cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

- Religious Studies (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=35)

- - keeping the faith in Provo (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29067)

keeping the faith in Provo

I have a copy now. Just need to read it.

Read it, don't like it. :)

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Our alumni magazine recently republished a statement delivered in 1975 by then-president of the Latter-day Saints (whom we had sustained as Prophet) Spencer W. Kimball. Sometimes, he had said, "we must be willing to break with the educational establishment (not foolishly or cavalierly, but thoughtfully and for good reason) in order to find gospel ways to help mankind. Gospel methodology, concepts, and insights can help us to do what the world cannot do in its own frame of reference." The university must help the world when it "has lost its way on matters of principle." Mormons "can, as Brigham Young hoped we would, 'be a people of profound learning pertaining to the things of this world' but without being tainted by what he regarded as the 'pernicious, atheistic influences' that flood in unless we are watchful. Our scholars, therefore, must be sentries as well as teachers!"

At a recent faculty meeting, I asked my colleagues whether we did not need to pay attention to his concerns. I did not expect most of the faculty and administrators to attach the same urgent importance I do to his warning, but I was still somewhat startled by their casual dismissal of Kimball's concerns. In their responses, his lack of credentialed expertise in specialized matters of higher education was noted, and it was argued that he was then addressing the social upheaval of his time and it no longer was of concern to us. The call to be distinct from the academic mainstream did not apply to us.

And in case the practical conclusion was not clear to all faculty, particularly to untenured professors concerned to keep their jobs, what was expected of us was spelled out plainly: Your job, we were told, is to be good scholars and teachers as these functions are defined by the broader (secular) educational establishment by which we measure ourselves. Should you choose to break with this establishment by seeking to fulfill some distinctive Latter-day Saint mission—well, there you are on your own, and you must assume for yourself the professional risks involved. It was pointless for me to press the question of BYU's mission any further.

I read it.

He articulates a complaint, leaves us hanging about who the alliances are and what the alternative is.

I agree with you and note that the article was long on verbiage but short on substance.

I felt like he was setting up a false dichotomy--that you can either have secular success or "religious" success, but you can't have both.

Imagine if BYU were to promote professors based on their testimonies rather than their scholarly work. "This guy has an amazing testimony. Mixes in humor, then gets to tears without fail." How in the world would this be measured? Wouldn't this reward the great fakers among us?

Requiring that BYU faculty be temple recommend holders is already a pretty high bar. Now what?

And let's face it, there has been A LOT of dead weight among the BYU faculty. Esp. those hired in the 1970s when there were slim pickings.

And don't even get me started about how they grade the seminary classes that they call religion courses.

After you read the article, you get the impression that if someone were to say that they opposed gay marriage they would be driven out of BYU. Give me a break. What a doofus to make that appear to be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 318450)

Agreed.

Did you guys buy the article? I'd like to read it too.

Hancock is one of the anchors of conservative Mormonism and although he is divisive, he is good at goading secular-minded intellectuals to question their assumptions.

PM me with an email address.

Googling the title we are the only place on the first page where this is being discussed.

I wish I had the time to do a proper critique of this article.

Quote:

One must sympathize as well with colleagues who, with full respect to Kimball's authority, do not see what it would mean to apply his prophetic language to the article they need to write or the class they need to teach. Just what "pernicious, atheistic influences" ought we to guard against, and just what are the "gospel methodologies" that might serve as alternatives? In 1988, Jeffrey R. Holland, then BYU's president, proposed a positive linkage between our educational and religious missions when he urged the faculty to resist hyper-specialization, by which we seek merely to "imitate others or win their approval," and instead to assume the responsibility of "those educated and spiritual and wise [to] sort, sift, prioritize, integrate, and give some sense of wholeness . . . to great eternal truths." But the machinery of specialization was already
in place, and it has only accelerated.

The great tool of Satan is.....specialization of faculty?

Quote:

Our disciplines and ever more specialized subdisciplines are designed to bracket and ultimately to suppress the larger, integrating questions that once defined liberal education, but it is comforting, not to say professionally advantageous, to imagine that no paradigm or assumptions frame our approach to psychology or sociology or political science or literary criticism, or at least that it is not our job to exhibit or to question those assumptions. A teacher "progresses" (produces articles, accumulates citations, gains tenure) by suppressing the perennial questions about human nature and its purposes and proceeding on the basis of the accepted methodologies, as if these were neutral and had no bearing on such questions.

Who knows what this even means. He just dances around not getting to anything tangible. Not providing any concrete examples.

Perhaps his proof of having not fallen for this trap is that he has not published in academic journals? Surely there would be many faculty candidates who could provide similar proof in their CVs.

Quote:

For the still small but vocal and increasingly influential group of Mormon progressives, this statement may be dismissed as the prejudice of a passing generation: After all, it's not actually "scripture," they argue, and in any case its tradition-bound teaching is clearly less compelling ethically (to say the least) than the progressive commitment to "equality," which reflects the very heart of Christianity. If it seems that this new progressive-liberal ethics is at odds with plain church teachings on sexuality and the family, the new liberals recur to a progressive recasting of the doctrine of continuing revelation to explain away any contradiction: Church leaders will catch up with the progress of equality eventually.

Ok, here is what the Proclamation on the Family says:

Quote:

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

I'm trying to find the doctrine on homosexuality--why it exists, where it comes from, whether it is a sin, etc. Can't find it.

Earlier in the proclamation:

Quote:

ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Again, where is the doctrine on sexuality?

Dear Br. Hancock, tell me about these plain church doctrines on sexuality. Is it a sin to be gay? Why are people gay? What will happen to "gayness" in the next life? Why can't gay persons easily convert to being non-gay?

If being gay is not a sin, what are the implications of that? If being gay is a sinful state, what does that say about free agency?

Everything is clear to Br. Hancock. I just wish he would explain it to the rest of us.

I keep thinking about this article. Because when I check CG for new posts, it's the main one that has appeared in the feed.

It's an important question--how does BYU assume or maintain a unique religious component to its education in a country where this doesn't really exist very much?

My objection to Hancock's article is that he fails to really think about this in any kind of meaningful way, other than to dog what has perceives as his enemies. He's shallow. But he is addressing an important question.

So he's a question: what do you get at BYU (or should get) that you don't or can't get from a public or private university + institute?

BYU
1. I always thought it was weird to have church in a lecture hall. I never liked that.

2. It's easy to get "lost" at BYU. I never had a calling in four years. I gave one or two talks total during four years. And one of those was only because I mentioned I had never given a talk to my roommate, who had a calling that allowed him to ask the Bishop to give me that assignment.

3. It's easy to go through BYU and never talk to much about religion or personal beliefs. Because the assumption is that everyone has the same beliefs, there's not a lot that you really compare or contrast. I found that I was much less likely to get into a gospel conversation in Provo than I was in Texas.

4. I found most of the religion classes to be the equivalent of Sunday School or Gospel Doctrine classes. Some of them I liked, some of them I didn't. For the same reasons that I like some Gospel Doctrine teachers and I don't care for others. Dan Hone. I think that's the name of the guy who taught my freshman BoM class. He was just so sincere and honest that he made it work for me. I had others who felt gimmicky and like they were on stage performing. Didn't like that. I did find the grading to be frustrating in those classes. I didn't like the pressure of grades in a class whose purpose was to discuss religious truth.

5. Not a lot of religious discussion in my other classes. I was a science major. But I also took humanity classes. I did have one teacher in science who was from a foreign country, and he would break in with life lessons and religious experiences. Again, very sincere salt of the earth guy, I enjoyed that. Then again, I've always enjoyed stories more than dry lectures.

6. I think the obvious primary benefit of BYU is the ability to date members of your own faith. You can do it that at other places, but the dating pool among members is smaller. So there's a greater chance you will end up marrying in the faith. A lot of my friends who went to state schools married in the faith as well. But their wives aren't as good looking as mine. :)

7. Some might argue that if I had gone to a different university that I would have encountered ideas and philosophies that would have caused me to lose faith. Ok. Like what? That there is a huge biological component to ethical decision making (Hancock's example). I've encountered that idea. And yet I still go to church every Sunday. It's not the ideas that are the big deal. It's a lot about friends and values. But that's also a choice one can make wherever one is. Provo, or anywhere else. Most of the people I know that have left the church because of ideas left because of religious ideas. Like something from church history that didn't square right with them. They didn't learn about those things sitting in History 308 class. And they certainly didn't hear them in BYU religion classes, which as far as I can tell steer clear of controversial topics from church history. Preparing NO ONE to deal with them.