Temple Recommend required to work at BYU

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I call B.S. on this one.

I'm just relaying what I heard from two friends who are taking summer teaching jobs in the Sociology department. Sure, it's rumor, but it's reliably sourced. While I have no reason to doubt them, I'll ask them for more information.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

this is why my kids will never go to byu....

Becasue you are opposed to these issues being dealt with in a faith affirming way?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by creekster

Becasue you are opposed to these issues being dealt with in a faith affirming way?

traditionally, the "faith affirming way" is equal to the "whitewash the history of church and what its leaders say to make us look good for PR issues" instead of what it should mean

[Solon]

Originally Posted by creekster

Is it your contention that all university instruction in every subject is given in a completely neutral and unbiased manner without reference to current or recent social issues, political agendas or patterns of conduct? If so, we have another candidate for your list of silly items.

Surely there is bias and agenda to be found at every university, but I think for many it boils down to issues of academic freedom. A sociologist may espouse certain social theories that contradict LDS beliefs on the family and gender roles; a historian might have a different approach to teaching LDS, Utah, or US history than is put forth in Sunday School curricula. A literature teacher might wish to teach a text that deals with topics often eschewed (e.g. sex, explicit language, violence). A professor might not want his/her job to depend on whether his/her teachings, ideas, and methods jive with ecclesiastical authorities who are unversed in the professors' field(s).

I don't begrudge BYU for this. It's a private school and its administrators can run it in any way they wish. If I don't like it, I don't have to work there (or go to school there). It's just too bad my tithing has to help fund it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To weed out the so-called malcontents. Those professors that are only nominally Mormon, or don't consider themselves Mormon at all anymore.

I'm sure there were particular people they had in mind when they passed the rules. Just like the auto-ignore on cougarboard.

What is the "auto ignore" due to your preference it automatically ignores people for you?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

traditionally, the "faith affirming way" is equal to the "whitewash the history of church and what its leaders say to make us look good for PR issues" instead of what it should mean

While this does happen, it's not as prevalent as you make it out to be. I had Religion professors who were quite open about topics such as Fanny Alger, Adam-God, and Mountain Meadows.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

traditionally, the "faith affirming way" is equal to the "whitewash the history of church and what its leaders say to make us look good for PR issues" instead of what it should mean

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful." - Boyd Packer, 1981.

I cite this not to pick at Packer, but to explain why some academics accuse BYU of limiting academic freedom (Packer's talk was addressed to CES teachers). I wonder if those who teach subjects far removed from any possibility of controversy object on idealistic grounds or ignore the debate altogether since it doesn't really affect them personally.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

What is the "auto ignore" due to your preference it automatically ignores people for you?

auto-ignore means that I am automatically ignored by everyone, unless you go in and change the default auto-ignore setting. And it is not publicized.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

traditionally, the "faith affirming way" is equal to the "whitewash the history of church and what its leaders say to make us look good for PR issues" instead of what it should mean

So you don't let your kids go to primary either? I went to BYU. And out of the 40 or 50 classes I took, maybe only a few could be categorized even remotely that way. And those were religion classes. And I bet the professors got closer to actual history of the church and avoided whitewashing than a typical CES institute instructor would. Your comment is nuts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful." - Boyd Packer, 1981.

I cite this not to pick at Packer, but to explain why some academics accuse BYU of limiting academic freedom (Packer's talk was addressed to CES teachers). I wonder if those who teach subjects far removed from any possibility of controversy object on idealistic grounds or ignore the debate altogether since it doesn't really affect them personally.

We've already had numerous debates on this issue, and most here are in agreement that Packer's approach is less than sensible. It is also true that not every BYU administration has adopted the Packer philosophy. It is known that Hugh B. Brown and David O. McKay did not adopt it.