The BYU Baseball player saga

While in Colorado covering BYU at Air Force and Wyoming for five days last week, a tip to the SL Tribune led to a story on a BYU baseball player losing his bishop’s endorsement to stay at BYU, thus the baseball team. The reason given was church attendance, or lack thereof.

I’ve had numerous requests for me to weigh in on the issue, give my take. I’ve been waiting as our BYU baseball reporter, Jeff Call, does his job in trying to do produce our own story.

Trouble is, after this story hit the press, a domino effect took place with those involved in the story: Nobody wants to talk about it. This is not an athletic issue, as per the baseball team or the athletic department — they were not party to any decisions. It is not a true BYU issue either and did not involve the administration or honor code folks — they didn’t make any decisions. So, none of these people have anything to say.

This is an issue between an LDS Bishop and a member of his ward. Those two parties are the only authorities who have information to discuss the matter publicly. Right now, neither are talking.

The bishop is not going to comment on a matter involving his private meeting/decision with a member of his ward. The fountain of information, the player or a relative (in this case, his father) has since refused to discuss the matter with the media since it made its way to the surface last Friday.

I’ve got two simple observations.

The first is obvious. A headline or sound bite that basically reads “Best BYU baseball player kicked off team for not going to church,” is stupid and dumb. Such an event, happening, or incident does nobody any good — not the person involved, not BYU and not the Church.

In more simple terms, the fallout in wake of this pronouncement has been way over-blown, especially in terms of its assumed finality. The balance is also off — with one side of the story illustrated. What’s even more disappointing is how many observers expressing their opinions have taken this as some kind of precedence-setting decision by a clergyman on a campus ward; the so-called wave of the future at BYU or how it is in every day life on a campus ward.

Hogwash.

This isn’t the way it is, in my opinion and 30-plus years observing it all up close.

It is so unique, that’s why it became a story of such interest.

It is a fact that endorsement forms signed by students and bishops in a joint interview prior to admittance acknowledges the student understands he or she will regularly attend church meetings in the ward in which his/her membership records are on file.

A violation of that could result in action. Does it? Sometimes. Must it? Up to the bishop.

The trouble in pulling an endorsement for not going to church, is that it may appear to be the same basic action towards a ward member who has actually committed a moral sin or civil injustice or crime and even those such shortcomings don’t always make it to the honor code office — up to the bishop.

Missing a few church meetings is not a crime or complete moral breakdown, in my opinion. But in this case, my opinion, nor yours really matters.

I don’t believe this is over. I have a feeling this story broke during a process that had not completed its full cycle.

Second, I believe it is unfair for the one party in this story, one who cannot speak due to obligatory duty to respect privacy, the bishop, to be judged so harshly without full disclosure on his part.

Until we hear something more, I take it as an interesting tale that’s tickled a lot of interest, not much more.

If it is a precedent, well, that is a different matter entirely.