smac97 Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) A recent thread centered on discussion of BYU and its future: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The thread centered on an article written by Peggy Fletcher-Stack and published by the Salt Lake Tribune on January 14, 2024: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The above article was preceded by this one, published on January 6 (also by Fletcher-Stack) : For a number of faculty members, these are dark days at the church-owned school. Much of the discussion in the previous thread noted above centered on an apparent retrenchment effort at BYU, including quite a bit of hand-wringing on the part of Peggy Fletcher-Stack (via an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune), our @Teancum, and others who speculate about whether BYU will move away from its religious roots and become a heavily secularized school, or whether it will retain its religious roots (and, therefore, deteriorate and lessen itself in reputation and educational excellence). Peggy Fletcher-Stack and the Tribune even created a moody YouTube video (as in dark and washed-out colors, downer music in the background, etc.) about it (the video was posted on January 6, the same day as the "dark days" article above) : Gotta love the title: "BYU professors afraid of crackdown on Clark Gilbert’s version of LDS orthodoxy." So Elder Clark Gilbert, a general authority seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the CES commissioner, presumably appointed by the First Presidency of the Church, is going rogue and crafting his on idiosyncratic "version of LDS orthodoxy" and pushing it on to the faculty and administration at BYU. That's the narrative. The Tribune also followed up with a "Mormon Land" podcast on January 8: What is happening at BYU? Two LDS academics explain. The reaction to the foregoing material has been interesting. Sam Brunson posted an article on By Common Consent on January 7 Clark Gilbert, BYU, and Developing Disciples of Jesus Christ At Public Square Magazine, Carol Rice published this article on January 8: Redefining Higher (and Holier) Education: BYU’s Fusion of Faith and Learning "A Thoughtful Faith" published this on January 7 in response to the Trib's "Dark Days" article: The Salt Lake Tribune’s INSANE Report On BYU And The Church (Interestingly, this video currently has over 71,000 views, in contrast to the Trib's January 6 "Black Box" video, which currently has around 12,000 views.) Meanwhile, the Church seems to be increasingly clear about the direction it intends to take itself and BYU. June 5, 2024: Church schools navigate ‘precarious time,’ Elder Gilbert says in Washington, D.C. An excerpt: Quote The gospel-centered missions of BYU and BYU–Pathway Worldwide make them unique and valuable in higher education, Church Educational System leaders said Tuesday, June 4, at the first meeting of the new Commission on Faith-based Universities. ... Elder Clark G. Gilbert, General Authority Seventy and Church commissioner of education, is one of the inaugural co-chairs of the new commission, along with Shirley Hoogstra, president of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which represents 180 schools. “This is a precarious time where schools of diverse faith backgrounds need to work across boundaries to strengthen areas of shared emphasis, from religious freedom to accreditation protections,” Elder Gilbert said. “These relationships didn’t just start around this commission. The Church Educational System has worked with the presidents of other faith-based universities for a generation.” He said those relationships built a foundation of trust with peer institutions and their presidents. “Doing this with the American Council on Education gives this effort increased credibility and collective support,” Elder Gilbert said. “Increasingly, our friends of other faiths and our colleagues in the academy are looking not only for engagement but also leadership from the Church Educational System.” "The gospel-centered missions of BYU and BYU–Pathway Worldwide..." Language like this, in 2024, merits some real attention. October 23, 2024: Commissioner of church education: BYU sports can’t drift from core principles Quote No one knows what the future of college sports is going to look like. It was but a few years ago when the transfer portal didn’t exist and paying players was the NCAA’s harshest infraction. Things have changed quickly. The portal has players on the move and NCAA/NIL rulings have student-athletes cashing in. For church-sponsored BYU, the decision to remain in the game is not always an easy call to make. “I hear two different voices. Neither is right, but I hear them a lot. On the one hand, it’s ‘We have to be like Texas or Alabama — more money, more facilities, higher pay and chasing after that,” Elder Clark Gilbert, commissioner of church education for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told the “Y’s Guys” podcast this week. ... “There are a lot of things that aren’t in our control and things going through the House settlement and NCAA negotiations. We’ll have to work within that,” said Elder Gilbert. “But if it ever came down to the only way to stay in this is to walk away from our values, that would be the end of athletics at BYU. This is not going to happen because we are committed to it from the Board (of Trustees), to the commissioner, to the president, to the athletics director, to the coaches. We have a culture here that is exceptional and I’m confident it won’t happen. There is no other place like this.” ... Elder Gilbert cited the built-in church structure that is designed to keep BYU, athletics or academics, from drifting. The buck stops at the Board of Trustees, which includes the First Presidency. “All binding decisions go through (BYU) President Shane Reese to me and then to the full board,” Elder Gilbert said. “No one else can bind the university in any other way, not Tom Holmoe (athletic director), not the donors, and not our coach.” The commissioner reiterated that no direct tithing is used to support BYU athletics. “This is a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is we use tithing for the core work of the church,” Elder Gilbert said. “The bad thing is this could make someone say, ‘Great, we can just do whatever we want.’ But the governance remains universally tied to the Church Board of Education.” January 17, 2025: BYU, other Latter-day Saint schools will not drift from church governance, leader says Quote KEY POINTS Elder Clark G. Gilbert says Latter-day Saint schools will not diverge from church governance. Church financial support is one way BYU, other schools will prevent drift. The recent update to CES hiring policies also help maintain alignment of faculty. The long history of American colleges and universities drifting away from the religions that launched and sponsored them won’t repeat at BYU and its sister schools, one of their leaders said Friday night. “The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” said Elder Clark G. Gilbert, a General Authority Seventy and Commissioner of Education. His message reiterated one he gave at BYU in February 2022. He also directly tied the recent update to the church’s hiring policy, announced in January 2022, to the effort to ensure all Latter-day Saint colleges and universities remain aligned with their sponsoring church. “The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” For the run-of-the-mill Latter-day Saint such as myself, the concept of CES maintaining "administrative governance" of BYU and the Church's other educational institutions seems like a truism, as something as axiomatic as "water is wet" or "circles are round." That Elder Gilbert is, nevertheless, going out of his way to publicly declare and explain this is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that BYU has, in recent years, allowed some of its administration and faculty members to go a bit rogue, perhaps even to the point of subversion. That the Tribune and other folks have, for some years now, publishing histrionic commentary about Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc., and the assertion - or re-assertion - of the Church's actual and philosophical and religious authority over BYU (including its hiring practices/requirements) is, for me, also a pretty good indicator that BYU has been going off the rails for a while, such that Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese are now putting it back on track. I am very happy about this. Quote Speaking at the annual J. Reuben Clark Law Society fireside at the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, Elder Gilbert said the church faces “modern authoritarian forces that would deny religious expression.” “In my role as the Commissioner of Education in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, these threats come from secular agendas in the media, regulators and even from peers and other academic contemporaries,” he said. Wow. Wow. Elder Gilbert ain't playing around. Quote Why universities decouple from religions and BYU won’t Elder Gilbert said an analysis found three major reasons for the decoupling of universities from religious sponsors. The work was done by James Burtchaell, author of “The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches”: Funding sources diversified away from religious sponsors as costs rose. Subsequently, university leaders were selected by new stakeholders unaffiliated with the original sponsoring religions. Specialization of academic disciplines made it difficult for university leadership to review much of the scholarly work of the faculty. Elder Gilbert listed the ways church leaders and the Church Education System maintain a stable tie with BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, Ensign College and BYU-Pathway Worldwide. “For example, the primary funding of BYU comes from the church, and not through grants, government funding, donors or student tuition,” he said. “Similarly, the selection of the university president is made by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Additionally, the CES Board of Trustees is led by the church’s First Presidency and chaired by church President Russell M. Nelson. “Our growing religious freedom and aligned governance provide critical protections for the modern religious university,” Elder Gilbert said. I find this information to be both useful and fascinating. I am also grateful that The Church and BYU are paying attention to this stuff and taking reparative and mitigating measures against the foregoing "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon seen at other colleges and universities. I also note that BYU's capacity for resisting this "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon is heavily reliant on its funding, which in turn comes from its sponsoring institution, which for the last many years has become not only financially stable (in contrast to much of The Church's first 100+ years of existence, during which finances were poor or in disarray), but prosperous and governed by long-term thinking and planning. The above article continues: Quote The church and CES continue to assert their ability to review faculty alignment through an updated 2022 hiring policy, which requires each new CES hire who is a Latter-day Saint “to hold and be worthy to hold a current temple recommend,” a certificate given to church members who meet personal worthiness standards that show alignment with the faith’s doctrines. The schools still can hire people who are not church members if they agree to follow the honor code. “All BYU faculty candidates are interviewed by either the president of the university or the academic vice president, as well as by a general authority, and must be approved by the Board of Trustees,” Elder Gilbert said. Those two interview about 200 candidates per year. Elder Gilbert has said previously that, “No institutional decision is more important to us than the selection of employees, including faculty, as it has the greatest potential to impact our students.” For those who are indifferent to, or even in favor of, the secularization of BYU, the foregoing statements are going to be tough to swallow. For those of us who want BYU to remain, and even enhance and strengthen, its religious moorings and purposes, this is great news. Quote The accountability BYU and its sister schools have given the religious freedom they enjoy Elder Gilbert argued that full expression of religious freedom by Latter-day Saints includes stewardship to God. He called for “a deeply embedded personal and institutional stewardship” and said it was necessary for full religious expression to flourish. He noted that Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said that Latter-day Saints will be held accountable to God for the religious freedoms they’ve received and that the Church Educational System would be held accountable for the aligned governance it has been provided. I appreciate that Elder Gilbert is emphasizing the important link between religious liberty and stewardship. Also, his use of phrases like "aligned governance" is, I think, likely intended to clarify things for observers who may prefer for BYU to follow the well-trodden path toward secularization taken by some other formerly "religious" colleges and universities. A significant component of the Church's and BYU's decision to not go down that path is to exercise appropriate stewardship of hiring at BYU. Quote Elder Gilbert said stewardship requires the church schools to avoid insularity and seek wider engagement with the broader community. They also must ultimately bless others. “We ... benefit from the clear and aligned governance provided by the Church Board of Education,” he said. “... For BYU (and the entire Church Educational System) to become the ‘Christ-centered, prophetically directed university of prophecy,’ as President Shane Reese has said in his talk, ‘Becoming BYU,’ our people must feel both a personal and institutional stewardship to God. This stewardship includes civic, intellectual and ministerial accountability.” "Aligned governance..." BYU as "the ‘Christ-centered, prophetically directed university of prophecy.’" To paraphrase Mark Twain: "The reports of {the secularization of BYU} are greatly exaggerated." January 18, 2025: Stewardship to God is a necessary component of religious freedom, Elder Gilbert says An excerpt: Quote The Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fulfills a unique stewardship to God in its efforts to bless lives around the globe. So said Elder Clark G. Gilbert, General Authority Seventy and commissioner of Church education, as he spoke to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society on Friday, Jan. 17, at the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City. He described the ways the Church demonstrates civic stewardship, intellectual stewardship and ministerial stewardship as part of its ultimate stewardship to Heavenly Father in properly using heaven-given agency and the Constitutionally protected right of religious freedom to bless the lives of individuals around the world. ... One way for the Church and its members to show that service and love is to show ministerial stewardship, Elder Gilbert explained. “Our growing religious freedom and our aligned governance structure from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our Church schools provide critical protections for the modern religious university. … The faculty and the leadership of the Church Educational System carry a stewardship to God for the opportunities we have been given,” he said. "'Our growing religious freedom and our aligned governance structure from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our Church schools provide critical protections for the modern religious university.'" That sure sounds like BYU intends to be a non-secularized "modern religious university," the "governance structure" of which is "aligned" with the Church. Today, the Tribune published this comment by Peggy Fletcher-Stack: Religion and church governance will never take a back seat at BYU, pledges LDS education commissioner Quote Secular forces in the media, government and academia are thwarting religious expression and freedom on college campuses, the education commissioner for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints warned, vowing it wouldn’t happen at Brigham Young University or any of the faith’s other schools. The address Friday night from general authority Seventy Clark Gilbert to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society Annual Fireside came in the wake of a Salt Lake Tribune special report detailing the extra level of scrutiny BYU faculty members have faced under Gilbert’s leadership since 2021. Gilbert, who oversees all of the faith’s seminaries, institutes and schools, declined to be interviewed or to answer specific questions for The Tribune story about his approach to hiring and firing at BYU. In his speech, however, he reaffirmed his insistence on church governance at religious educational institutions. "{H}e reaffirmed his insistence on church governance at religious educational institutions." I think . . . not. Elder Gilbert was speaking on behalf of the Church. It is the Church's "insistence" about the Church's "governance." Quote Many universities, including Harvard, were founded by religious groups, but they eventually lost their spiritual moorings, Gilbert said, due to three factors: Outsourcing funding to “donors, state and federal government, and other nonreligious entities.” Ceding the choice of school leadership to nonbelievers, “who increasingly felt less accountable to their sponsoring religious institutions.” Allowing peer review of scholarly work to “increasingly [come]…from people who did not support or, in some cases, were even antagonistic, to the religious priorities of the university.” Such dependence on outsiders will not occur at Latter-day Saint schools, pledged Gilbert, because the church’s entire education system is primarily self-funded and BYU’s board of trustees includes the faith’s governing First Presidency. How very cool. Quote He cautioned his listeners that “there are concerted efforts to shame and intimidate believers who have traditional moral values and to suppress religious viewpoints and practices.” Latter-day Saints “must be prepared to counter skeptical audiences with persistence, confidence and rigor,” Gilbert said, “as well as grace and humility for our voices to eventually be heard.” Gilbert has offered these insights in other venues, including an essay, “Dare to Be Different,” he wrote for church-owned Deseret Magazine after he became education commissioner. I am glad Elder Gilbert is saying these things. Quote He did not mention in the article or his recent speech the additional requirement that faculty members have a “testimony” of the church’s teachings on “marriage, family and gender,” a demand that goes beyond what the Utah-based faith expects of its 17.2 million members worldwide. Members can support same-sex marriage, for instance, without fear of losing their “temple recommends,” which permit participation in the faith’s most sacred ceremonies, but BYU faculty cannot. That extra requirement cuts to the heart of the issue with a number of BYU faculty members — including whether professors or prospective instructors embrace the church’s stances on these culture war issues in the same way some in the hierarchy and lay bishops do. That is worrisome to employees because those ecclesiastical leaders are among the school’s employment gatekeepers. "{C}ulture war issues." That is an interesting - and apt - characterization from the Tribune. Some thoughts/observations: 1. Gratitude for BYU and the Church: I attended BYU, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have done so. I received a good education and, through hard work and subsidization via The Widow's Mite, I and my wife graduated debt-free. I am grateful that the Church sponsors BYU, both financially and philosophically. I appreciated BYU's religious atmosphere. It helped me realize that I could be "in the world but not of it." 2. Recent Trends/Developments at BYU: I have, in recent years, become concerned about reports of developments at BYU, particularly as pertaining to faculty and administration speaking/acting against the doctrines and practices of The Church. I have even gone so far as to consider whether there has been some manifestations of a "Long March through the Institutions"-type phenomenon in which some BYU faculty/administration deliberately seek subvert The Church by using their positions to influence and encourage BYU students to stray from the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly as to matters regarding marriage, sexuality, and CRT. I think the hullabaloo over Elder Holland's 2021 speech (in which he quoted Pres. Oaks, who in turn was quoting Elder Maxwell, re: "muskets" and the Nauvoo temple) was, for me, a pretty clear indicator that my concerns along these lines were justified (along with the more recent hand-wringing and histrionics at the Tribune). 3. Uniqueness of BYU: BYU was created to be, and should remain, a singular and unique educational institution. Back in 2022, I responded to this article from the Tribune by Gordon Monson: What in heaven or hell is going on at BYU? Can’t it just trust its profs? An excerpt: Quote Quote Conformity is the thing at Brigham Young University, always has been. Conformity, but now more than ever control. It’s all cloaked in the phraseology of being true to the faith. But even many of the faithful academics prefer to be true to the truth. It’s what professional educators are trained to do. Is seeking truth a threat to the faith? Meh. I have previously compared BYU to West Point. Both are educational institutions with a patron/sponsor that has a very particularized and very specific outlook. I think it would be patently unreasonable to expect West Point to hire and retain a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the United States and its military. There are plenty of other schools that such folks can find work. West Point, meanwhile, has particularized objectives that require a substantial measure of, as Gordon Monson puts it, "conformity." An America-hating faculty member at West Point cannot mouth platitudes - as Gordon Monson does - about "seeking truth" as a means of excusing his dislike of and opposition to the raison d'etre of West Point and its sponsoring institution. So it is, I think, with BYU. I am not sure "conformity is the thing" at BYU, relative to academic inquiry. I think the Nerd Herd over there has plenty of room to explore their respective areas of interest. But if and when "academic freedom" starts being used as a pretext to justify the retention of a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the Church and its largest educational institution, well, that doesn't quite pass the smell test. Three years later, we are seeing the same issues. 4. "Retrenchment" at BYU: If the foregoing concerns are in error, if BYU has, as an institution, not been materially straying from its intended mission and mandates, not been experiencing subversive efforts by some of its faculty and administration, then I will happily stand corrected and breathe a sigh of relief. On the other hand, if the foregoing concerns are valid to some extent, such that there has been some subversion going on at BYU by some of its faculty and administration, then I am relieved and gratified to see Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese - no doubt at the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve - step forward and make necessary and appropriate corrections as to the goings-on at BYU. In 2019, Kathleen Flake made the following observation about then-recent news items about the Church's finances (which matters are currently playing out in various lawsuits against the Church) : Quote Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records. Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.” “In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.” I think something similar can be said about recent controversies about BYU's governance, including hiring/retention policies for faculty and administration. To paraphrase Kathleen Flake, I think such matters are "about competing views of what should be done with the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc. and who gets to say so." I suspect there have been, and are, members of the faculty and administration at BYU who have "competing views" (that is, "competing" against the Church's position) on certain issues which have both a substantial religious/doctrinal dimension and also get a lot of attention in the sociopolitical and social media spheres. I suspect that some of these folks have attempted, overtly or subversively or both, to speak and act against the Church and its doctrines and practices, to do so by (mis)appropriating their positions of influence over BYU students, and do these things while also drawing a paycheck from BYU. The Church cannot allow this "long march" through its institutions. From Wikipedia: Quote The long march through the institutions (German: der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) is a slogan coined by socialist student activist Rudi Dutschke around 1967 to describe his strategy to create radical change in government by becoming part of it. ... In his 1972 book, Counterrevolution and Revolt, Marcuse wrote:[8] To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions: working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education... Commentary Roger Kimball wrote that it was by these means of "insinuation and infiltration" that the countercultural ideals of Herbert Marcuse gained influence.[2] Helmut Schelsky wrote that the long march was part of a strategy towards "the conquest of the system" (German: Systemüberwindung) through efforts to discredit the values and processes of constitutional democracy.[9] If there have been instances of BYU faculty and administration speaking against the Church to BYU students, and/or otherwise speaking and acting against the Church while being employed at BYU, then that sure sounds a lot like a "strategy to create radical change in {the Church} by becoming part of {BYU}," "working against the established {Church} while working within {BYU}," "'insinuation and infiltration' {into BYU}," "'the conquest of the system' {} through efforts to discredit the values and processes of {the Church}," and so on. I bear no ill will against any BYU faculty/administration who may have, in recent years, been trying to push BYU and BYU students in directions contrary to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. We live in a pluralistic society, we have extraordinary rights under our system of laws to do as we please, we have the most freedom and the most rights of any people in the history of the world. However, these folks have no right to speak and act against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while drawing a paycheck from the school it sponsors. This is particularly so for those who have done so in a surreptitious, "Long March through the Institutions" sort of way. These folks cannot continue in this way and stay at BYU. I am quite pleased to read about Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese and what they are doing at BYU. They are preserving its unique character and purpose. 5. Financial Component of BYU's Vitality: As noted above, the Church has identified three reasons other colleges and universities have historically strayed ("disengaged") from their religious roots: Funding sources diversified away from religious sponsors as costs rose. Subsequently, university leaders were selected by new stakeholders unaffiliated with the original sponsoring religions. Specialization of academic disciplines made it difficult for university leadership to review much of the scholarly work of the faculty. The first and second reasons are intertwined, and both relate to funding. Elder Gilbert has publicly stated that (paraphrasing) "[t]he long history of American colleges and universities drifting away from the religions that launched and sponsored them won’t repeat at BYU and its sister schools." I think Elder Gilbert can speak this confidently because the Church has its funding/finances in pretty good order. The Church has spent the last 60 or so years getting out of debt, stabilizing itself financially, living within its means, and building up a robust financial reserve. In the last several years we have seen the Church spend a lot on temples, missionary work, family history, and other mandates. It can do so because it is financially strong. The Church can also maintain BYU's religious mission and mandates and character because the Church is financially strong. I am very happy about this. 6. BYU's Long-term Prospects: Teancum, Fletcher-Stack, and others apparently anticipate that the Church's assertion (re-assertion?) of its authority over BYU will result in a stagnation, or even a regression, of BYU's competency as an educational institution. Their reasoning, it seems, is that BYU remaining (or returning to its prior status as) an overtly religious educational institution will mean that some of the "best and brightest" in the academic world will not want to teach at BYU, or else will leave BYU for greener pastures. I'm not really worried about that. I think BYU has ample momentum in terms of its institutional reputation and standing, which has built up even with BYU's peculiar status as a Latter-day Saint university. I also think the Church's financial strength will mean that BYU will not succumb to the three bullet points above. Technology will also help a lot. But most of all, I think many (most?) people of good will, both in and out of the Church, will respect the Church's and BYU's adherence to religious principles, particularly in the face of what Elder Gilbert describes as "threats {} from secular agendas in the media, regulators and even from peers and other academic contemporaries." In other words, I think BYU has, by these recent efforts, secured for itself some pretty bright prospects. I am very happy about that. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Edited January 25 by smac97 2
CV75 Posted January 24 Posted January 24 2 hours ago, smac97 said: A recent thread centered on discussion of BYU and its future: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The thread centered on an article written by Peggy Fletcher-Stack and published by the Salt Lake Tribune on January 14, 2024: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The above article was preceded by this one, published on January 6 (also by Fletcher-Stack) : For a number of faculty members, these are dark days at the church-owned school. Much of the discussion in the previous thread noted above centered on an apparent retrenchment effort at BYU, including quite a bit of hand-wringing on the part of Peggy Fletcher-Stack (via an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune), our @Teancum, and others who speculate about whether BYU will move away from its religious roots and become a heavily secularized school, or whether it will retain its religious roots (and, therefore, deteriorate and lessen itself in reputation and educational excellence. Peggy Fletcher-Stack and the Tribune even created a moody YouTube video (as in dark and washed-out colors, downer music in the background, etc.) about it (the video was posted on January 6, the same day as the "dark days" article above) : Gotta love the title: "BYU professors afraid of crackdown on Clark Gilbert’s version of LDS orthodoxy." So Elder Clark Gilbert, a general authority seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the CES commissioner, presumably appointed by the First Presidency of the Church, is going rogue and crafting his on idiosyncratic "version of LDS orthodoxy" and pushing it on to the faculty and administration at BYU. That's the narrative. The Tribune also followed up with a "Mormon Land" podcast on January 8: What is happening at BYU? Two LDS academics explain. The reaction to the foregoing material has been interesting. Sam Brunson posted an article on By Common Consent on January 7 Clark Gilbert, BYU, and Developing Disciples of Jesus Christ At Public Square Magazine, Carol Rice published this article on January 8: Redefining Higher (and Holier) Education: BYU’s Fusion of Faith and Learning "A Thoughtful Faith" published this on January 7 in response to the Trib's "Dark Days" article: The Salt Lake Tribune’s INSANE Report On BYU And The Church (Interestingly, this video currently has over 71,000 views, in contrast to the Trib's January 6 "Black Box" video, which currently has around 12,000 views.) Meanwhile, the Church seems to be increasingly clear about the direction it intends to take itself and BYU. June 5, 2024: Church schools navigate ‘precarious time,’ Elder Gilbert says in Washington, D.C. An excerpt: "The gospel-centered missions of BYU and BYU–Pathway Worldwide..." Language like this, in 2024, merits some real attention. October 23, 2024: Commissioner of church education: BYU sports can’t drift from core principles January 17, 2025: BYU, other Latter-day Saint schools will not drift from church governance, leader says “The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” For the run-of-the-mill Latter-day Saint such as myself, the concept of CES maintaining "administrative governance" of BYU and the Church's other educational institutions seems like a truism, as something as axiomatic as "water is wet" or "circles are round." That Elder Gilbert is, nevertheless, going out of his way to publicly declare and explain this is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that BYU has, in recent years, allowed some of its administration and faculty members to go a bit rogue, perhaps even to the point of subversion. That the Tribune and other folks have, for some years now, publishing histrionic commentary about Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc., and the assertion - or re-assertion - of the Church's actual and philosophical and religious authority over BYU (including its hiring practices/requirements) is, for me, also a pretty good indicator that BYU has been going off the rails for a while, such that Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese are now putting it back on track. I am very happy about this. Wow. Wow. Elder Gilbert ain't playing around. I find this information to be both useful and fascinating. I am also grateful that The Church and BYU are paying attention to this stuff and taking reparative and mitigating measures against the foregoing "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon seen at other colleges and universities. I also note that BYU's capacity for resisting this "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon is heavily reliant on its funding, which in turn comes from its sponsoring institution, which for the last many years has become not only financially stable (in contrast to much of The Church's first 100+ years of existence, during which finances were poor or in disarray), but prosperous and governed by long-term thinking and planning. The above article continues: For those who are indifferent to, or even in favor of, the secularization of BYU, the foregoing statements are going to be tough to swallow. For those of us who want BYU to remain, and even enhance and strengthen, its religious moorings and purposes, this is great news. I appreciate that Elder Gilbert is emphasizing the important link between religious liberty and stewardship. Also, his use of phrases like "aligned governance" is, I think, likely intended to clarify things for observers who may prefer for BYU to follow the well-trodden path toward secularization taken by some other formerly "religious" colleges and universities. A significant component of the Church's and BYU's decision to not go down that path is to exercise appropriate stewardship of hiring at BYU. "Aligned governance..." BYU as "the ‘Christ-centered, prophetically directed university of prophecy.’" To paraphrase Mark Twain: "The reports of {the secularization of BYU} are greatly exaggerated." January 18, 2025: Stewardship to God is a necessary component of religious freedom, Elder Gilbert says An excerpt: "'Our growing religious freedom and our aligned governance structure from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our Church schools provide critical protections for the modern religious university.'" That sure sounds like BYU intends to be a non-secularized "modern religious university," the "governance structure" of which is "aligned" with the Church. Today, the Tribune published this comment by Peggy Fletcher-Stack: Religion and church governance will never take a back seat at BYU, pledges LDS education commissioner "{H}e reaffirmed his insistence on church governance at religious educational institutions." I think . . . not. Elder Gilbert was speaking on behalf of the Church. It is the Church's "insistence" about the Church's "governance." How very cool. I am glad Elder Gilbert is saying these things. "{C}ulture war issues." That is an interesting - and apt - characterization from the Tribune. Some thoughts/observations: 1. Gratitude for BYU and the Church: I attended BYU, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have done so. I received a good education and, through hard work and subsidization via The Widow's Mite, I and my wife graduated debt-free. I am grateful that the Church sponsors BYU, both financially and philosophically. I appreciated BYU's religious atmosphere. It helped me realize that I could be "in the world but not of it." 2. Recent Trends/Developments at BYU: I have, in recent years, become concerned about reports of developments at BYU, particularly as pertaining to faculty and administration speaking/acting against the doctrines and practices of The Church. I have even gone so far as to consider whether there has been some manifestations of a "Long March through the Institutions"-type phenomenon in which some BYU faculty/administration deliberately seek subvert The Church by using their positions to influence and encourage BYU students to stray from the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly as to matters regarding marriage, sexuality, and CRT. I think the hullabaloo over Elder Holland's 2021 speech (in which he quoted Pres. Oaks, who in turn was quoting Elder Maxwell, re: "muskets" and the Nauvoo temple) was, for me, a pretty clear indicator that my concerns along these lines were justified (along with the more recent hand-wringing and histrionics at the Tribune). 3. Uniqueness of BYU: BYU was created to be, and should remain, a singular and unique educational institution. Back in 2022, I responded to this article from the Tribune by Gordon Monson: What in heaven or hell is going on at BYU? Can’t it just trust its profs? An excerpt: Three years later, we are seeing the same issues. 4. "Retrenchment" at BYU: If the foregoing concerns are in error, if BYU has, as an institution, not been materially straying from its intended mission and mandates, not been experiencing subversive efforts by some of its faculty and administration, then I will happily stand corrected and breathe a sigh of relief. On the other hand, if the foregoing concerns are valid to some extent, such that there has been some subversion going on at BYU by some of its faculty and administration, then I am relieved and gratified to see Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese - no doubt at the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve - step forward and make necessary and appropriate corrections as to the goings-on at BYU. In 2019, Kathleen Flake made the following observation about then-recent news items about the Church's finances (which matters are currently playing out in various lawsuits against the Church) : I think something similar can be said about recent controversies about BYU's governance, including hiring/retention policies for faculty and administration. To paraphrase Kathleen Flake, I think such matters are "about competing views of what should be done with the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc. and who gets to say so." I suspect there have been, and are, members of the faculty and administration at BYU who have "competing views" (that is, "competing" against the Church's position) on certain issues which have both a substantial religious/doctrinal dimension and also get a lot of attention in the sociopolitical and social media spheres. I suspect that some of these folks have attempted, overtly or subversively or both, to speak and act against the Church and its doctrines and practices, to do so by (mis)appropriating their positions of influence over BYU students, and do these things while also drawing a paycheck from BYU. The Church cannot allow this "long march" through its institutions. From Wikipedia: If there have been instances of BYU faculty and administration speaking against the Church to BYU students, and/or otherwise speaking and acting against the Church while being employed at BYU, then that sure sounds a lot like a "strategy to create radical change in {the Church} by becoming part of {BYU}," "working against the established {Church} while working within {BYU}," "'insinuation and infiltration' {into BYU}," "'the conquest of the system' {} through efforts to discredit the values and processes of {the Church}," and so on. I bear no ill will against any BYU faculty/administration who may have, in recent years, been trying to push BYU and BYU students in directions contrary to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. We live in a pluralistic society, we have extraordinary rights under our system of laws to do as we please, we have the most freedom and the most rights of any people in the history of the world. However, these folks have no right to speak and act against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while drawing a paycheck from the school it sponsors. This is particularly so for those who have done so in a surreptitious, "Long March through the Institutions" sort of way. These folks cannot continue in this way and stay at BYU. I am quite pleased to read about Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese and what they are doing at BYU. They are preserving its unique character and purpose. 5. Financial Component of BYU's Vitality: As noted above, the Church has identified three reasons other colleges and universities have historically strayed ("disengaged") from their religious roots: Funding sources diversified away from religious sponsors as costs rose. Subsequently, university leaders were selected by new stakeholders unaffiliated with the original sponsoring religions. Specialization of academic disciplines made it difficult for university leadership to review much of the scholarly work of the faculty. The first and second reasons are intertwined, and both relate to funding. Elder Gilbert has publicly stated that (paraphrasing) "[t]he long history of American colleges and universities drifting away from the religions that launched and sponsored them won’t repeat at BYU and its sister schools." I think Elder Gilbert can speak this confidently because the Church has its funding/finances in pretty good order. The Church has spent the last 60 or so years getting out of debt, stabilizing itself financially, living within its means, and building up a robust financial reserve. In the last several years we have seen the Church spend a lot on temples, missionary work, family history, and other mandates. It can do so because it is financially strong. The Church can also maintain BYU's religious mission and mandates and character because the Church is financially strong. I am very happy about this. 6. BYU's Long-term Prospects: Teancum, Fletcher-Stack, and others apparently anticipate that the Church's assertion (re-assertion?) of its authority over BYU will result in a stagnation, or even a regression, of BYU's competency as an educational institution. Their reasoning, it seems, is that BYU remaining (or returning to its prior status as) an overtly religious educational institution will mean that some of the "best and brightest" in the academic world will not want to teach at BYU, or else will leave BYU for greener pastures. I'm not really worried about that. I think BYU has ample momentum in terms of its institutional reputation and standing, which has built up even with BYU's peculiar status as a Latter-day Saint university. I also think the Church's financial strength will mean that BYU will not succumb to the three bullet points above. Technology will also help a lot. But most of all, I think many (most?) people of good will, both in and out of the Church, will respect the Church's and BYU's adherence to religious principles, particularly in the face of what Elder Gilbert describes as "threats {} from secular agendas in the media, regulators and even from peers and other academic contemporaries." In other words, I think BYU has, by these recent efforts, secured for itself some pretty bright prospects. I am very happy about that. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Do you think you could get this into the Tribune as an op-ed/guest essay/letter to the editor?
california boy Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) Never mind. I didn't realize this was all about members who disagree with the Church on gay marriage. Edited January 24 by california boy
smac97 Posted January 24 Author Posted January 24 (edited) 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Do you think you could get this into the Tribune as an op-ed/guest essay/letter to the editor? Too long. Also, per the Tribune's guidelines: "Commentaries must be exclusive to The Tribune, meaning it has not been sent to — or published — anywhere else." Having posted these thoughts on this board, I don't think I can send them to the Tribune. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 25 by smac97
Analytics Posted January 25 Posted January 25 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Many universities, including Harvard, were founded by religious groups, but they eventually lost their spiritual moorings, Gilbert said, due to three factors: Outsourcing funding to “donors, state and federal government, and other nonreligious entities.” Ceding the choice of school leadership to nonbelievers, “who increasingly felt less accountable to their sponsoring religious institutions.” Allowing peer review of scholarly work to “increasingly [come]…from people who did not support or, in some cases, were even antagonistic, to the religious priorities of the university.” I think Gilbert is missing the most fundamental issue, which is this: there is an inherent contradiction between the “religious priorities” of a university and the secular priority of pursuing the truth. Harvard chose the truth over dogma. I suppose Harvard could have said, “no, we aren’t going to outsource funding to non-Puritans, cede leadership to non-Puritans, and allow peer review of scholarly work to come from people who aren’t dedicated to Puritan Christianity." But if they did that, would Harvard be Harvard? The answer, of course, is no. If it did that, it would be Liberty University. 4
Okrahomer Posted January 25 Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Analytics said: there is an inherent contradiction between the “religious priorities” of a university and the secular priority of pursuing the truth Your favorite source (ChatGPT) says this: “Many religiously affiliated universities have made profound contributions to science, medicine, and the humanities, rivaling secular institutions in impact. Their religious foundations often coexist with a commitment to rigorous academic inquiry and a focus on ethical considerations that enrich their research. Examples of Notable Contributions: Medical Breakthroughs: Emory University's pivotal role in developing Ebola treatments. Environmental Studies: Notre Dame’s research on climate resilience and sustainability. Social Sciences: BYU’s studies on family dynamics, often cited in secular journals. Law and Policy: Georgetown’s work in international law and diplomacy. While secular institutions like Harvard prioritize academic inquiry untethered to religious frameworks, this doesn’t inherently make their research superior. The diversity of perspectives including those informed by religious values contributes to a richer, more nuanced understanding of complex issues. Religious institutions bring their own strengths, often focusing on the human and ethical dimensions of knowledge, complementing the work of secular universities.“ What?! ChatGPT’s got some nerve including BYU — of ALL places — in its list! 😇 4
Popular Post let’s roll Posted January 25 Popular Post Posted January 25 The entire topic seems pretty straightforward. The Church established, and maintains, BYU for a well defined purpose. That purpose has been articulated with clarity in a number of places over the years. Potential students and their families and potential faculty and staff can, and should, thoughtfully review and consider those unique, and perhaps singular, purposes as part of their decision making process on whether to enroll or work at BYU. Those who do so and decide to move ahead with enrollment or employment have no reasonable basis to expect that university policies and practices will depart from those purposes. It’s reasonable for current leadership to reiterate those purposes and affirm their commitment to continue to operate the university in harmony with those purposes. For any institution as large as BYU, it’s understandable that some students, faculty or staff express surprise and disappointment about policies and practices but at an institution like the Y where the institutional purpose is well-defined and longstanding, I struggle to find anything newsworthy in that disappointment. 6
CV75 Posted January 25 Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I think Gilbert is missing the most fundamental issue, which is this: there is an inherent contradiction between the “religious priorities” of a university and the secular priority of pursuing the truth. Harvard chose the truth over dogma. I suppose Harvard could have said, “no, we aren’t going to outsource funding to non-Puritans, cede leadership to non-Puritans, and allow peer review of scholarly work to come from people who aren’t dedicated to Puritan Christianity." But if they did that, would Harvard be Harvard? The answer, of course, is no. If it did that, it would be Liberty University. They could have been a BYU. 2
smac97 Posted January 25 Author Posted January 25 3 hours ago, california boy said: Never mind. I didn't realize this was all about members who disagree with the Church on gay marriage. It's not. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted January 25 Author Posted January 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, let’s roll said: The entire topic seems pretty straightforward. The Church established, and maintains, BYU for a well defined purpose. That purpose has been articulated with clarity in a number of places over the years. Potential students and their families and potential faculty and staff can, and should, thoughtfully review and consider those unique, and perhaps singular, purposes as part of their decision making process on whether to enroll or work at BYU. Those who do so and decide to move ahead with enrollment or employment have no reasonable basis to expect that university policies and practices will depart from those purposes. It’s reasonable for current leadership to reiterate those purposes and affirm their commitment to continue to operate the university in harmony with those purposes. For any institution as large as BYU, it’s understandable that some students, faculty or staff express surprise and disappointment about policies and practices but at an institution like the Y where the institutional purpose is well-defined and longstanding, I struggle to find anything newsworthy in that disappointment. I can't help but wonder if this "surprise and disappointment" (such as by Fletcher-Stack, Monson, Sam Brunson, etc.) is often more performative than authentic. In Casablanca, Captain Renault was shocked - shocked! - to find gambling going on at Rick's. In Salt Lake City, Peggy Fletcher-Stack is shocked - shocked! - to find that BYU and the religious institution which sponsors it actually expect BYU's faculty and administrators to not actively speak/act against the Church's doctrines and policies. There are hundreds upon hundreds of thoroughly secular and secularized colleges and universities, where academics can spout off about - and against - the Church's religious doctrines as much as they like. I am happy that the Church is preserving BYU for what it is supposed to be, and that BYU is still acknowledged as providing an excellent - and affordable - secular education to its students. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 25 by smac97 3
Duncan Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I can't help but wonder if this "surprise and disappointment" (such as by Fletcher-Stack, Monson, Sam Brunson, etc.) is often more performative than authentic. In Casablanca, Captain Renault was shocked - shocked! - to find gambling going on at Rick's. In Salt Lake City, Peggy Fletcher-Stack is shocked - shocked! - to find that BYU and the religious institution which sponsors it actually expect BYU's faculty and administrators to not actively speak/act against the Church's doctrines and policies. There are hundreds upon hundreds of thoroughly secular and secularized colleges and universities, where academics can spout off about - and against - the Church's religious doctrines as much as they like. I am happy that the Church is preserving BYU for what it is supposed to be, and that BYU is still acknowledged as providing an excellent - and affordable - secular education to its students. Thanks, -Smac meanwhile Jacob Hansen's wife or GF does wear a garment top as per his FB profile. Hyprocrite much? To say nothing about the scare tactics of Jacob Hansen, Greg Matsen of CWIC Media et al and their mormon mccarthyism. They have for years had this campaign complaining to the brethren about how BYU is polluted by the liberals and all other garbage. Greg had, not a petition, but an "awareness docment" and wanted their disciples to write the brethren. Here's a few BYU videos of their conservative nonsense I lack the stomach to listen this BS. I am sickened to think that these conservative apostates are poisoning the minds of the brethren and you wonder who is running the show at BYU? I have a friend of mine who's former SP is in the Apostles and I wrote him a letter saying that I don't support this conservative take over of BYU and I am not giving one penny to anything connected to BYU. and Jacob is shocked that after all the nonsense he and Greg sent to the brethren, PFS writes about it, Jacob is shocked?? I get that Jacob and Greg have no life and nothing better to do , I get that but come on, you want the brethren to do something and now you are shocked they are doing something? Screw you and the horse you rode in on Edited January 25 by Duncan 1
Dario_M Posted January 25 Posted January 25 Offcourse Bringham Young University will keep their religious roots. I don't expect differenly. Those are just speculations. And gossips, like people love to do these days about everything that is a part of the LDS community.
Analytics Posted January 25 Posted January 25 16 hours ago, Okrahomer said: Your favorite source (ChatGPT) says this: “Many religiously affiliated universities have made profound contributions to science, medicine, and the humanities, rivaling secular institutions in impact. Their religious foundations often coexist with a commitment to rigorous academic inquiry and a focus on ethical considerations that enrich their research. Examples of Notable Contributions: Medical Breakthroughs: Emory University's pivotal role in developing Ebola treatments. Environmental Studies: Notre Dame’s research on climate resilience and sustainability. Social Sciences: BYU’s studies on family dynamics, often cited in secular journals. Law and Policy: Georgetown’s work in international law and diplomacy. While secular institutions like Harvard prioritize academic inquiry untethered to religious frameworks, this doesn’t inherently make their research superior. The diversity of perspectives including those informed by religious values contributes to a richer, more nuanced understanding of complex issues. Religious institutions bring their own strengths, often focusing on the human and ethical dimensions of knowledge, complementing the work of secular universities.“ What?! ChatGPT’s got some nerve including BYU — of ALL places — in its list! 😇 It seems you didn’t quite grasp the Notre Dame versus Liberty University metaphor, so let me clarify. Notre Dame represents a model where religious affiliation enhances academic prestige by fostering a space where faith and intellectual rigor coexist. Liberty University, on the other hand, prioritizes ideological purity, often at the expense of critical thinking and academic reputation, churning out graduates who might be well-versed in trades like accounting but lack exposure to broader, challenging ideas. BYU now faces a similar choice: pursue a balance of faith and scholarship or risk becoming a place where students are merely indoctrinated rather than truly educated. 3
MrShorty Posted January 25 Posted January 25 I attended BYU as a bio ag major in the early '90s. In that context, this question centered on if and how to teach creationism and evolution, and, of course, Elder McConkie's "Deadly Heresies" talk was still an important part of that discussion. I think a lot of this centers on Elder Corbridges idea of "primary doctrines" or, as Patrick Mason put it in a FAIR presentation, what do we put in our "truth cart." Under Pres. Wilkinson, it seems that "racial purity" was considered important enough to make admissions policies that would try to help prevent race mixing. In the mid-late 20th century, there was a faction (even among the board of trustees) that wanted to make creationism central. Today we are trying to figure out what is central in our beliefs about gender and sexuality. The biggest problem I see is the opacity. What are the specific, central tenets that we believe are essential for employees of the university to to hold? From a few anecdotes I've seen, those who have been let go cannot get a clear answer about why their contracts weren't renewed or why they were let go. I don't have a problem with the idea that employees of a religious university ought to uphold the important, central tenets of the sponsoring church, but make it clear exactly what those beliefs are. I would probably also add, noting our history of putting things in our truth cart that don't belong there, exactly how we came to the conclusion that those beliefs belong in our truth cart. I dislike the idea that the process is a "black box" that only a select few understand, making the process seem subject to the whims of whichever administrators are on call that day. 4
longview Posted January 25 Posted January 25 18 hours ago, Analytics said: I think Gilbert is missing the most fundamental issue, which is this: there is an inherent contradiction between the “religious priorities” of a university and the secular priority of pursuing the truth. Harvard chose the truth over dogma. Funny you would use the word "Truth." Most secular elite universities no longer believe in such a thing. That it is ALL relative. They are very devoted to political correctness and practice socially engineered racial preferences in admission guidelines for designated victim classes. Thus their values are in constant evolution.
Okrahomer Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) 4 hours ago, Analytics said: seems you didn’t quite grasp the Notre Dame versus Liberty University metaphor, so let me clarify. Notre Dame represents a model where religious affiliation enhances academic prestige by fostering a space where faith and intellectual rigor coexist. I did actually get it, but I don’t agree with you. Why must BYU be either Notre Dame or Liberty? Why would we want it to be either? I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. BYU is a unique academic creation. Since Elder Gilbert earned an undergraduate degree from BYU and advanced degrees from Stanford and Harvard, I think he is well aware of the things that make each institution unique and worth preserving. God bless, Elder Gilbert’s efforts to ensure that BYU always will be BYU. Edited January 25 by Okrahomer 2
Analytics Posted January 25 Posted January 25 53 minutes ago, longview said: Funny you would use the word "Truth." Most secular elite universities no longer believe in such a thing. That it is ALL relative. I don't know what it means for a "secular elite university" to "believe" things. People have beliefs. Institutions do not. Looking for some insight into what in the heck you are talking to, I thought turning to Steve Pinker might be appropriate. Harvard is arguably the most elite secular university in the world, and Pinker is arguably the most qualified professor at Harvard to talk about this (Pinker has been list as one of Time's 100 most influential people in the world, Prospect put him on their list of worldwide top public intellectuals, Foreign Policy did the same, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and perhaps most importantly for this discussion, for 11 years he was the chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Here is his c.v.). Pinker says: "Though we can never prove that reasoning is sound or the truth can be known (since we would need to assume the soundness of reason to do it), we can stoke our confidence that they are. When we apply reason to reason itself, we find that it is not just an inarticulate gut impulse, a mysterious oracle that whispers truths into our ear. We can expose the rules of reason and distill and purify them into normative models of logic and probability. We can even implement them in machines that duplicate and exceed our own rational powers. Computers are literally mechanized logic, their smallest circuits called logic gates. "Another reassurance that reason is valid is that it works. Life is not a dream, in which we pop up in disconnected locations and bewildering things happen without rhyme or reason. By scaling the wall, Romeo really does get to touch Juliet’s lips. And by deploying reason in other ways, we reach the moon, invent smartphones, and extinguish smallpox. The cooperativeness of the world when we apply reason to it is a strong indication that rationality really does get at objective truths." Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (pp. 41-42). (Function). Kindle Edition. (Compare and contrast the success of rationality, as described by Pinker, to what Mr. Shorty said a few posts up about "our history of putting things in our truth cart that don't belong there.") 53 minutes ago, longview said: They are very devoted to political correctness and practice socially engineered racial preferences in admission guidelines for designated victim classes. Thus their values are in constant evolution. Just so you know, you sound like an American white male who hasn't been very successful in life and who blames his failures on how unfair America is to white males. I don't know if any of that is in any way true, but that's how you come across; it isn't a good look. 1
CV75 Posted January 25 Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I don't know what it means for a "secular elite university" to "believe" things. People have beliefs. Institutions do not. Looking for some insight into what in the heck you are talking to, I thought turning to Steve Pinker might be appropriate. Harvard is arguably the most elite secular university in the world, and Pinker is arguably the most qualified professor at Harvard to talk about this (Pinker has been list as one of Time's 100 most influential people in the world, Prospect put him on their list of worldwide top public intellectuals, Foreign Policy did the same, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and perhaps most importantly for this discussion, for 11 years he was the chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Here is his c.v.). Pinker says: "Though we can never prove that reasoning is sound or the truth can be known (since we would need to assume the soundness of reason to do it), we can stoke our confidence that they are. When we apply reason to reason itself, we find that it is not just an inarticulate gut impulse, a mysterious oracle that whispers truths into our ear. We can expose the rules of reason and distill and purify them into normative models of logic and probability. We can even implement them in machines that duplicate and exceed our own rational powers. Computers are literally mechanized logic, their smallest circuits called logic gates. "Another reassurance that reason is valid is that it works. Life is not a dream, in which we pop up in disconnected locations and bewildering things happen without rhyme or reason. By scaling the wall, Romeo really does get to touch Juliet’s lips. And by deploying reason in other ways, we reach the moon, invent smartphones, and extinguish smallpox. The cooperativeness of the world when we apply reason to it is a strong indication that rationality really does get at objective truths." Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (pp. 41-42). (Function). Kindle Edition. (Compare and contrast the success of rationality, as described by Pinker, to what Mr. Shorty said a few posts up about "our history of putting things in our truth cart that don't belong there.") Just so you know, you sound like an American white male who hasn't been very successful in life and who blames his failures on how unfair America is to white males. I don't know if any of that is in any way true, but that's how you come across; it isn't a good look. Pinker's quote may reflect his ideal, but I think more practically and realistically speaking, the cooperativeness of the world (which is circumstantial and fleeting) when we apply persuasion to the suasible is a strong indication that influence really does forge a consensus reality. Using Pinker's quote as a template, how would you represent BYU's ideal, which also encompasses things like space exploration, technological innovation, and public health advancement? 1
CV75 Posted January 25 Posted January 25 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: I attended BYU as a bio ag major in the early '90s. In that context, this question centered on if and how to teach creationism and evolution, and, of course, Elder McConkie's "Deadly Heresies" talk was still an important part of that discussion. I think a lot of this centers on Elder Corbridges idea of "primary doctrines" or, as Patrick Mason put it in a FAIR presentation, what do we put in our "truth cart." Under Pres. Wilkinson, it seems that "racial purity" was considered important enough to make admissions policies that would try to help prevent race mixing. In the mid-late 20th century, there was a faction (even among the board of trustees) that wanted to make creationism central. Today we are trying to figure out what is central in our beliefs about gender and sexuality. The biggest problem I see is the opacity. What are the specific, central tenets that we believe are essential for employees of the university to to hold? From a few anecdotes I've seen, those who have been let go cannot get a clear answer about why their contracts weren't renewed or why they were let go. I don't have a problem with the idea that employees of a religious university ought to uphold the important, central tenets of the sponsoring church, but make it clear exactly what those beliefs are. I would probably also add, noting our history of putting things in our truth cart that don't belong there, exactly how we came to the conclusion that those beliefs belong in our truth cart. I dislike the idea that the process is a "black box" that only a select few understand, making the process seem subject to the whims of whichever administrators are on call that day. If they are not contractually bound to receive a reason for dismissal, I think they just need to join the club with every other unentitled working person in the world. 1
Popular Post Vanguard Posted January 26 Popular Post Posted January 26 1 hour ago, CV75 said: If they are not contractually bound to receive a reason for dismissal, I think they just need to join the club with every other unentitled working person in the world. TANGENT WARNING! I am reminded of the unfortunate experience of being fired (no, not layed off but actually fired!) from my then position of LPS/probate conservatorship supervisor with Riverside Co. I was 10+ months into my 1-year probation with things running smoothly. That fateful Fri @4p found me summoned to the unit director's office where - together with a fellow director - he slid an envelope to me on the table (yes, it did feel like I was in a movie!) and asked me to read it. "As of 5p this evening you are no longer employed with the County" (or something to that effect). I asked (actually pleaded) if he could elaborate on why and he firmly stated he would not, that if I had questions I should speak with HR. I sent a letter of protestation (again, it was actually pleading) to the county mental health director & assistant director (I knew them both personally from having worked with them for over a decade). Crickets. They simply exercised their contractual right to not have to explain. After several years of licking my professional and emotional wounds, I now have to begrudge this course of action. Though I fundamentally believed - and still do - they made a big mistake in firing me, I do understand why they would not explain. It's called protection from potential litigation. If the BYU professors had no contractual right to know, then BYU is not under any obligation to divulge. It's a hard experience for sure. ; ) 8
CV75 Posted January 26 Posted January 26 2 hours ago, Vanguard said: TANGENT WARNING! I am reminded of the unfortunate experience of being fired (no, not layed off but actually fired!) from my then position of LPS/probate conservatorship supervisor with Riverside Co. I was 10+ months into my 1-year probation with things running smoothly. That fateful Fri @4p found me summoned to the unit director's office where - together with a fellow director - he slid an envelope to me on the table (yes, it did feel like I was in a movie!) and asked me to read it. "As of 5p this evening you are no longer employed with the County" (or something to that effect). I asked (actually pleaded) if he could elaborate on why and he firmly stated he would not, that if I had questions I should speak with HR. I sent a letter of protestation (again, it was actually pleading) to the county mental health director & assistant director (I knew them both personally from having worked with them for over a decade). Crickets. They simply exercised their contractual right to not have to explain. After several years of licking my professional and emotional wounds, I now have to begrudge this course of action. Though I fundamentally believed - and still do - they made a big mistake in firing me, I do understand why they would not explain. It's called protection from potential litigation. If the BYU professors had no contractual right to know, then BYU is not under any obligation to divulge. It's a hard experience for sure. ; ) Yes, very hard to go through, I've been there too. 2
Analytics Posted January 26 Posted January 26 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Pinker's quote may reflect his ideal, but I think more practically and realistically speaking, the cooperativeness of the world (which is circumstantial and fleeting) when we apply persuasion to the suasible is a strong indication that influence really does forge a consensus reality. I realize there is a sociological aspect to these things and that people generally get by believing that what's "true" is believing what everybody around you believes. In fact, he talks about that in this book; hence the full title is, Rationality: What it Is, Why it Seems Scarce, and Why It Matters. But I think ultimately his point holds water--the universe really is governed by natural laws, and the true nature of reality can be successfully inferred through reason, and the validity of this approach is proven by its fruits. 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Using Pinker's quote as a template, how would you represent BYU's ideal, which also encompasses things like space exploration, technological innovation, and public health advancement? Hmmm. How about something like this? At Brigham Young University, students “enter to learn” not just the truths of the world, but the eternal truths revealed through the Spirit and the prophet. (With a few exceptions for non-members who abide by the honor code and aren't perceived as a threat to the indoctrination process) Professors and students are required to embrace orthodox Mormon beliefs, reflecting the institution’s mission to instill loyalty to the Church’s teachings as central to education. This approach frames learning as a process of aligning intellect and faith, trusting that any conflict between reason and revelation will resolve as science ultimately confirms divine truth. Through study, prayer, and adherence to prophetic counsel, students are prepared to “go forth to serve” as faithful ambassadors of the Church, confident in the harmony of God’s laws. In this paradigm, learning is not merely discovery—it is the shaping of hearts and minds to accept and perpetuate the eternal truths taught by the Church. In any case, Pinker goes on to say: "People divide their worlds into two zones. One consists of the physical objects around them, the other people they deal with face to face, the memory of their interactions, and the rules and norms that regulate their lives. People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset. "The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset... "And for all the conquests of the reality mindset, the mythology mindset still occupies swaths of territory in the landscape of mainstream belief. The obvious example is religion. More than two billion people believe that if one doesn’t accept Jesus as one’s savior one will be damned to eternal torment in hell. Fortunately, they don’t take the next logical step and try to convert people to Christianity at swordpoint for their own good, or torture heretics who might lure others into damnation. Yet in past centuries, when Christian belief fell into the reality zone, many Crusaders, Inquisitors, conquistadors, and soldiers in the Wars of Religion did exactly that. Like the Comet Ping Pong redeemer, they treated their beliefs as literally true. For that matter, though many people profess to believe in an afterlife, they seem to be in no hurry to leave this vale of tears for eternal bliss in paradise." Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (pp. 209-302). (Function) 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 26 Posted January 26 17 hours ago, longview said: Funny you would use the word "Truth." Most secular elite universities no longer believe in such a thing. That it is ALL relative. They are very devoted to political correctness and practice socially engineered racial preferences in admission guidelines for designated victim classes. Thus their values are in constant evolution. This is a non-sequitur. Why do I suggest that? Because universities (even the elite secular ones) are not only interested in truth, they seek to teach it. Political correctness (whatever you actually mean by that term) doesn't have anything to do with truth or the teaching of truth. It is a way of including hot button words in your discussion to try and move the discussion into this political/moral arena so that you can denigrate without having anything substantive to actually add to the discussion. It's a way of trying to avoid the real suggestion you are making which isn't the question over whether or not universities (and in particular elite secular universities) believe in truth - you are making an assertion that some truths matter more than others - and perhaps that those others aren't real truths at all. And of course, this is the antithesis of early LDS belief, when Joseph Smith wrote: Quote One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. And he also said this: Quote The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching. I think that when we look at BYU, we find that there is a conflict here. On the one hand, I don't know of anyone who has significantly advanced the field of mathematics through prayer. And yet, mathematics is not only true in some sense, it is a fundamental reflection of the nature of our existence. The same can be said for biology or medical sciences. These are separate things from matters of faith - and without them, we might believe true things (religious truths) and still remain in the dark ages. At the same time, if you think that religious truths are the only things that matter - then you are rejecting that grand fundamental principle of Mormonism. I think that if I were to rephrase the concern being made here in terms of these two ideas it is this - (1) the Church (BYU) seems to be more interested right now in trying to teach that religious truth and wisdom from books and not through prayer and (2) As long as BYU is promoting the primary goal of being an undergraduate institution and emphasizing that religious education - I don't think this will have all that many long-term ramifications. Some BYU students will come out of their undergraduate education a little less prepared than their peers entering graduate schools (there are some weaknesses I have seen and experienced in the curriculum). There won't likely be much impact at all for students who don't choose to move on to graduate school. And these kinds of problems are not generally going to be long-term issues for those students who do. I am not personally convinced that this approach builds more faithful members. But I won't ever be in a place to make those decisions or influence those decision makers. My personal opinion is that the LDS Church would be far better off if it found a way to make its chapel instruction more engaging and interesting. 4
MrShorty Posted January 26 Posted January 26 19 hours ago, CV75 said: If they are not contractually bound to receive a reason for dismissal, I think they just need to join the club with every other unentitled working person in the world. True enough, if legal compliance is the only important consideration.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now