he could not lead the discussion group again (because affirming the points of faith was a pre-requisite to doing so). That was when he sought action against the CLS from the University, which revoked the CLS’s charter.
I might also be a little bit off on the facts, since I don’t know too much about this situation. But I think that it was unjustified for Arkell to do this. It is like smuggling a premise into an argument and then actually winning on the created fallacy. He smuggled himself into the study group, took advantage of an opportunity to lead the group in bible study of their own variant to break down their beliefs, and then punished them for exercising their preference not to turn their bible study into an LDS first discussion.
This is very unfortunate for all of us, I believe. Such groups should be allowed to exercise preference in who speaks for them. It was within the CLS’s rights to prefer that an LDS student with that aggressive of a message not lead their bible study in the same way that it would be inappropriate for a baptist to preside at a Clark Law Society meeting in which he or she explained to the group why he or she believed that Mormons aren’t Christians.
Conversely, it doesn’t look to me like the CLS would have had a problem with Arkell leading the group if he hadn’t taken the opportunity to explain his rejection of their points of faith.
You’re right John.
Having just listened to the NPR report, what seems clear to me is that the CLS group is mad because the University won’t fund them if they exclude Mormons. If it were merely a case of we-don’t want-mormons-in-our-group, then I agree CLS has every right to exclude Arkell. But if CLS wants University (public) money to fund their group, anti-discrimination policies at the University kick in. As I recall, one of the controlling factors in Boy Scouts v. Dale was that the Boy Scouts do not rely on public money, therefore their private associations were truly theirs and theirs alone.
CLS can’t have it both ways.
Read all three docs at Mormon Wasp. Arkell sounds honest in his portrayal of events. He says he never talked about any mormon beliefs in the bible study and was careful not to. After the bible study in question and they told him they don’t want him to lead it again he asked if he said something offensive they said no. Individual groups are allowed to exclude anyone they want. Boy Scouts exclude atheists. What isn’t allowed is to recieve federal funding if you do. BYU allows non-mormons to attend and doesn’t require you to sign any statement that you belief anything specific. You do have to abide by a code of conduct. After reading the colleges snippity press release I am firmly on the side of Arkell unless someone can show me where spoke about mormon beliefs. I think the press on this guy has been biased againts him. read the 3 docs and make up your mind from those.
This is unconscionable. I don’t sympathize with contorted Evangelical attempts to define us out of Christianity, and it does sound like Brother Arkell got sandbagged, but how does dissolving the group solve anything? How does trying to exclude Evangelicals from the public square bring us into greater harmony with them? It’s simply unconscionable. I call on Brother Arkell to stand down, apologize, and try to get the University to rescind its action. Represent us.
Yawn….
Other than the fact that this case involves a member of the LDS Church, it’s just the same old, same old. Maybe it’s because I live near UNC-Chapel Hill, where controversies like this erupt on an annual basis.
UNC cleaned house last year, telling many Christian groups on campus to amend their membership and leadership policies to come into line with the university’s anti-discrimination policies or risk defunding and loss of recognition. A nice article from Christianity Today about the challenges confronted by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. They’ve fought battles like the Washburn fight at Tufts, Harvard, Rutgers, and UNC. At UNC they won the right to restrict leadership to those willing to sign a statement of faith, but other Christian groups at UNC haven’t fared so well.
UNC is fighting another battle this year, with a fraternity that seeks to restrict membership based on religion. Article from the Daily Tar Heel about the current debate. This case may get fought up to the Supreme Court.
As for the CLS/Washburn/Arkell situation, after reading Arkell’s complaint and the CLS complaint and press release, I find Arkell’s account much more compelling. What exactly did he say or teach that was counter to the statement of faith of CLS? This is the central cause of action claimed by CLS in removing Arkell (although I suspect that there are other forces at work). As such, it seems like there should be a pretty clear statement of the problems with Arkell’s presentation. My knee-jerk take: someone at CLS Washburn got wind of the fact that Arkell is LDS, didn’t like it, tried some bad-faith strong-arm tactics, and got badly burned. I could easily be wrong, however.
A colleague of mine pointed me to the NPR story. As we discussed it, he asked me how I would feel if I were a member of an LDS scripture study group that had the same thing happen to it as CLS. I thought for a second, and then I explained how the Institute program works, and how it avoids the issue of university funding and recognition altogether. No problems there (please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m a BYU grad).
on some campuses ldssa qualifies to recieve university funds as a student organization- however we have never requested them here at OU. The institute runs seperately from the ldssa in some regards, the student association has its own budget and is responsible for many activites-
so I suppose it could be possible for the ldssa to receive funds and have the institute program continue to operate classes seperately. However, there would potentially be a problem in that the LDSSA leadership is typically called by priesthood leaders rather than voted on- which would go against the funding requirements of most schools for student organizations.
I find the debate over the CLS interesting. In my town a member of the local LDS ward wanted to organise a Carols Night involving all the local Churches. The ministers fraternal decided they could not participate and the enshewing debate took place in the loca newspapers. I have as an evangelical partcipated with other christians in other churches in retreats, musical evenings etc and nobody attempts to use the occassion to get an opportunity to come and speak to me about their particular christian tradition. I think we recognise each as christians, lds see us as apostate churches , holding no authority. You have in the First Vision account and I believe in the Temple Ceronomy expressed negative comments about other christians. I think its a bit cheeky for the lds guy to be doing that. I am sure i would not be allowed to teach a Gospel Doctrine class.
It is not clear to me that the mere fact of government funding should trigger anti-discrimination laws (constitutional or statutory). If Arkell was actually speaking as the leader of a CLS sponsored bible study, then it seems to me that his exclusion is an entirely reasonable attempt by CLS to control its own message. It may be a bit difficult to argue that anti-discrimination rules constitute a form of subject matter or viewpoint discrimination, but it doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possiblity in this context. Certainly, an organization’s ability to control who will or will not speak for the organization or in a forum sponsored by the organization seems to implicate core free speech values. Finally, under Rosenberger (and other cases) I think it is relatively clear that the mere acceptance of government funding does not constitute some kind of waiver of First Amendment rights.
The NPR story suggests that the CLS suffered two “penalties” as a result of their exclusion of Arkell: withdrawal of funding and exclusion from campus facilities for their meetings.
It appears that the second is a likely violation of the holding in the Lamb’s Chapel case, where a Long Island school district was found to have unlawfully discriminated against a religious organization by denying it the privelege of using school facilities for its after-school religious activities (the school district did allow non-religious clubs to use its facilities for their club meetings). In the light of that case, it appears that Washburn is in the wrong.
Regarding funding, the issue is a bit trickier. If the school funds student clubs at all, must it fund all clubs? If you wanted to organize a chapter of the American Nazi Party or the Trotskyite Youth Movement (or whatever they call themselves today), would the school be permitted to withhold funding? It appears that there are serious equal protection issues with content-based decisions to exclude certain groups. Can the club then limit its membership to those who agree with its principles? I should hope so–if not, why have a club.
As P.G. Wodehouse should have said: We set up an exclusive club to keep those other buggers out.
Arkell should have taken Groucho Marx’s famous line about joining clubs, amended it slightly, and got out. “I don’t want to belong to any club that will not accept me as a member.”
LDS refusal to believe in the Trinity as defined by a majority of Christian churches (in my opinion) goes beyond the question of the Trinity.
After the original apostles died, the local church leaders got into the habit of calling church councils to discuss various important issues. Now, yes, some of these conferences involved Constantine and others, but the big issue is that these councils were “permitted” because as a whole the various churches believed they had the authority to call them.
Centuries later Joseph Smith declared that not only did the councils get the wrong answers, they never had the authority they needed in the first place. The division only starts with the Trinity.
I don’t know if that explains CLS’s position, but I thought it might help in the debate.
This situation could have been handled differently. One has to wonder a little bit about what is going on when an individual who claims to be a Christian and a group that claims to be Christian are challenging each other before authorities (legal or otherwise). As far as I can tell, neither side is demonstrating true discipleship to Christ by their actions.
Matthew 5:40
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
But Danithew, the complaint seems to have been initiated by a Mormon, and as everyone knows, we aren’t Christians! ;->
For the record, I recognize that the regular readers of this forum are probably aware of the history of early church councils. My comment is simply based in my experience that most “inactive” christians I know became inactive because they couldn’t quite figure out the Trinity. In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis referred to most differences between Chrisitan churches as things that the lay people probably didn’t care about, and that didn’t apply to them really.
I believe most Christian churches would be willing to modify their doctrine of the Trinity if it could be done in a face-saving way. So we very well may have an example of a society suing for a “greater good” that the members don’t particularly believe in.
I just had an interesting thought and I’m not sure how it plays out in legalese.
As I understand it, Religious organizations are or at least should be exempt from certain types of inclusionary laws. Mormons should be able to dictate who takes thier sacrament or attends thier temple sessions, just as Catholic or Jewish sects should dictate thier own docrine. I think this stands for itself in terms of what should be the case if it isn’t already.
But this is a club. At least as I understand it, this is not a religion itself. It is a club whose membership requirements is to fall under the five points of faith put forth. As a club, especially recieving government funding, it should fall into inclusionary requirements. Anyone wishing to join should be able to, but offices in the club could be restricted to their participation. Discussions as long as they remain civil should be permitted. If they don’t wan’t someone to lead a class or discussion because that person is not christian that may be a perogotive. However, if a person claims to be christian, and fits the five points of faith criteria then they should not be excluded.
The reason there are such a myriad of denomonations is that the “christian church” as a whole cannot decide what is or is not doctrine.
To exclude a christian group simply because they believe in more doctrine than you do even though they meet your basic requirements is rediculous. Would the organization exclude Catholics because they believe in the Pope or the Apocrypha? Why exclude a mormon because they believe in more than just the bible or in a living prophet today.
I see nothing wrong with any of the five points and Mormon doctrine except maybe the trinity argument in the first point but very easily debatable and open to interpretation.
Noel H. said:
I think we recognise each as christians, lds see us as apostate churches , holding no authority.
Why would someone organize a caroling session or want to join a student group if they had negitive opinions of the other members of that group. Plus, the Catholic Church does not hold a view of protestantism that is that different from the LDS view, yet Catholics are often included and Mormons excluded from events organized by protestants. Indeed, evangelical churches often view our beliefs as heterodox, so it is not just us who hold the views that you describe.
Would it not be more effective to work together to combat the ills of society, Pornography and sensuality, creeping secularism, etc., than to fight one another? But many of us have been denied the chance to participate with our Protestant brethren because they would rather be weaker in the war against these evils that let a Mormon help them.
Apparently, after reading the documents, Arkell did not talk about LDS beliefs with his fellows. He just wanted to join them in a common cause and study the Bible in unity with them. The reaction of the Protestants in this story is particularly baffling to me. I would think they would at least try to fellowship Arkell and show him the error of his ways, but instead he was cast out. Then again, this should not be surprising because we have been rejected by Protestants from the beginning. First through active violence, now through the cold shoulder.
At U of Texas Law the J.Ruben Clark kids and the CLS folks get along and interact well. I understand that in years passed there have been several joint activities. I suspect that is the case at many law schools.
Regardless of the merits of the case, this will not help the LDS-Greater Christian community relations.
Nathan T.:
I think that post-Vatican II Catholicism takes a considerably more conciliatory attitude toward protestantism. For example, I don’t think that protestants require rebaptism if they convert to Catholicism.
I think Noel raises a good point. In some ways it seems odd that we want to “join the club” with other Christian denominations, while taking the position that they are all wrong or are without authority. Isn’t turnabout fair play?
The First Vision account related in the Pearl of Great Price does contain harsh commentary about other denominations and “professors” (but not about the members at large of those religious traditions). “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; . . . all their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; [and] those professors were all corrupt.” Personally, this language makes me quite uncomfortable. And I think others may feel the same way, because, in the Church, I rarely, if ever, hear terms like “abomination” or “corrupt” used in describing other faiths.
My impression is that the current leadership of the Church wishes to be more conciliatory, emphasize commonalities to an extent, and work together with those of other faiths. President Hinckley uses the phrase (as have others) of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” Our soteriology has broader reach than in many belief systems, providing, through the atonement of Jesus, a place in heaven, or in the various mansions of heaven in different degrees, for virtually everyone.
I appreciated Elder Ballard’s recent talk focusing on the principle of “inclusion” rather than “exclusion.” Perhaps as we Latter-day Saints try to be more inclusive (maybe even occasionally inviting a minister, rabbi, or imam as a guest gospel doctrine instructor), our friends of other faiths will feel less threatened or defensive, and be more willing to include and work together with us, rather than exclude us.
Nate,
Just a clarification. Vatican II definitely marked a turning point in the Catholic Church’s view of Protestantism. For example, the Council refers to Protestants as “separated brethren” instead of, say, “heretics” (though there had been some currents in this direction before the Council). But the Church has never rebaptized Protestant converts. It was settled by the third century that validly baptized heretics would not be rebaptized, and the CC considers virtually all Protestant baptisms valid if they’re done with the full trinitarian formula.
Chris
Clubs are always bad. I think we should organize ourselves and meet regularly to discuss how we will exterminate all clubs that exist in our midst or vicinity. How about Tuesday night at 7:00 in the JKHB?
I think David is partially correct with regards to Noel’s comment.
The account of the first vision does contain some harsh comments on other churches. But I think it is extremely important to note that we as an LDS church do not condem the individuals in other churches. To believe that thier doctrines are incorrect or somehow off base does not mean that we condem them for thier efforts in bringing people to Christ. Without many evangelical churches, christianity would not flourish in many parts of the world and this would make the missionary efforts of the LDS church even more difficult.
If we examine the language in the Pearl of Great Price regarding the first vision it seems that this language is consistent with God when he spoke to other prophets, or through prophets regarding the abominations of the world. If we accept the First Vision as gospel and that it happened then it stands to reason God would refer to other churches that have twisted His doctrine so that they meet the requests of man.
I am not a historian or theologian by any account, but I would probably agree that these remarks were aimed at the other organized religions and those at the head of those religions who have strayed from God’s doctrine.
I believe what we have come to realize regarding other christian churches is that they contain some degree of the truth, we simply believe that we contain more of the truth.
I Would say to Noel, that his comments regarding the temple ceremonies as being anti protestant are far off the mark, there is nothing in there regarding such a thing.
We have been asked and more recently commanded to stand with those who hold similar beliefs, and share a similar moral compass. Inclusion is something that we are sincerely working twards, and we recognize that we are just as human as anyone else and make the same mistakes. Much of the exclusion throughout the LDS church as I understand it is due to the “mormon culture” of growing up in a very tight nit group with few outsiders around. It is important to all of us to reach out to our neighbors, whoever they are.
Noel said (among other thibgs):
/* I have as an evangelical partcipated with other christians in other churches in retreats, musical evenings etc and nobody attempts to use the occassion to get an opportunity to come and speak to me about their particular christian tradition.
*/
I really wish I had attended the lesson in question to determine how much “sharing” took place. In the broader view, I imagine that the various Protestant churches have a pretty good idea of how they differ historically if not doctrinally. Even high schools cover the Restoration, and mention Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.
OTOH, when I first moved to North Carolina, I honestly didn’t know that Quakers still existed as a religion (Society of Friends). The first Quaker I met didn’t realize that Mormons still existed as a religion. We definitely discussed the differences between our religions and traditions because we recognized that we had only learned about the 19th century version of the other’s religion in school.
While I can’t speak for everybody, I do have a curiosity about what others believe.
/* I think we recognise each as christians,
*/
It is my understanding that several Protestant churches defined a few requirements that churches must adhere to in order to call themselves Christian (TM). The five statements of faith that CLS requires its members to profess are something of a summary of those requirements. Am I right in this?
/* lds see us as apostate churches , holding no authority.
*/
If you mean that the Catholic church teaches that Peter was entrusted with certain doctrines that Must Be Preserved until the Second Coming, and any proof that the Pope has changed those doctrines would prove fatal to the Catholic position (leading to the belief of the papal infallability); that Protestant churches teach that certain of those doctrines were changed, and they know which doctrines muct be changed back in order to practice the religion Christ taught; and that the Mormons believe that the Protestant changes weren’t enough, and that another church needed organizing (namely the LDS church), then yes, I think you’re right about this statement.
If you mean that we hate all other churches, then I think you’re wrong about the statement.
/* You have in the First Vision account and I believe in the Temple Ceronomy expressed negative comments about other christians.
*/
Well, we believe the First Vision account is Joseph Smith’s retelling of an experience he had, and I don’t belive we have the authority to change that account. Just as I don’t think we have any right to change John Bunyan’s account of seeing God in a tree, or Stephens account in Acts about seeing Jesus on the right hand of the “Glory of God.”
Regarding the temple ceremony, I have to say that you’ve been misled. The ceremony does not express any comments targetted to Christians. There are large numbers of people in the world who like to imply that the temple ceremony includes just about any bad thing in the world, because it is impossible to prove that it doesn’t. Well, not impossible, but you need to be baptized to attend the ceremony.
There is a part in the ceremony that says Satan wants to lead people astray. That part doesn’t say anything you wouldn’t find in C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and it doesn’t target Christians.
/* I think its a bit cheeky for the lds guy to be doing that.
*/
Well, the LDS guy’s account (linked to in another comment, or rather included in CLS’s court papers and posted on a CLS website and linked to via a website that a comment on this board linked to) has a few more details.
/* I am sure i would not be allowed to teach a Gospel Doctrine class.
*/
Good point, but wrong analogy. This was a Bible study group that hoped to compare notes of what they’ve learned and what different ministers have taught. I think it is fine for an LDS student to lead such a group, just as its fine for a Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalean/Anglican, Methodist, non-denominational, etc. to lead the same group.
OTOH, if I visited a non-LDS curch, I wouldn’t expect to teach the Sunday School lesson either.
“This was a Bible study group that hoped to compare notes of what they’ve learned and what different ministers have taught. I think it is fine for an LDS student to lead such a group, just as its fine for a Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalean/Anglican, Methodist, non-denominational, etc. to lead the same group.”
I agree, but that’s not really the issue here. I think its fine for a Mormon to try join in, but I don’t think its fine for the Mormon to try and shut the Bible study down when he can’t.
Adam,
He didn’t try to shut it down, he merely objected to its subsidization by a public entity.
That may also be something you object to, but the two aren’t the same.
Not just subsidization, Kaimi. He got the group banned from the school.
I can see why the CLS would object to Arkell’s membership, even if he didn’t say anything “wrong” at the first Bible study. He didn’t sign their belief statement, and why should they have to monitor Arkell’s participation to make sure he didn’t advocate is own LDS beliefs? I don’t see the difference between this and having a Baptist teach Gospel Doctrine in the LDS Sunday School. (On my mission, we did have a nonmember teach Sunday School in one branch, but that’s another story and we just had to cross our fingers that she didn’t teach Catholicism.)
Arkell is pressing the latest experiment in relating to other churches. It’s ironic that if the Protestant churches only looked at what the Church has published in the last 20 years or so, including the Ensign and General Conference, they wouldn’t find a lot to object to. The PofGP account, of course, would sound inflammatory; but all the rhetoric in the early 1800s was pretty hot; the churches all attacked one other. And until the temple ceremony was changed about 10 years ago, it did refer pretty specifically to protestant ministers. So there is a basis for the Christians to resent the LDS, but it’s more historical than current, IMO.
It remains to be seen whether the ecumenical approach will help or hinder the Church’s missionary work. Maybe it’s better to minimize the differences, but it could also be counterproductive if people conclude there are no substantial differences, at least not substantial enough to justify all the ancillary requirements of being active LDS.
Am I the only one old enough to remember that the previous version of the temple ceremony did express certain rather negative views of traditional Christian organizations?
Noel, I am rather old, I suppose, compared to some (most?) here. I believe that the information you’ve been provided is a bit dated. As Charles and Max Lybbert have noted above, the ceremony does not cast aspersions on Christians, though the ceremony was changed a number of years ago. The changes were clear and needed improvements.
I also wonder if the First Vision account’s criticism of creeds is not intended to suggest that what the world needed was a new and improved creed but rather an entirely different approach to religion — one that eschewed creeds altogether in preference for a process. But I acknowledge that my views of those instructions are rather notably not mainstream LDS.
greenfrog: No you’re not alone in remembering older versions of the temple ceremony. There’s a few of us still kicking. I wouldn’t be suprised if there were one or two ancient one’s around here who remember even older versions. Let’s see if they’re brave enough to ‘fess up. : )
For the record, I went through the temple in 1997, so I definitely can’t speak about what happened before that time. Also, for the record, my previous post seems meaner (to me) than it did when I wrote it. I simply wanted to make the point that every church has to justify its organization.
The question regarding the definition of “Christian” was simply to explain why various Christian churches recognize each other as Christian (according to what I understand, which may be wrong).
Adam wrote, “He got the group banned from the school.” I didn’t see that. Could you direct me to a source for this statement? The court papers refer to the local chapter of CLS as a “unincorporated entity,” which means that they haven’t filed any papers with the state to be formed, and they are basically a group of friends with a name for themselves. It seems pretty hard to ban a group of friends from the school without banning the individuals in the group.
But it is possible that the school stopped recognizing CLS as a club. However, I didn’t read that in the court papers filed by CLS.
I was under the impression that the CLS was no longer going to be able to use Washburn’s rooms for the meetings and that they withdrew recognition from it, but I can’t find that anywhere in CLS’ complaint. Guess I was wrong. The complaint only mentions being denied the funding that other groups recieve.
Those who dismiss this as a simple “we don’t allow Buddhists to teach in our Relief Society” remove a critical element of the argument. We, the LDS Church, don’t accept government money when we buy land, build a church, and hold meetings. Our associations in that respect are truly private, so yes, if an evangelical Baptist tried to force his way into our Sunday School to preach against us (I live in NC too, this has happened), we have every right to ask him to leave.
If CLS wants to exists as a private club, free of government money, then they may certainly do so, but when they register as a university club and accept university money the dynamic changes. To paraphrase President Hinckley when he declined to join in on Bush’s faith-based initiatives. we shouldn’t be surprised to find that government entitlements bring government entanglements.
Well, Adam, you may be right about the use of rooms. I don’t know. I do know that the complaint specifically references getting funding from a mandatory “activities fee.” I don’t remember the case, but it ahs already been determined (at least in one state, but I can’t remember which) that students who don’t wish to participate in clubs, or who don’t like what certain clubs stand for, cannot avoid paying the whole fee.
College policies regarding use of rooms aren’t uniform, but do require permission from administration.
OK, my last post sounded stupid.
The community college down the street from me allows groups — even groups without any students as members — to use its rooms subject to approval from the administration (so a neighborhood astronomers club would be permitted, a neo-Nazi club wouldn’t, an astrologers club may not be). The policy is a requirement under state law, but it’s the kind of state law I expect to exist in most states. This particular college does’t even mind if the groups are using rooms every week, but I expect some colleges to put limits on that.
The original story posted here did say, “Arkell filed a discrimination complaint with the university, which then revoked the CLS’s charter.” Revoking the charter may have prevented the group from meeting officially.
Oh, and in a place where so many lawyers stop by, it turns out that some unincorporated entities do file paperwork with the state. For instance, LLCs aren’t “incorporated,” but do file articles of orginaization with the state. I doubt that the local CLS chapter is an LLC, but I did want to point out my previous error.
I find myself saddened by this.
Back in the day, I attended the CLS chapter at the University of Miami School of Law. There was no JRCLS. I didn’t sign the statement of belief, but was never pushed to do so. Miami also had a good sized Catholic Law Society (it may have had a different name, but it was essentially that), a flourishing chapter of Cardozo, and during my 3L year, witnessed the founding of a chapter of the Jewish Comparative Law Society, which was a more Orthodox, somewhat Chabad-influenced group. All these groups were essentially inclusionary, and often sponsored joint functions. There was a real benefit from the sense of sharing and comparison that existed between these groups.
I remember a joint bible study with CLS and the Catholic group during the Easter season when I shared some things from the Bible that had been strongly influenced by my LDS background (many of them were taken from some things I learned from Jeffrey Marsh when at the U of U), but were still Bible-based. I know my insights were appreciated, based on comments I got from friends.
I made some great friends in CLS, some of whom were invited to the blessing of one of my daughters, and thus got to experience a sacrament meeting first-hand. I am certain that some of my evangelical friends came away with a much more positive impression of the church through my participation in CLS and my friendship than they would have otherwise possessed.
The real irony is that my clearest memory of a CLS activity involved a presentation by Michael P. Schutt of Regent University’s School of Law on Christian Conciliation, which is a branch of Alternative Dispute Resolution that bases itself in the teachings of 1 Cor. 6:1-8, and therefore seeks to remove disputes among believers from the court system. Apparently that principal is not at work here.
The Thomas More Society is, as you say, essentially the Catholic Law Society.
I would like to address the idea of having a non mormon participate or lead a discussion group or class. I don’t think the idea is entirely far fetched. If Arkell wanted to teach a “christian” bible study there should be no reason to deny him. If he fits the qualifications laid out by the 5 points of faith then he is equally qualified as is any other christian group.
Likewise, if a mormon bible study were started and baptists, budhists and athiests joined, even anti mormons. I would not exclude any of them from teaching or leading a discussion if they were doing so from the mormon perspective. That is if they genuinely approached the material and taught or lead the discussion according to the principle of the class.
If Arkell stood up and began denouncing Christ or claiming that everyone was unilaterally wrong, he should be removed. But if he stood up to say here are your beliefs and this is where we differ that is a different subject. Its also interesting to note that in my experience and my opinion the more intelligent a person is, sometimes makes it harder to take things personally when told that they or a belief they hold is incorrect. If Arkell suggested that the LDS church is the only true church with any authority and other churches are all wrong. It would be easy for anyone that follows those other religions to take it more personally, no matter how politely Arkell put his statements.
I don’t know what he said for sure, but If a Baptist were to lead a mormon discussion the only requirement I would hold is that they present the material fairly and discuss whatever differences they may hold.
There have been a number of good points made, mingled with tangents. I enjoy what is expressed with true conviction of belief.
Getting back to the basics we see a messenger, Arkell, report to authorities, Washburn Law School, of an incompliant subject, CLS. The action authorities take on the subject is out of the hands of the messenger, while the subject remains bound to its authorities.
Unaware of specifics in CLS organization structure, a vote, if available, would be a good cure for this ailment. Voting, it seems, is a legal means to accomplish what took place. Sadly, CLS is willing to bite the hand that feeds it.
I haven’t spoken of religion, although it is a noted influence in what I have said. I can’t know the intention of others. That is personal.
This is a test of the law. Will it function under its own organization or be influenced by unconstitutional robbers? Our future is a product of our actions or inactions. Following through with this action will fortify our future by affirming that the law is what governs.
Unfortunately, the statement by the CLS misrepresents what actually happened.
I was invited to attend the CLS meetings by their President, Treasurer, and Secretary. I was good friends with all of them. I told them that I was worried about how I would be treated, because I knew that LDS people sometimes are not treated very fairly by some Christians, especially evangelical Christians. I knew that the President Albert Thom was an evangelical Christian.
They told me not to worry, that I would not be treated poorly, because the group was non-denominational.
After attending for about 4 weeks, the group decided to start a Bible study. The president asked for volunteers to lead the study. No one raised their hands. Finally I volunteered because I had experience teaching in church and as a missionary.
I prefaced my Bible study with the fact that I was LDS and didn’t want to say anything objectionable. I told the students to stop me if I did.
I used the NIV version of the Bible rather than the KJV, because I knew most of the students used that translation.
I asked the students afterwards if I had said anything objectionable, no one said I did. In fact, the treasurer of the CLS said “No you didn’t say anything objectionable. I would have stopped you if you did.” I was attempting to be very deferential, because I didn’t want to offend anyone.
Two weeks later, the President said I could no longer lead Bible study, because in the Bible study I used the statement “the eyes are the window to the soul,” which is a quote from Cicero echoed by Jesus in Matthew 6. I was told that “Christians don’t believe in that; that is a strictly Mormon doctrine.”
I have never heard a Mormon authority use that quote, but I did find the quote on several Christian websites.
My dad was a Baptist, my mom was a Methodist. I understand the differences in religions. I took several comparative religion courses. I know that I did not say anything objectionable. In fact, the CLS’s secretary resigned over this, because she didn’t want to take this action.
The vote to kick me out was 3 for 1 against, but two of the people voting me out weren’t even at the Bible study meeting. They just trusted what Mr. Thom said.
I never even heard of the Statement of Faith until a month after getting kicked out. Although I agree with 90-95% of what it says, there are some things I feel are worded in an unclear manner, or I don’t agree with 100%, such as God the Father created the earth (I believe Jesus Christ created the earth under the direction of the Father) and on the advice of a member of my Stake Presidency, I didn’t feel I should sign it.
I believe I was kicked out as a pre-emptive action by the CLS president Albert Thom. He was worried that I might say something objectionable in the future. I think it is wrong for them to have discriminated against me, if they are going to receive public funds, some of which came from money I paid into the student activity fee fund.
If they want to start their own organization with their own funds, discriminate away. That is what all other private church organizations have the right to do.
Washburn Lawsuit
Another year and another lawsuit here at Washburn. Last year was the penis-headed statue suit. The school ended up winning that one. This year it is the Christian Legal Society v. the Washburn Student Bar Association. The case has been…