« Card on Nibley | Main | Blogroll Updates »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I couldn't agree more with your post.

Erm, that is, I think the sticklers for rules are extremely foolish and BYU needs to get wise.

I fully understand the sentiments expressed here, but I really appreciated the rules at BYU and I think the vast majority of students there do as well.

Not being in the apartment of the opposite sex after midnight (or 1:30 on Friday) is a universally understood and accepted rule. I know it sounds strange but I think it accomplished a number of good things, most notably curbing easy opportunities to draw night unto breaking the law of chastity.

Mocking BYU rules is on a par with mocking missionary rules for their level of extremism. If you think about it, the whole missionary manual is ridiculous, but it's still a good thing.

Eric, I'm not mocking anything. I just think some of the rules are dumb and, more generally, that the BYU approach is misguided. Your easy equivalence between missionary rules and BYU rules is revealing.

As more time passes from my days at BYU, I get more dismayed at what comes out of there. I noticed a big change when they put in GA's as the president, now it seems more like they are supervising a youth conference. (But, I am glad that I wasn't there under Ernie's reign)I like the teach correct principles and let them govern themselves idea. That should be the motto on the sign entering campus.

danithew, how could you put the T&S link directly to the BYU NewsNet article I pointed out and not to this post (which does, after all, include a link to the article)?

Though I am a BYU grad, as are many, many of my relatives, including immediate family, these days I find myself planning to dissuade any potential children (I don't have any yet) from going to BYU. While I think much of the Honor Code is good, the application of it, and the insane growth of the rules, has made it insane.

While I was there, and still today, I think the faculty and students are excellent. The administration drives me nuts. It seems that the students and faculty are there to serve the administration, and I believe it should be the other way around. The Honor Code is one example of this.

You're right on the money, Dave.

This type of infantilization is not going to help BYU students make a difference in the world

It seems to me false that the number of rules has increased. Outside of some computing rules regarding privacy, hacking, and so forth, it seems to me that the number of rules has slowly been decreasing. Certainly a lot of rules were removed when I was there about a decade ago. And the rules from before that were far more lax than what I read about in the 70's.

I can certainly understand those who wish to have rules more like regular campuses. But be aware what the implies.

The no after hours visits isn't just designed to limit "sexual mistakes" during late night passionate makeout sessions. It is designed to help roommates have the opportunity to have an apartment environment in keeping with the standards of the church.

It is simply nice to be able to go out in the kitchen without having people of the opposite sex there. Especially if it's 3 in the morning and you just want a glass of water.

Now, let's be honest. Would the Caltech honor code apply to the apartment life of its students? No, unless the abuses were massively egregious. By and large if you have an unfriendly apartment life it is considered "tough luck." Further you shouldn't have any expectations of being able to find an apartment conducive to a religious experience.

That's fine if you happen to know people and can bring people together in an apartment. When you are doing the "hope my roommates don't suck" guess of picking an apartment in Provo, that just doesn't cut it.

Having also lived in apartments in an non-Mormon environment during my college career as well as in my post-BYU housing, I can say that I fully understand why some don't want parties going on at 3 in the morning with drunk girls and people going at it next to you. I can understand not wanting to have to deal with used condoms in your bedroom or coming home late and finding someone "borrowing" your bed for use with a one night stand.

The honor code does this.

Now where I will criticize BYU is for inconsistent application of the code. I think the honor code office is horrible. I reported someone for being a peeping tom, stealing, and so forth. I provided them court transcripts for multiple arrests at BYU. The guy wasn't even put on probation.

Clark, do you seriously believe that without the Honor Code, or with a seriously minimalized Honor Code, all hell (as you have just described) will break lose? I certainly don't think so. We are talking about LDS students. With the ecclesiastical endorsement and an application process that encourages seminary graduation, they already bring in students who probably aren't going to be major partiers. As it is, the Honor Code, really doesn't stop those who want to do all of that anyway. Thus, it really doesn't seem to serve much purpose except, as the current event shows, to punish good students.


That's true. The honor code doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they really want to do. But it does stop them from doing it in your apartment after midnight. I agree with Clark that the real purpose of the rule might not be so much for the rule-breaker, but for the sake of the rule-breakers roommates.

And it's something almost everyone appreciates. Point being, I don't think it's some sort of tyrannical oppression. If the aforementioned rule were put to a vote of all students on campus, I'm betting anything the students vote to keep the rule by a landslide.

Eric, now there's an idea that would boost participation in BYU elections!

Eric, from past experience (as an observer/roommate, not a participant), it really doesn't stop anyone from doing anything after midnight. That's kinda my point.

As for a vote, excellent idea. However, if the options are keep the current code or scrap it altogether, you are probably right that it would stay. If a much simplified, non-paternalistic code were proposed alongside those options, I'd bet that would be the winner.

Just to add to Clarks point: things have not gotten worse. My brother (the quintessential eighties man) received a violation for not wearing socks with his boat shoes.

That said, I think an honor code is a good thing. Though, as many hear have well stated, the current code is just dumb. I probably shouldn’t have been allowed to graduate for all my flauntings (out late, lack of shaving, etc.)

When I got to BYU after four years at USU, I found that the Honor Code meant that my roommates' boyfriends did not move in. I thought that was a nice effect. My roommates at USU were all LDS too, but had no compunctions about moving the boyfriend into my apt.

That said, I think disqualifying these guys from the election for a curfew violation is absolutely ridiculous. I've never heard of a BYU athlete being suspended from playing a game due to a curfew violation, and I would bet that at least one athlete in the history of BYU has violated curfew. Good grief. Give the guy a warning and let him run in the election.

Hey Dave ... sorry for causing offense. I like to go to original sources of information and thought the "hat tip" would be a good way to give you credit. But maybe some aren't realizing what DMI stands for.

No offense, danithew, it's just nice if people come here and leave comments. And it's always fun to see a "T&S spike" in my daily traffic stats.

That's certainly not the honor/dress code I remember from the late '70s/early '80s. (Which did, however include this amusing gem: "The administration will designate appropriate dress for each student body function")

But what's the deal with this:

"The use of the bathroom area by members of the opposite sex is not appropriate unless emergency or civility dictate otherwise; and then only if the safety, privacy and sensitivity of other residents are not jeopardized."

I'm not even sure I understand what that means or what sort of safety and sensitivity violations it's trying to prevent. Bizarre.

With all due respect to the ideas of those who have comments regarding the specifics of the honor code, I would like to state my support for the administration at BYU Provo in disqualifying the candidates. The student body leadership has a large influence on the attitudes and atmosphere of the campus. When students attend a church school, they agree to live the honor code. As many have pointed out, it doesn't take everyone in an apartment disregarding the honor code to ruin its advantages, just one. For this reason, we ask students to commit to live the honor code. Students who commit to do these things and then don't are breaking a commitment. Whatever you think of any certain rule, if you agree to follow it and then don't that shows a lack of integrity, and to hold up students who have not shown a serious effort to display the necessary integrity as examples would, in my opinion, be irresponsible. I obviously do not know these particular students, and I don't know the rest of their lives. I do know, that as faculty and staff, if we are going to report a violation of the honor code, we do so as a matter of course. I would never keep from reporting a violation because I knew someone was a candidate for office. And if we are going to censure a student for violation of the honor code, I don't think we can simultaneously hold them up as an example to follow, and these leaders are examples. Am I suggesting we should kick them out of school? No. Am I suggesting harsh punishment? No. Am I suggesting that there needs to be a very high standard of integrity for leadership at a school that intends to teach values? Yes I am.

Dave: "Eric, I'm not mocking anything."

I wonder what actual "mocking" of BYU and BYU affiliates who support these "CLOWNS" looks like?

BYU is not for everybody, nor should it try to please everyone. Moreover, holding up worldly standards (e.g. Caltech's honor code) against an institution that is aiming for gospel standards misses the point completely.

JCP, here's the dictionary definition of "mock": to treat with contempt or ridicule: deride. I admit to using hyperbole (you can look that one up yourself) but that's a far cry from mockery.

The key concept here is incompetence: any executive whose actions tarnish or undermine the reputation of the organization they are charged with directing is incompetent and should be terminated. That's what BYU administrators often do to the reputation of BYU as a university (that's what it is, a university, not a post-seminary finishing school) and some of them ought to be fired for it. No hyperbole there. That's criticism, not mockery. You are welcome to disagree with my criticism, of course, but that's best done by defending the formulation and execution of the system on its merits rather than misconstruing criticism as mockery.

Stephen Hancock ... a stupid rule should be criticized as such. Keeping stupid rules doesn't add all that much to integrity or inspire all that much admiration.

For example, let's imagine that a complete idiot draws a chalk circle on the ground and promises never to step outside that circle. Well, keeping that promise is just plain idiotic.

Seeing BYU faculty leap to the defense of the Honor Code, let me make a couple of quick disclaimers: (1) My frustration is with administration, not faculty; the faculty at BYU and BYU-H (and even BYU-I, I suppose) create most of the value (along with the students) at these institutions and are generally well-regarded by BYU alums, myself included; (2) I'm not saying eliminate the Code, just make it an Honor Code focusing on academic and personal integrity rather than curfew and "dress and grooming standards" rules; and (3) clean up the administration of the Code, which tends toward the arbitrary and political rather than justice and fairness, it would seem.

Just who do you think snitched on the leaders? Likely rival candidates, who are looking at substantial scholarship awards if they win in place of the disqualified candidates. To use Honor Code allegations to further one's own financial interests at the expense of a fellow student is the kind of selfish (rather than principled) ends to which the present system is too often directed.

Dave: Heaping scorn upon the "CLOWNS" at BYU may not seem like contempt (or mockery) to you. But I suspect many people would describe it that way. Perhaps it is all in the eye of the beholder, but if what you do looks very much like mockery to reasonable people, you should accept some responsibility for that. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't.

As for the "merits" of your argument, I was perhaps too brief. I see in your post no attempt to see this issue from the university's point of view. Instead, I see an argument that suggests the university shift its aspirations to secular ideas you find more acceptable. Fine. But before you criticize the notion of a gospel standard for behavior you ought to make some attempt to understand it. Perhaps you actually do understand it. But I see no evidence of that here.

In truth part of your bottom line is quite correct. The honor code at BYU (among other places) is often abused. And some of what is in the document should be reconsidered. In both theory and practice the code falls short of what we might hope (though if you think that Caltech's code and the ones like it are perfect you should get out more: merely a different set of problems). But I do not see how your post advances that debate one whit. Scorn is not a good substitute for reasoned debate.

JCP, it sounds like in the end we actually agree that (1) the Code could use some revisions, and (2) the approach to or style of enforcement needs rethinking. What a pleasant way to wind up the discussion.

I don't often comment on BYU directly, but in previous posts I have defended the idea that BYU has nothing to gain from becoming just like any other state university and has every right to pursue its own vision of what a university is or should be. But the content of that unique vision and how the place is actually run, or should be run, ought to receive more discussion.

PS - See edits to my original post.

I'm not sure there is as much agreement as you suggest. But I do agree that BYU should not try to become yet another state university. We have enough.

I feel a bit bad for the nasty tone of my earlier "chalk circle" comment so I apologize for that. I responded too sharply to what I feel is a very steep self-righteousness related to rule-abiding that sometimes rankles me a bit. I also have issues with a certain honesty analogy that I used to hear while at BYU and was striking out a bit too hard at that one as well.

There's one issue here that I'm still trying to understand ... was this candidate really disqualified for merely being out too late at night? Is there any misunderstanding here? Is there a possibility that another rule was being broken -- for example, a single guy staying in a single girl's apartment 'til the wee hours of the morning?

I'm not against all the rules at BYU -- I'm just concerned that things have gotten to a stage where there are "bed checks" at midnight or some other such thing. Please say it ain't so.

JCP: You distinguish BYU from other secular institutions on the basis that it is striving for a higher, gospel standard. But is a 1:30 curfew really a gospel standard? Is the dress code really a gospel standard? I just don't accept that. In the world of BYU, it seems that every policy, no matter how silly, becomes by definition, a gospel standard and the revealed will of God. If we were serious about applying gospel standards to the behaviour of BYU students, we would disqualify them from elected office for failing to be charitable, or for being too proud, or some other character defect more serious than missing a bed check. This sort of thing is an embarrassment.

Stephen: You say that are not suggesting a harsh punishment, but this seems pretty harsh to me for a relatively minor offence. Maybe there is more to this story than I know, and the offence was more serious, but from what I can tell, this offence, if committed by own child, would merit a sanctimonious lecture from her father followed by a hug.

First, I must disagree with Stephen Hancock's statement that the student body leadership has a large influence on attitudes and atmosphere of the campus. Student participation in these elections is low precisely because no one believes that the student elected officers have any real power or influence. I always thought of them as the brain trust behind hugely important issues like, "Cougars don't cut corners." I saw them as good kids trying to build their resumes.

I believe that the administrations forced resignation only adds to that perception. Also, by forcing a very popular candidate to withdraw, the student body is forced to follow the administration instead of receiving information and then making an educated choice. I would guess that many BYU students have been in apartments of the opposite sex after midnight, many times without even realizing it. Why not let the students decide if this is a felonious crime that makes the candidates unfit for office?

I like the honor code. I didn't want to attend a school where "drunk" and "cool" were synonomous. It serves an important purpose but the administration needs to find ways to empower the student body. This decision sends a message that they aren't capable of making wise choice.

Finally, there are football players who were very much involved with Sexgate I that are still at BYU and on the team. In fact, one or two never missed a game. That was ten times more embarassing than what these candidates did. I fail to see how this was as fair as their treatment.

Gary: Respectfully, I think you're reading far too much into what I said. I'm not claiming that the honor code is perfect (see above), or that it is applied perfectly. I assume that means I did not argue it was revelation. In fact, I know of no one who argues that it is revelatory. But just about everyone believes it is tied to gospel standards. The question should be the quality of those ties: if they are good I would not find it "embarrassing." Though I suspect that ANY gospel ties will be seen as peculiar (at a minimum) by anyone wishing for a more secular standard.

So I agree that policies should be justified in terms of the gospel. Frankly honor code rules are justified in exactly that manner. That doesn't mean that you and I will find all such justifications compelling: often I do not. But I must admit that hanging out in a girl's apartment after 1:30 AM is open to reasonable questions.

P.S. Your point about bed checks is simply a non sequitur since that doesn't happen. And while there are no "pride" requirements (tough to measure), I believe there are a required number of service hours to get on the ballot for student leadership at BYU.

Just to clarify -

When the article mentions "curfew" rules they are not talking about traditional curfew rules, which say you must be home by a certain time. This was just a false assumption that Dave made and has seemed to run on through the posts. There are no such rules at BYU (there are at BYU-I, however, which may cause some confusion).

When BYU-Provo talks about curfew rules they refer only to the rules that say you must be out of the apartment of the opposite sex by a certain time.

Thanks for the clarification, Eric. The details are not particularly clear in either the BYU NewsNet post I linked to or in my discussion.

JCP: I clearly gave the impression that I was reading much more into your comments than I actually did. I did not really think that you thought the honor code is a revelation. (Although I do think that some of its more strident defenders do in fact believe that given that it has the approval of the Board of Trustees.) However, I do have trouble seeing the connection between some elements of honor code and gospel principles. The dress code, in particular, is arbitrary with no connection to any gospel principles that I can see.

I guess my real objection in this case is not so much to the rule requiring people to out of the apartments of other members of the opposite sex by 1:30. We could debate whether or not that rule is too paternalistic, but I can see a legitimate reason for such a rule. I would certainly want my own roomates bound by such a rule, if I were a student. However, I don't agree that breaking that rule is a sufficient reason to disqualify somebody running for student body president. The administration is straining at gnats once again and the reputation of the school suffers each time they behave this way.

I have to speak out, in concert with Matt Sommers, about how laughable I find the idea that "The student body leadership has a large influence on the attitudes and atmosphere of the campus." I suppose, to be fair, a BYUSA president has a little bit more influence over campus "attitudes and atmosphere" than a normal freshman. But to act as if these are very influential people is a joke. I would bet that 70% of the students going when I was at BYU couldn't tell you who was the BYUSA president at the time. Frankly, nobody cared.

And that's what's important about the administration's action here: these are not candidates to be mission presidents or bishops. Besides the general principle of expecting leaders to be morally upstanding people, being the president of the BYUSA comes with no connotations of being a spiritual or ecclesiastical example. Thus, the honor code office should certainly discipline these guys in exactly the same way it disciplines others for the same infraction (which I doubt get punished more than 1% of the time they occur). But I just have no idea why the curfew infraction disqualified someone from running for a mostly meaningless student office.

I don't quibble with the importance of the honor code-- I like it. But why does the most minor infraction diqualify you from running for student body president? Would it disqualify them from running for chess club president? Would it disqualify someone from being on the basketball team? I just don't get it.

It’s difficult to argue with the claim that someone, somewhere believes something (e.g. that the honor code is divinely revealed). I won’t try, although I can’t give it much credence without some evidence.

Reputation is, to a large degree, in the eye of the beholder. BYU having harmed its reputation with some people, hardly translates into "a bad reputation with everybody." And, at any rate, reputation should take a backseat to principle, anyway.

Dave: I am sorry but hauling out the dictionary definition of mockery is a bit thick. Your original post was rather obviously mocking the BYU Honor Code and its administration. Not that there is anything wrong with that, and on occasion it deserves to be mocked, but for crying out loud if you are going to be snarky, at least stand by your snark.


"Stand by your snark" is a classic. We may have to add that to the sidebar somewhere.

Nate and Kaimi, you will no doubt appreciate the recent addition to my Now Reading list, Jack London's The Cruise of the Snark, collected essays about his aborted round-the-world cruise aboard a 44-foot sloop by that name.

I think a better aphorism to guide us would be, "A soft answer turneth away wrath." If changing a few words eases someone's angst or legitimate complaint about something I post, that's a small compromise I'm willing to make. Life is, after all, a succession of prudent compromises. I'm not willing, in this case, to go down with The Snark.

Your suggestion that the dictionary definition of the word "mockery" is irrelevant to someone's use of the term is odd. Of course the meaning of the word is relevant to its use or misuse. If I wanted to mock BYU or the Honor Code, I would know how to do it, but I didn't. The fact that a dozen people pretty much agreed with me suggests it was comment, even criticism, but not mockery. And I don't think that changing a few words in the post, a concession I don't mind making as noted above, really changes the substance of my comments.

When I was at BYU, I realized that BYUSA was a very ineffectual organization. They organize a few dances and do a few service projects, but basically its a beauracracy that exists to pad student's resume.

Why do I say this? Because I had to work with BYUSA on five or six seperate occassions for one reason or another - and NOTHING EVER GOT DONE! I got shuffled from one staffer to another and handed form after form - and in every case, after a few weeks, I gave up and went around BYUSA or gave up.

At one point, a BYUSA staffer was rather rude and told me that BYUSA doesn't need to deal with "you geek types" (this was in my position as chair for Life, The Universe and Everything). At that point, I thought there might be some use to BYUS so I contacted the BYUSA president and ombudsman, providing detailed information and what documentation I could. I got e-mails back saying that they stood by the BYUSA staffers over my complaint and that I should just live with it and the problem was likely with me.

Anyway - BYUSA really is a useless organization, in my somewhat limited experience. So it really doesn't matter who gets the elected posts.

Thought I did vote in every BYUSA election, just so I could say I had a reason to expect some service from them.

Oh, yeah - and I like the Honor code. Good stuff there (I'm serious).

I'm glad that I attended an istitution that treated me like I had some good sense rather than acting like I was in LDS day care. Yes this is an exagerration. Laugh.

If BYU students aren't of a high enough caliber to live away from mommy and daddy without staying up till 2 am and growing beards then that says to me that BYU is not the "Harvard of the West" that I keep hearing about.

Saying that Cal Tech is a "worldly institution" and that the comparison isn't valid is a cop out. Cal Tech students take their honor code seriously. BYU's doesn't take students seriously.

I have been less offensive about this in other posts in the past, but today I am bitter because Stanford got creamed last night, so I how you will all forgive the shell of rudeness that surrounds these comments and find a nugget of truth in them.

I'm glad I attended an institution that took its mission as a religous college seriously. Religion really means nothing without rules and guidelines.

To assume that because we've turned 18 we are somehow magically mature and able to control our hormones/rebellious impulses seems a bit too optomistic. I prefer to see the honor code as a nice antidote to the strong allure of the "natural man" that too many college students give into once freed from "mommy and daddy."

(Heck, the fact that student who attend BYU have low divorce rates and high activity rates speaks well for BYU - whereas here at UT-Austin, every home teaching route I have had contains at least one LDS youth who went to college and got into the partying scene, became inactive and now lives with his/her third boy/girlfriend).


I, and other members that went to school where I did, had rules and guidlines. They were the commandments and the scriptures. I stuck to them and didn't go wrong, unless you count a beard, sandals, and shorts as wrong. I wasn't aware of any active members that fell away from the church because of the opportunity to go to parties. I even went to parties regularly but never drank. I am aware of a few students that went to college far away from home with the intent of becoming inactive the moment the got to college. They accomplished their goal. I am guessing they never would have considered BYU and that an "honor" code such as BYU's wouldn't have helped them.

Random John: Since several students at BYU have written in here to say that the BYU honor code did help them, why exactly are you so hostile to it? No one is making you live it.

And the point about Caltech's honor code was was not mean to denigrate it, but to point out that Caltech is clearly aiming for a different environment. Both institutions take their model seriously. You get a different set of problems at each place. I'm not really sure which is better. Perhaps neither is better, but the existence of differences allow students to choose what they want.

I think people err in assuming that the honor code is simply about the gospel. (That's the typical complaint) But they simply aren't the same thing. So complaining that the honor code somehow implies that an activity is immoral is silly. Clearly things like dressing nice have little to do with ethics. But I can understand why BYU would have them.

Disagree. Fine. As JCP pointed out, no one is forcing people to come. I really don't see why this looking down the nose at it. I understand those who think the honor code is incompatible with their view of a university. That's fine. But I think religious university is inherently an oxymoron based upon the mainstream view of a university.

The real question is why there should be only one view of a university (IMO). But that's a whole other conversation.

As a BYU graduate, I continue to be deeply grateful for the Honor Code and the "Standards" office that enforces it.

Some years after graduating, both my spouse and I were sent questionaires as part of an attempt by BYU to assess the effectiveness of the University and its mission. One of the questions was "Do you believe attending BYU strengthened your testimony?"

We looked at one another and both wrote, "Yes. Having survived the pettiness and hypocrisy of the BYU bureaucracy with my testimony intact, I now doubt that any force on earth can separate me from the Church."

The Honor Code was a large part of that "strengthening" process. Where else can you confront stupidity and narrow-mindedness of official (not to mention officious) Church employees on a daily basis?

I am indeed grateful for the BYU Honor Code and those who enforce it. I hope they don't change a thing.

I wish I lived in as nice a world as Diogenes. Sadly I find that "pettiness and hypocrisy ... stupidity and narrow-mindedness" are traits found in disturbingly high proportions across the population.

If the correlation was stronger among Mormons (or among the religious generally) my life would probably be less complicated. Such things would, at least, be easier to avoid.

Of course no is forcing anybody to attend BYU. But that has nothing at all to do with whether certain elements of the honor code and the manner in which it has been enforced in this case are good things. Some supporters have justified their position by stating that BYU is trying to promote a gospel standard. Fine. Promoting gospel standards is a good thing. I support that. But what gospel standard or principle is advanced by depriving the student body from even having the option of electing as their president somebody has been caught staying too late in the somebody else's apartment? I believe that these kinds of actions have exactly the opposite effect from that intended by the administration.

I don't think anybody thinks there should be just one view of what a university should be. However, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask what kind of university BYU should be. Actions like the one Dave has complained about are absolutely inconsistent with my view of what BYU should be. My holding this opinion in no way implies that I think there is only one good model for a university.

Actually I think that the BYU Honor Code harms members of the Church that do not attend the Y by teaching a subset of those that do to be pharisees, which attitude they take with them in the wider world. Again, this is a small percentage, and maybe those people already have that attitude, but it get reinforced.

As long as I am being inflamatory, I should mention that I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of how it isn't Satan's Plan in action.

JCP: I certainly agree with you that pettiness and narrow-mindedness are found everywhere. However, when it happens to be found within the church or in a church sponsored institution, it should not be defended on the basis that it is necessary to promote gospel principles or the mission of the church.

Pharisee is an overused word destined to lose all force of meaning.

The Honor code at BYU does not teach us to be Pharisees. However, it seems that some are being Pharisaical in their condemnation of it.

(hmm - that was vaguely postmodern of me).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad