Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

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)

 

 

I think Pinker’s representation of two mindsets is as polemic as yours of BYU's dual purpose!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

True enough, if legal compliance is the only important consideration.

Given that every other important consideration is reflected in making the law and legal arrangements, and active in the relationship along the way, I think whatever is in writing sums it all up quite tidily. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/24/2025 at 1:19 PM, smac97 said:

.........................

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.

...........

Perhaps, but the real problem as I see it is in too narrow or rigid a view of what constitutes Latter-day Saint religion.  Hugh Nibley famously chided BYU for that very shallowness, advising his grad students to go elsewhere for advanced degrees.  He complained that students at BYU don't ask questions.  He himself graduated from UCLA and UC Berkeley. Moreover, many fields have nothing to do with religion, as in the case of STEM.  BYU is rightly dedicated to providing a nice LDS religious environment, a place to which LDS parents feel comfortable sending their children.  The Board and other leaders of LDS education need to be as pragmatic as possible in creating that sort of environment, while giving staff and students as much agency as possible.  Introduce them to the free-marketplace of ideas.  Take 2 Nephi 2 seriously.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I feel this is probably the most important statement concerning the crackdown of professors BYU is making.  I don't believe students follow what professors think about social issues such as gay marriage much at all.  That comes from friends that they may have that are gay and the social expectations of those around them.  If they are coming from outside the Utah bubble, what a professor says isn't going to change their real world experiences.  

I also believe  there will be more long term issues that will surface if more and more employers start looking at BYU as a religious institution that happens to be an educational institution rather than an educational institution that happens to be a religious institution.  What BYU prioritizes does affect how other view the value of that diploma.

Outside the Mormon corridor, I think there is already skepticism on just what a degree from BYU means.  In the past the Church has fought that preception by having top professors that bring the academics up to a level that requires others to respect those degrees.  When you no longer are able to attract top professors because frankly most of those educators don't need to teach at BYU, but rather choose to teach there as a way to help build zion it will be difficult to maintain that top tier status in various fields.  Telling those professors what they can and cannot teach might erode away the very reasons why they choose to teach there.  Having their livelihood in the hands of a bishop roulette doesn't seem like something they would want.

By far, my best professors i had came from outside academia.  They came from the private sector where their talents were proven and real world experiences taught them different ideas that were taught from those that became professors within the BYU and Mormon bubble.  If I had not had those professors that were brought in because of their skills and knowledge of real world situations, my education would have been more just a diploma and not an education that prepared me for my career.

Edited January 27, 2025 by california boy

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps, but the real problem as I see it is in too narrow or rigid a view of what constitutes Latter-day Saint religion. 

I will give that some thought.

My speculation is that the potentially subversive behaviors at BYU have focused mostly on a few hot-button sociopolitical issues (i.e., marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.), and that some faculty and staff have been setting themselves up as voices of authority that are alternative and superior to that of the scriptures and the leaders of the Church.  The parameters of "what constitutes Latter-day Saint religion" may be difficult to define with exacting precision in all respects, but that does not mean those parameters cannot be defined at all.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hugh Nibley famously chided BYU for that very shallowness, advising his grad students to go elsewhere for advanced degrees.  He complained that students at BYU don't ask questions.  He himself graduated from UCLA and UC Berkeley.

I think the members of the Church may have changed quite a bit since Nibley's day.  I think the leaders of the Church have also become more attuned to what does, and does not, "constitute Latter-day Saint religion."

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, many fields have nothing to do with religion, as in the case of STEM. 

Could you elaborate?  I'm not sure what "nothing to do with religion" means.  I studied law at BYU, and there seemed to be opportunity to examine legal concepts through the lens of the Restored Gospel (not exclusively, of course).

Moreover, my sense is that a lot of activism/subversion going on at BYU is taking place in fields which ostensibly "have nothing to do with religion" or with hot-button sociopolitical issues (i.e., marriage, sexuality, and CRT), but into which some faculty and administrators are importing concepts in ways that contravene the doctrines and policies of the Church.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

BYU is rightly dedicated to providing a nice LDS religious environment, a place to which LDS parents feel comfortable sending their children.  The Board and other leaders of LDS education need to be as pragmatic as possible in creating that sort of environment, while giving staff and students as much agency as possible.  Introduce them to the free-marketplace of ideas.  Take 2 Nephi 2 seriously.

I broadly agree with this.  I think the Brethren also need to take Jacob 2 seriously.  

I made these comments back in 2022 (in response to a then-published article by Gordon Monson in the Tribune) :

Quote

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.

See also these comments I made back in 2022:

Quote

I don't want anyone to lose their job, but sometimes it's a necessary thing.  Consider what Spenser Rapone tried to do to the Army, which was join it with the purpose of undermining and subverting it from within:

Quote

Last September, a West Point cadet’s pictures of himself at his graduation ceremony flaunting his devotion to communism made national headlines and sparked fury from current and former soldiers. Spenser Rapone posted pictures on social media in which he was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt under his uniform and wrote “communism will win” under his cap. This was really the least of it as a deeper dive into Rapone’s social media profiles revealed that he does not support the U.S. Constitution and believes that our government cannot be reformed and must be destroyed so that a communist government can be erected in its place.

SOFREP reported on Spenser Rapone at the time in an article titled, “The Calls are Coming From Inside the House: America’s Communist Insider Threat.” At the time, SOFREP spoke to a former Delta Force Sergeant Major who expressed concern because West Point is the feeder mechanism to put officers into the Ranger Regiment and Special Forces, which in turn acts as a feeder for JSOC units like Delta. By Rapone’s own admission, he followed a communist philosophy advocated by Rudi Dutschke.

Dutschke advocated a strategy he called the, “long march through the institutions of power.” This entails burrowing inside the institutions of society, including the military, and subverting them from within and ultimately setting the conditions for a communist revolution. As we’ve seen in the recent past, ideological actors working inside the system such as Edward Snowden can do a tremendous amount of damage to national security. The idea of an avowed communist subverting important military units and functions from within has the potential to be catastrophic.

I sure hope we aren't seeing similar things at BYU.  Faculty members who subscribe to a "long march through the institutions of power"-style effort to subvert BYU from within.  I can't help but wonder if this subversive strategy is a partial explanation for the paradox of watching people who publicly speak and act against the Church throwing public hissy fits when they lose their membership in the Church because of their misconduct.  It's like they resent being deprived of the ongoing opportunity to subvert the Church from within.

See also this letter about the state of West Point (in relation to Rapone's attendance there) :

Quote

(This was written by LTC (USA, ret.) Robert M. Heffington, as an open letter to graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point. It has only been edited for format, and may differ in that respect from the original. My apologies to Lt. Colonel Heffington if this has been misrepresented in any way)

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Before you read any further, please understand that the following paragraphs come from a place of intense devotion and loyalty to West Point. My experience as a cadet had a profound impact upon who I am and upon the course of my life, and I remain forever grateful that I have the opportunity to be a part of the Long Gray Line. I firmly believe West Point is a national treasure and that it can and should remain a vitally important source of well trained, disciplined, highly educated Army officers and civilian leaders. However, during my time on the West Point faculty (2006–2009 and again from 2013–2017), I personally witnessed a series of fundamental changes at West Point that have eroded it to the point where I question whether the institution should even remain open.

The recent coverage of 2LT Spenser Rapone — an avowed Communist and sworn enemy of the United States — dramatically highlighted this disturbing trend. Given my recent tenure on the West Point faculty and my direct interactions with Rapone, his “mentors,” and with the Academy’s leadership, I believe I can shed light on how someone like Rapone could possibly graduate.

See, I think most Americans expect West Point to be instructing and inculcating its students in ways that are congruent with the interests and values of the United States of America and its military.  It appears that the Powers-That-Be at West Point have abdicated that responsibility.

Are we seeing similar things happening in some quarters at BYU?  

Quote

First and foremost, standards at West Point are nonexistent. They exist on paper, but nowhere else. The senior administration at West Point inexplicably refuses to enforce West Point’s publicly touted high standards on cadets, and, having picked up on this, cadets refuse to enforce standards on each other. The Superintendent refuses to enforce admissions standards or the cadet Honor Code, the Dean refuses to enforce academic standards, and the Commandant refuses to enforce standards of conduct and discipline. The end result is a sort of malaise that pervades the entire institution. Nothing matters anymore. Cadets know this, and it has given rise to a level of cadet arrogance and entitlement the likes of which West Point has never seen in its history.

I think some of the recent agitations about the Honor Code - by both BYU students and supporting faculty - are intended to weaken or eliminate the morality standards at BYU, to the point the Honor Code "exist{s} on paper, but nowhere else."  

West Point is supposed to be a unique institution of higher learning.  It is supposed to impose on students and stringent set of behavioral standards, including some that do not exist in many other colleges and universities, the most obvious being a commitment to honorably serving in the United States Army and advancing its missions and objectives.  Nobody is forced to go there.  To the contrary, it's pretty difficult to get it.  It is pretty disconcerting, then, to see how far it has fallen from its mandates.

I don't want to see the same thing happen to BYU.  This may therefore mean that a bit of housecleaning is in order.

Quote

Every fall, the Superintendent addresses the staff and faculty and lies. He repeatedly states that “We are going to have winning sports teams without compromising our standards,” and everyone in Robinson Auditorium knows he is lying because we routinely admit athletes with ACT scores in the mid-teens across the board. I have personally taught cadets who are borderline illiterate and cannot read simple passages from the assigned textbooks. It is disheartening when the institution’s most senior leader openly lies to his own faculty — and they all know it. The cadet honor code has become a laughingstock. Cadets know they will not be separated for violating it, and thus they do so on a daily basis. Moreover, since they refuse to enforce standards on each other and police their own ranks, cadets will rarely find a cadet at an honor hearing despite overwhelming evidence that a violation has occurred.

West Point is supposed to have an Honor Code.  It is subverted when it is not enforced, as is West Point's mission when it allows such violations to go unchecked.

The same goes, I think, for BYU's Honor Code.

Quote

This in turn has caused the staff and faculty to give up even reporting honor incidents. Why would a staff or faculty member expend the massive amount of time and energy it takes to report an honor violation — including writing multiple sworn statements, giving interviews, and testifying at the honor hearing — when they know without a doubt the cadet will not be found (or, if found, the Superintendent will not separate the cadet)? To make matters worse, the senior leadership at West Point actively discourages staff and faculty from reporting honor violations. I was unfortunate enough to experience this first hand during my first tour on the faculty, when the Commandant of Cadets called my office phone and proceeded to berate me in the most vulgar and obscene language for over ten minutes because I had reported a cadet who lied to me and then asked if “we could just drop it.” Of course, I was duty bound to report the cadet’s violation, and I did. During the course of the berating I received from the Commandant, I never actually found out why he was so angry. It seemed that he was simply irritated that the institution was having to deal with the case, and that it was my fault it even existed. At the honor hearing the next day, I ended up being the one on trial as my character and reputation were dragged through the mud by the cadet and her civilian attorney while I sat on the witness stand without any assistance. In the end, of course, the cadet was not found (despite having at first admitted that she lied), and she eventually graduated.

It's hard to hold people to a high moral/behavioral standard, whether at West Point or at BYU.  

Quote

Even the curriculum itself has suffered. The plebe American History course has been revamped to focus completely on race and on the narrative that America is founded solely on a history of racial oppression. Cadets derisively call it the “I Hate America Course.” Simultaneously, the plebe International History course now focuses on gender to the exclusion of many other important themes.

On the other hand, an entire semester of military history was recently deleted from the curriculum (at West Point!).

Are we seeing similar revisions and navel-gazing exercises from faculty at BYU?  Are some faculty members presenting an "I Hate the Church"-style focus and approach to the history, doctrines, practices, etc. of the Church?  I'm genuinely curious.

Quote

It is not so much that West Point’s leadership defends his views (Prof. Hosein did, however); it is that West Point’s senior leaders are infected with apathy: they simply do not want to deal with any problem, regardless of how grievous a violation of standards and/or discipline it may be. They are so reticent to separate problematic cadets (undoubtedly due to the “developmental model” that now exists at USMA) that someone like Rapone can easily slip through the cracks. In other words, West Point’s leaders choose the easier wrong over the harder right.

Again, are we seeing something similar to this at BYU?  Perhaps even worse?  Are there faculty members at BYU facilitating disrespect and contempt for the doctrines and standards of the Church that is funding their salaries?  And if so, should that funding continue?

Quote

I could go on, but I fear that this letter would simply devolve into a screed, which is not my intention.

I will sum up by saying this: a culture of extreme permissiveness has invaded the Military Academy, and there seems to be no end to it. Moreover, this is not unintentional; it is a deliberate action that is being taken by the Academy’s senior leadership, though they refuse to acknowledge or explain it.

Quote

Hmm.  Is this what is happening at BYU?  Is this why Elder Holland had to make the public statements he did?

Quote

Conduct and behavior that would never be tolerated at a civilian university is common among cadets, and it is supported and defended by the Academy’s senior leaders in an apparent and misguided effort to attract more applicants and cater to what they see as the unique needs of this generation of cadets. Our beloved Military Academy has lost its way. It is a shadow of what it once was. It used to be a place where standards and discipline mattered, and where concepts like duty, honor, and country were real and they meant something. Those ideas have been replaced by extreme permissiveness, rampant dishonesty, and an inexplicable pursuit of mediocrity.

I guess I'm concerned that BYU is going down this same bath.  It is supposed to be unique and different.  There are hundreds of colleges and universities throughout the country and the world that do not have BYU's mandates, honor code, and association with the Church.  I hope that there are not elements seeking to corrode these distinctive attributes, as I feel I benefitted greatly from them. 

Quote

It breaks my heart to write this. It breaks my heart to know first-hand what West Point was versus what it has become. This is not a “Corps has” story; it is meant to highlight a deliberate and radical series of changes being undertaken at the highest levels of USMA’s leadership that are detrimental to the institution.

Criticizing these changes is not popular. I have already been labeled a “traitor” by some at the Academy due to my sworn statement’s appearance in the media circus surrounding Spenser Rapone. However, whenever I hear this, I am reminded of the Cadet Prayer:

“…suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretense ever to diminish. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.

…that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice, and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.”

West Point was once special, and it can be again. Spenser Rapone never should have been admitted, much less graduate, but he was — and that mistake is directly attributable to the culture of permissiveness and apathy that now exists there.

I have great affection and respect for BYU.  I hope that there is not a similar "culture of permissiveness and apathy" going on there.  And if there is, I hope the Brethren take corrective action.

There are hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities where students can obtain an education that is untethered from any religious/moral mooring.  BYU is, or is supposed to be, an institution where Latter-day Saints "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118).

If there are faculty and administrators at BYU who are encouraging/facilitating/creating Rapone-esque subversive efforts, then I hope that the Board, Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc. take appropriate corrective measures.

I have had a few experiences of observing inappropriate behaviors by teachers/leaders in a formal church context.  A few examples:

1. In my teen years, my ward called a man to Sunday School lessons to the Young Men.  He had not been active long, and did not seem very enthused about teaching.  One Sunday, he taught for about ten minutes, then said something like "Well, that's about it.  We still have about 45 minutes.  Any of you want to come with me to go to the gas station and get some treats?"  We were surprised at this (it was Sunday, after all), but several of the young men happily said "Yes!" and piled into his truck and away they went.  This turned into a fairly frequent event, in which both the teacher and the YM enjoyed sneaking out of the church building and driving off to buy candy, and return before the end of the block.  This happened under the radar of the bishop, who was a good man, and who would not have tolerated it.  Although I did not go on these jaunts, looking back I regret not disclosing it to the bishop.  It was not a good thing for this man to use his status as a Sunday School teacher to encourage and facilitate the young men in our ward to break the Sabbath, and to do so secretly.

2. In a separate instance, another teacher came and gave us a lesson about the Word of Wisdom, in which he said something like this: "So the Word of Wisdom says we should not smoke or drink alcohol, so don't do those things.  But if you are going to do those things, drink beer because it will have less alcohol in it, and drink just a little so that you will know what it's like, but then don't drink after that."  We young men were quite surprised by this.  Fortunately, another leader (IIRC, a member of the bishopric) happened to be in the room, and when he heard the above he invited the teacher outside for a brief conversation.  The bishopric member then came back in and "clarified" that while the teacher had meant well, violating the Word of Wisdom is not appropriate.

3. As a missionary in Taiwan, we once had a General Authority, a Seventy, visit us and give the missionaries some training.  At the time he had a son serving in South America, and he ended up chastising us for not having the same level of success - measured in the number of convert baptisms - as the missionaries in his son's mission were having in South America.  This was pretty dispiriting for me, and I think for other missionaries as well.  We were working hard to teach the Gospel in Mandarin (which, candidly, is a bit more difficult to learn and master as compared to Spanish) to people who have little or not background or experience with the fundamental precepts of Christianity (as compared to South America, where many/most people who join the Church do so having come from some other Christian tradition, typically Catholic).  After lunch, we resumed the training session, only to find that the GA was not in attendance.  Instead, our mission president stood up and explained that he had had a conversation with the GA about some of the remarks made that morning, and that were were to disregard them.  Our MP went on to give us some very good training on missionary service.

In all three instances, things were said/done in as a church setting that should not have been said/done.

In examples 2 and 3 above, corrective action was taken, such that the errors were rectified.

In example 1 above, no corrective action was taken (at least that I knew of, the Sunday jaunts to the gas station just seemed to have tapered off).

In all three of the examples above, I don't think anyone had malignant, subversive motives.  Errors and lapses in judgment and common sense, but that's about it.

In contrast, my sense is that that are some pretty serious, intentional things going on at BYU.  Some specific things have been cited by Jacob Hansen, Greg Matsen of CWIC Media.  Moreover, Elder Holland's comments ("some others fired their muskets all right, but unfortunately didn’t always aim at those hostile to the Church" and "{a} couple of stray rounds even went north of the point of the mountain") and Elder Gilbert's comments (“The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”) are also noteworthy.  To me, these are pretty clear indicators that there are some serious concerns about people at BYU who are trying - and apparently succeeding to some extent - to subvert both BYU and its sponsoring institution in a "Long March through the Institutions" kind of way.  If that is the case, then the Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the Board of Trustees, CES and Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese, etc. need to take corrective action.

West Point should not have faculty and administration subverting the intended purposes of that institution and the nation that funds and sponsors it.

BYU should not have faculty and administration subverting the intended purposes of that institution and the church that funds and sponsors it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

meanwhile Jacob Hansen's wife or GF does wear a garment top as per his FB profile. Hyprocrite much?

I have no idea about what you are referencing here.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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.

Lots of ad hominem.  Not much about the substance of what these guys are actually saying.

I generally like A Thoughtful Faith.  I have far less experience with CWIC, but these may deserve some attention:

BYU Comments- Yes, It's Happening

He reads a series of emails sent to him by family members of young Latter-day Saints who have become ideologically compromised at BYU by BYU faculty.

Moreover, Elders Holland and Gilbert have said some things over the last while that are hard to ignore.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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 don't think Jacob and Greg are "running the show."  They are bystanders expressing concerns about what has been going on at BYU.

Elder Holland's 2021 address at BYU was, to me, indicative that some things are seriously amiss at BYU.  Elder Gilbert's various remarks as referenced in the OP are even more potent.  These are the folks "running the show at BYU."

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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. 

I don't know what you mean by "conservative take over."

The Church is, it seems, adopting measures to counter what I have characterized as potentially "subversive" behaviors by some BYU faculty and admin.  These folks may have their own personalized political motivations, but the Church's position is based on the doctrines of the Church.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and Jacob is shocked that after all the nonsense he and Greg sent to the brethren, PFS writes about it, Jacob is shocked??

I think he is not buying PFS's pearl-clutching schtick.  Neither am I.

It is patently unreasonable for some BYU faculty/admin to expect to use their positions at BYU to influence young Latter-day Saints, to subvert BYU's sponsoring institution, while still drawing a paycheck from that institution.  Their protestations are, to me, about as sincere and legitimate as those of John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, etc. who exploited their membership in the Church to speak and act against the Church, and then threw hissy fits when their membership was removed.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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?

I have not said I am shocked.  I said I am pleased.  Happy.  Gratified.  

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Screw you and the horse you rode in on

Well, okay then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 1/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Respectfully, I disagree with this sentiment.  See, e.g., this presentation by Prager University:

The transcript:

Quote

 

Can you believe in God and science at the same time?

So-called “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and scientific materialists like Neil deGrasse Tyson certainly don’t think so. To them, religion gets in the way of science. In their view, more science leads to less God. 

This is not a new position. It was first expressed over a hundred years ago by English physician John Draper in a book titled, A History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science.  

Draper, who was deeply influenced by Darwin’s then-new theory of evolution, regarded organized religion as a direct and existential threat to the advancement of science. As he put it “. . . [Religion] and Science are… absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together…mankind must make its choice—it cannot have both.”

I think this is a common trope in modern thought.

Quote

So, are science and religion inevitably in conflict? Have they always been?

Well, not exactly.

In fact, the giants who established modern science—astronomer Johannes Kepler, chemist Robert Boyle, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and others—were deeply religious men. They didn’t see any conflict between science and religion. On the contrary: they thought that by doing science, they were discovering God’s design and revealing it to mankind.

Perhaps professors at BYU can likewise find that by doing/advancing science, they are discovering God’s design and revealing it to students at BYU.

Quote

Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Judeo/Christian religious tradition led directly to modern science. 

To back up this claim, Cambridge University historian of science Joseph Needham posed a famous “Why there? Why then?” question.

Why there—in Europe. Why then—in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Why didn’t modern science start somewhere else before then?

After all, the Egyptians erected pyramids. 

The Chinese invented the compass, block-printing, and gunpowder. 

Romans built marvelous roads and aqueducts. 

The Greeks had great philosophers. 

Yet none of these cultures developed the systematic methods for investigating nature that arose in Western Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

This realization led Needham and other historians of science such as Ian Barbour and Herbert Butterfield to look for some other “X factor” to explain why “the scientific revolution” occurred where and when it did. 

Here is the conclusion they reached:  

Only the Judeo-Christian West had the necessary “intellectual presuppositions” to enable “the rise of science.”  

I think BYU is supposed to be a place where these "intellectual presuppositions" have purchase.

Quote

So, what were those presuppositions?

We can identify three. All find their origin in the Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God who fashioned an ordered universe.  

First, the founders of modern science assumed the intelligibility of nature—that nature had been designed by the mind of a rational God, the same God who also made the rational minds of human beings. 

Thus, these men assumed that if they used their minds to carefully study nature, they could understand the order and design that God had placed in the world.

Second, they assumed an underlying order in nature. 

This was best expressed by philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who argued, “There can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the . . . Order of Nature”—a conviction he attributed to belief in “the rationality of God.”

This idea led to the unprecedented use of mathematics to describe the orderly processes at work in the world, and inspired the invention of better instruments, such as telescopes and microscopes, to see that order.

And third, these founders of modern science presupposed the contingency of nature. This simply means that God had many choices about how to make an orderly world.

These three concepts - (1) the intelligibility of nature—that nature had been designed by the mind of a rational God; (2) "an underlying order in nature" and (3) " the contingency of nature ... {IOW,} that God had many choices about how to make an orderly world" - are fully compatible with the purpose and mandates of BYU.

Quote

Just as there are many ways to design a clock, there were many ways that God could have designed the universe. To discover how He did, scientists could not merely deduce the order of nature by assuming what seemed most logical to them; that is, merely using reason alone to draw conclusions, as the Greek philosophers had tried to do. 

For example, the Greeks thought that since the most perfect form of motion was circular, they assumed that the planets must have circular orbits—something Kepler later refuted by careful observation.

Indeed, because of their theological convictions the new scientists realized they would have to observe, test and measure in order to understand God’s design.

To these men nature was like a book—a form of divine communication intelligible to human investigation. 

For this reason, they also developed the concept of “the laws of nature,” implying God’s governance over the natural order. 

Science was a way to decipher that order.

The idea that science and religion are in conflict is a popular belief today. But the history of science shows otherwise.

All of us—laymen and scientists alike—owe a great debt to the Judeo-Christian tradition. 

Without that tradition we’d be living in a much more primitive world—morally and scientifically. 

I’m Stephen Meyer, historian and philosopher of science at the Discovery Institute, for Prager University.

"All of us—laymen and scientists alike—owe a great debt to the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Indeed. 

Prager also has some pretty good additional content about the atheistic paradigm relative to "science":

What's Wrong with Atheism? — Science and God

Does Science Argue for or against God?

I think we need to revisit our presuppositions about science and God.

Meanwhile, BYU is well-situated to proceed as an educational institution incorporating both scientific and religious thought and teaching.

On 1/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.  

Respectfully, I disagree that "{t}hese are separate things from matters of faith."

Many of the scientists who brought us out of "the dark ages" were, as noted above, "deeply religious men" who "didn’t see any conflict between science and religion," and who "thought that by doing science, they were discovering God’s design and revealing it to mankind."

Perhaps faculty at BYU can do the same.

On 1/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Respectfully, I disagree that "{t}hese are separate things from matters of faith."  I do not differentiate between "science" and "matters of faith."  As Elder Christofferson put it in 2018:

Quote

{W}e know that truth exists, that it represents a fixed and immutable reality, that unaided, the quantity of truth that mortals can discern is relatively small, that we depend on the help of divine revelation to learn "the truth of all things," and that we and God depend on truth to act and create, "otherwise there is no existence." And elsewhere we also learn that truth does not conflict with truth, but that indeed all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole.

 

On 1/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

My concern is that some folks at BYU seem to be more interested right now in trying to teach trendy sociopolitical ideologies and sentiments which are at odds with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I respectfully disagree that the Church is discouraging the use of prayer as a means of seeking truth.  I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

On 1/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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).

I am all for improving curriculum where flaws/weaknesses exist.  I don't think this will require the Church to capitulate on its doctrines, nor will it require the Church to tolerate subversive efforts by some BYU faculty/admin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

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.

I feel this is probably the most important statement concerning the crackdown of professors BYU is making.  

Same here, though for perhaps different reasons than yours.

First, I think the Brethren have far more data available to them regarding the goings-on at BYU as compared to bystanders such as ourselves.  Consequently, their assessments and decision-making processes are going to be far more informed and competent than ours.

Second, the Brethren have stewardship and responsibility over the goings-on at BYU, whereas we bystanders do not.  We are free to be armchair quarterbacks because, as Ben aptly notes, we are not "in a place to make those decisions or influence those decision makers."  This means we can be, and often are, flippant, ignorant, cavalier, etc. in our assessments, because our assessments do not really matter.  Conversely, those with stewardship over BYU are going to be far more serious in their efforts relative to BYU.

Third, those with stewardship over BYU are entitled to revelation from God regarding said stewardship, whereas we bystanders lack both stewardship and, therefore, will likely not receive much in the way of light and knowledge from God regarding how to run BYU.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't believe students follow what professors think about social issues such as gay marriage much at all.  

I hold a contrary view.  I think some students can be heavily influenced by "what professors think."  I say this as someone who has gone to BYU twice, as having lived near BYU for most of my life (including the last 25 years), as someone who has seen many BYU students come and go, as someone who has worked with and ministered to many BYU students in a religious setting, as someone who personally knows many people who are at BYU or have been there recently, as someone who regularly tracks news items about BYU, and so on.

My assessment has also been influenced by this 2022 CWIC Media video: BYU Comments- Yes, It's Happening

Excerpts from the automated transcript:

Quote

i i'm a little reactionary right now i 0:32 guess on this because 0:35 uh 0:36 i i keep getting back from people that 0:38 this isn't happening that there is no 0:40 radicalization at byu 0:43 and they're just teaching kids to be 0:45 different to think different and to 0:46 think critically 0:49 and um that's not true 0:52 it's just not true i mean i hope they're 0:53 teaching them to think critically that 0:54 would be great 0:57 but uh 0:58 from people that should know better

...
what i'm going to do is i'm going to 2:02 select here from 2:05 i've got a number of comments that have 2:07 been sent in

...
here 3:31 first comment here this is a little bit 3:32 longer on this one 3:38 this is someone who's listening to one 3:39 of the videos 3:40 and says i'm listening and feeling the 3:42 gut wrenching all over of losing our 3:44 daughter to byu radicalism 3:46 she served a mission and three years 3:48 into her education at byu we lost her 3:51 she's convinced men are the patriarchy 3:53 so again this is it's this this ideology 3:57 turns 3:58 people against others that's what it's 4:00 meant to do 4:01 you find an oppressor and in so many 4:04 cases part of that is the church the 4:07 church becomes the oppressor that's how 4:09 it is a natural turn against the church 4:14 she's convinced men of the patriarchy 4:16 she was indoctrinated by feminists at 4:18 byu who have instilled the twisted ideas 4:20 of praying to a heavenly mother 4:22 she was such a beautiful girl and to see 4:24 the light in her entire continents 4:26 change even the way she looks is 4:28 heart-wrenching 4:29 because she's gone 4:32 and this is someone that is not i mean 4:35 you should see how they write it's long 4:36 i'm not going to read it all but it's 4:39 this is a level-headed 4:41 strong parent 4:43 here 4:45 and 4:46 this person says that as parents we 4:49 support her we love her and we pray for 4:51 our we pray our deepest most pleading 4:53 prayers to protect her 4:55 and to give us our child back 4:57 in the deepest moment of despair we have 5:00 felt the feeling of confounding love 5:03 from our heavenly father in heaven 5:05 our answers are that this is nothing any 5:08 of us parents have done 5:10 we sent our children to byu a church 5:13 school as a sense of comfort and 5:14 confidence 5:16 that in their young adult life our 5:18 children would have a foundation set for 5:19 them 5:20 to start their adult lives as future 5:23 generations leaders 5:24 and parents 5:27 finally i'm grateful for the leaders who 5:30 feel the weight of a generation of byu 5:32 professors 5:33 who have come from various backgrounds 5:35 that teach against 5:37 the family proclamation 5:40 it especially hurts to realize that prop 5:42 that proclamation was given to us 5:44 at a conference the month our daughter 5:46 was born and it goes on and on and on 5:49 um 5:51 they know what happened 5:52 they know what happened here here's 5:54 another one i'm a byu graduate 5:56 my family who goes through all my family 5:58 is all byu graduates 6:01 um 6:03 i'm also a parent of a child who is 6:05 radicalized at byu 6:07 we've been through three years of hell 6:09 because someone 6:11 convinced my son that he didn't 6:12 understand his emotions and he was 6:14 actually a woman 6:16 and this is an authority figure and this 6:18 goes on and on and i'm not going to go 6:20 into the specifics on these 6:23 things 6:25 on this 6:34 uh let's see here 6:36 i just wanted 6:38 i've got to be careful on some of these 6:39 comments 6:40 i don't want to give anything away 6:43 um 6:48 working at byu i can't agree enough this 6:50 is to the video i see the rot of 6:52 identity politics and crt critical 6:55 social justice 6:57 and the pain it causes 6:59 i'm a graduate of byu to boot just 7:03 graduated a couple years ago 7:05 it feels like a different school in so 7:07 many ways 7:08 thank you for sharing this as a byu 7:11 student i've been increasingly concerned 7:13 about the ideology looming around campus 7:16 i love byu and want to keep it a safe 7:18 and spiritual university 7:21 and when he says looming around campus 7:22 understand that that's what's happening 7:25 it is it is 7:29 it's pervasive 7:32 and people are silenced with this 7:41 i have one daughter at byu provo who is 7:43 transferring to byu idaho because the 7:46 awoke problem in provo i have another 7:48 daughter who is halfway through her 7:50 junior year at byu provo but is choosing 7:52 to work full time next semester 7:55 until she finds a better place to finish 7:56 her degree because 7:59 of the environment 8:02 one of my nieces was in this class and 8:04 told me about it 8:06 she's probably talking about one of the 8:07 ones i had covered 8:10 she says the class was taught by 8:13 and gives the professor's name 8:16 white students were to uh were to stand 8:18 up 8:20 um the professor told her white students 8:22 to stand and recite quote as a result of 8:26 being raised as a white person in this 8:27 society i have a racist worldview 8:31 i have deep racist biases 8:33 i have developed racist patterns and i 8:36 have investments in the system of racism 8:39 because it has served me really well 8:40 this is a re-education camp 8:44 it is comfortable i continue to quote 8:46 here it has helped me overcome the 8:48 barriers that i do face and i also have 8:50 an investment in not seeing any of that 8:52 because of what it would suggest to me 8:54 about my identity and what it would 8:56 require of me going forward of course 8:59 this is all 9:00 anti-racism this is all robin d'angelo 9:02 and 9:04 ibrahim kennedy and and the religion of 9:07 academia here that they are 9:11 trying to push on to these students here 9:14 um 9:15 here's another one i'm a student and i 9:17 have been saddened by the things being 9:19 pushed 9:20 at byu 9:24 my doc my oldest daughter is at byu 9:26 she's been surprised by the anti-family 9:29 proclamation teachings 9:34 as a as a byu student i thought i would 9:37 find a place to study without having to 9:39 defend my beliefs 9:40 this no longer exists that's at byu 9:45 any anyway i can i can 9:48 go on and on and on here um 9:52 there are hundreds of comments and uh 9:56 dozens of 9:59 paragraphs or letters 10:02 that have been sent here i want to cover 10:05 just a couple more things though a 10:06 couple a couple of professors here that 10:09 have 10:10 said something 10:11 because i i think that this is so 10:13 important and you know who am i i don't 10:15 even go to byu and i'm not there and i 10:17 understand all that but for whatever 10:19 reason 10:22 people have been sending me all of this 10:24 and and 10:25 so i'm privy to it right 10:28 um 10:33 i want to cover what uh a couple of 10:35 these professors have said and this is 10:37 the sentiment i think that uh that would 10:38 be the sentiment of a lot of professors 10:42 at uh at byu 10:46 here's one i have hesitated for a very 10:49 long time to write anything 10:52 i'm a professor at byu the reason for my 10:54 hesitation is a bit of fear of being too 10:57 public about what i see happening at byu 11:02 i this is all this could be basically 11:04 word for word for almost every professor 11:07 that i've spoken to or who has contacted 11:10 me 11:14 that's odd don't you think 11:17 that something is going on 11:20 something's going on there 11:22 this is my job and i depend on it to 11:24 raise my family 11:27 uh i'm gonna pat my back here and quote 11:29 this part greg and quick media is a 11:31 great service to me as i try and grapple 11:33 with how to exist here in what i 11:35 consider to be an increasingly difficult 11:37 place 11:38 that is embracing philosophies of the 11:40 world 11:46 um 11:47 just being careful what i read here i 11:49 can attest that things have seriously 11:51 changed 11:52 in my time as a faculty member 11:56 here's another one 11:58 i feel at times when i'm in a prison 12:00 without the spirit i don't know what to 12:02 do or if i should say anything 12:05 this is a great effect on my level of 12:07 joy at work 12:09 i've always wanted to teach at byu 12:11 blah blah blah cover that up and then 12:14 but this is not what i imagined right so 12:17 and again i can go on and on with these 12:19 um 12:21 and i've had a lot of discussions with 12:23 with 12:24 with faculty members there and that 12:27 sentiment is there 12:28 of do i say anything because what what 12:31 is this thing here now what is this 12:33 that's here now 12:35 and and i i don't think it's christ-like 12:38 i just don't think it's christ-like 12:40 thing that you're feeling there 12:43 um 12:46 there's there's a faculty member i spoke 12:48 to recently this week who said that they 12:50 called this something like the 12:52 um 12:54 the spiraling science silence the 12:56 spiraling silence 12:58 at byu 13:00 and it's just it's just it's just 13:01 getting worse and worse and worse and 13:03 people are falling into this thing and 13:04 faculty and probably the students in the 13:06 classes where it's like can i really say 13:08 anything 13:10 can i can i say something again i've 13:12 said this before but i would say you 13:14 raise your hand in class 13:16 and and if you're a faculty member 13:19 please know that 13:21 certainly at provo in idaho i don't know 13:23 about hawaii but 13:27 the vast majority of the faculty i 13:30 believe feel the way that you are no one 13:32 has ever been fired 13:34 at byu for teaching the doctrine of 13:36 christ no one has ever been fired at byu 13:39 for teaching the family proclamation 13:42 i i think that this needs to turn there 13:43 are things that are people's lives and 13:46 and souls and and 13:48 happiness and you know 13:51 are all at stake here and 13:53 it's 13:55 to have people come in and 13:58 discount this like it's not happening 14:00 and quite frankly to be too silent about 14:02 it 14:04 when you're in it is 14:06 we can't do this 14:07 you know we can't do this so anyway  

• "losing our daughter to BYU radicalism... she's convinced men are the patriarchy ... that is {} the church becomes the oppressor that's how ... it is a natural turn against the church..."
• "professors who have come from various backgrounds 5:35 that teach against the family proclamation..."
• "I'm also a parent of a child who is radicalized at BYU we've been through three years of hell because someone convinced my son that he didn't understand his emotions and he was actually a woman and this is {from} an authority figure..."
• "white students were to uh were to stand up ... the professor told her white students to stand and recite 'As a result of being raised as a white person in this society I have a racist worldview I have deep racist biases I have developed racist patterns and I have investments in the system of racism because it has served me really well."
• "my oldest daughter is at BYU she's been surprised by the anti-family proclamation teachings..."
• "as a BYU student I thought I would find a place to study without having to defend my beliefs this no longer exists that's at BYU..."
• {From an anonymous BYU professor}: "{I} can attest that things have seriously changed in my time as a faculty member..."
• "this is not what I imagined..."

I think most of the above references to professors contradicting the Proclamation pertain to its language regarding A) marriage, and B) biological sex (gender).

Quote

That comes from friends that they may have that are gay and the social expectations of those around them.  If they are coming from outside the Utah bubble, what a professor says isn't going to change their real world experiences.  

I think subversive BYU facutly/admin are having a very significant impact on the lives of their students.

Quote

Outside the Mormon corridor, I think there is already skepticism on just what a degree from BYU means.  

Yes.  Prejudice can have that effect.

Quote

By far, my best professors i had came from outside academia.  

Quite an indictment of academia, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Same here, though for perhaps different reasons than yours.

First, I think the Brethren have far more data available to them regarding the goings-on at BYU as compared to bystanders such as ourselves.  Consequently, their assessments and decision-making processes are going to be far more informed and competent than ours.

Second, the Brethren have stewardship and responsibility over the goings-on at BYU, whereas we bystanders do not.  We are free to be armchair quarterbacks because, as Ben aptly notes, we are not "in a place to make those decisions or influence those decision makers."  This means we can be, and often are, flippant, ignorant, cavalier, etc. in our assessments, because our assessments do not really matter.  Conversely, those with stewardship over BYU are going to be far more serious in their efforts relative to BYU.

Third, those with stewardship over BYU are entitled to revelation from God regarding said stewardship, whereas we bystanders lack both stewardship and, therefore, will likely not receive much in the way of light and knowledge from God regarding how to run BYU.

I hold a contrary view.  I think some students can be heavily influenced by "what professors think."  I say this as someone who has gone to BYU twice, as having lived near BYU for most of my life (including the last 25 years), as someone who has seen many BYU students come and go, as someone who has worked with and ministered to many BYU students in a religious setting, as someone who personally knows many people who are at BYU or have been there recently, as someone who regularly tracks news items about BYU, and so on.

My assessment has also been influenced by this 2022 CWIC Media video: BYU Comments- Yes, It's Happening

Excerpts from the automated transcript:

• "losing our daughter to BYU radicalism... she's convinced men are the patriarchy ... that is {} the church becomes the oppressor that's how ... it is a natural turn against the church..."
• "professors who have come from various backgrounds 5:35 that teach against the family proclamation..."
• "I'm also a parent of a child who is radicalized at BYU we've been through three years of hell because someone convinced my son that he didn't understand his emotions and he was actually a woman and this is {from} an authority figure..."
• "white students were to uh were to stand up ... the professor told her white students to stand and recite 'As a result of being raised as a white person in this society I have a racist worldview I have deep racist biases I have developed racist patterns and I have investments in the system of racism because it has served me really well."
• "my oldest daughter is at BYU she's been surprised by the anti-family proclamation teachings..."
• "as a BYU student I thought I would find a place to study without having to defend my beliefs this no longer exists that's at BYU..."
• {From an anonymous BYU professor}: "{I} can attest that things have seriously changed in my time as a faculty member..."
• "this is not what I imagined..."

I think most of the above references to professors contradicting the Proclamation pertain to its language regarding A) marriage, and B) biological sex (gender).

I think subversive BYU facutly/admin are having a very significant impact on the lives of their students.

Yes.  Prejudice can have that effect.

Quite an indictment of academia, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 Sounds like you graduated from BYU but haven't emotionally moved on. Get a life already and stop worrying about BYU. If you have any trust left of LDS Church leadership let them handle any problems. They don't need you, or anyone else to poison their minds. 

Edited January 27, 2025 by Duncan

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Get a life already

Well, okay then.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and stop worrying about BYU.

Also Duncan: 

• "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."

So commentating about BYU is one of those "It's only wrong when people I disagree with do it" kind of things.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you have any trust left of LDS Church leadership let them handle any problems.

I have lots of trust in the leaders of the Church.  Hence my various remarks to that effect:

• 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.
• 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}f 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. 
• 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.
• I think BYU has, by these recent efforts, secured for itself some pretty bright prospects.  I am very happy about that.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

They don't need you, or anyone else to poison their minds. 

This from the guy who publicly branded two people "apostates" for publishing their views/concerns about BYU.

Anyhoo, I don't know what you mean here.  The leaders of the Church are not taking any cues from me.  And I'm certainly not doing anything that could be reasonably construed as "poison{ing} their minds."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2025 by smac97

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay then.

Also Duncan: 

• "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."

So commentating about BYU is one of those "It's only wrong when people I disagree with do it" kind of things.

I have lots of trust in the leaders of the Church.  Hence my various remarks to that effect:

• 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.
• 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}f 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. 
• 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.
• I think BYU has, by these recent efforts, secured for itself some pretty bright prospects.  I am very happy about that.

This from the guy who publicly branded two people "apostates" for publishing their views/concerns about BYU.

Anyhoo, I don't know what you mean here.  The leaders of the Church are not taking any cues from me.  And I'm certainly not doing anything that could be reasonably construed as "poison{ing} their minds."

Thanks,

-Smac

my allegiance is to Christ and his Church not to BYU

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

my allegiance is to Christ and his Church not to BYU

Same here.  I am glad we agree on that.

That said, I think it is appropriate and healthy for Latter-day Saints to be attuned to what is going on in the Church, including at its schools.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

On 1/24/2025 at 5:24 PM, 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.

Well, no.  Many institutions of higher learning were founded by religious groups, and operated quite well for many years before becoming secularized.

On 1/24/2025 at 5:24 PM, Analytics said:

Harvard chose the truth over dogma.

It looks like the secularization trend was about more prosaic forces at work.  From the Deseret News article in the OP:

Quote

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.

ChatGPT has this to day about Harvard:

Quote

How did Harvard, which was originally created by religionists as an educational institution, became so "secularized" and irreligious?

The transformation of Harvard University from a religiously affiliated institution to a secular and irreligious one is a complex process that reflects broader societal and intellectual trends in the United States. Harvard’s shift was shaped by evolving ideas about religion, education, and the role of institutions in society. Here’s an overview:

---

1. Founding as a Religious Institution

• Religious Origins:
  • Harvard was founded in 1636 by Puritans with the explicit goal of training clergy and promoting Christian education in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
  • The early curriculum was steeped in religious studies, and the institution’s motto, Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (Truth for Christ and the Church), reflected its religious mission.
• The Puritan Vision:
  • The founders intended Harvard to create a learned ministry that could uphold and perpetuate the Puritan religious and moral framework.

---

2. Gradual Secularization

Theological Shifts

• Decline of Puritanism:

  • By the 18th century, Puritanism in New England began to wane, giving way to a more diverse religious landscape, including Unitarianism and Deism.
  • Harvard became influenced by Unitarian thought, which emphasized reason and morality over traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity.

• Rise of Rationalism and Enlightenment Ideas:

  • Enlightenment thought, emphasizing reason, scientific inquiry, and individualism, challenged the theological orthodoxy that had dominated Harvard’s early years.
  • The increasing focus on intellectual exploration made theology less central to the curriculum.

Professionalization of Education

• Emergence of Modern Academia:
  • In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Harvard transformed from a religious college into a modern research university under leaders like Charles W. Eliot (president from 1869 to 1909).
  • The shift toward disciplines like science, philosophy, and social sciences diminished the emphasis on theological studies.
• Meritocracy over Theology:
  • Admissions and faculty hiring gradually prioritized intellectual achievement and expertise rather than religious affiliation.

---

3. Changing Cultural and Social Contexts

• Separation of Church and State:

  • As the United States embraced secular governance, the separation of religion from public institutions influenced educational systems, including universities like Harvard.
  • The idea of a university as a place for critical thinking and open inquiry was increasingly seen as incompatible with a singular religious doctrine.

• Immigration and Religious Diversity:

  • Waves of immigrants brought a variety of religious traditions, further reducing the dominance of Protestant Christianity in American intellectual life.
  • Harvard adapted to serve a broader, more pluralistic student body and faculty.

---

4. Intellectual and Institutional Autonomy

• Shift Toward Secular Humanism:

  • By the 20th century, Harvard had embraced secular humanism, emphasizing the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values independent of religious doctrines.

• Philanthropy and Endowments:

  • As Harvard grew financially independent through endowments and alumni donations, it became less reliant on religious institutions for funding, allowing it to pursue a more secular mission.

• Cultural Elites:

  • Harvard’s role as a training ground for national leaders in business, law, and politics further encouraged a nonsectarian, cosmopolitan approach to education.

---

5. Specific Milestones

• Elimination of Mandatory Chapel Attendance:
  • In 1886, Harvard ended the requirement for students to attend daily chapel services, signaling a shift away from religious oversight in student life.
• Shift to Veritas:
  • The original motto (Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae) was shortened to Veritas (Truth), reflecting a commitment to truth in a broader, secular sense.

---

6. Current Status

• Secular Institution:
  • Today, Harvard is widely regarded as a secular institution focused on research and education across diverse fields, with no formal religious affiliation.
• Religious Studies:
  • While religion is no longer central to Harvard’s identity, it maintains a Divinity School and offers programs in religious studies, reflecting its intellectual importance rather than doctrinal commitment.

---

Conclusion

Harvard’s secularization was not a sudden or deliberate rejection of its religious roots but rather the result of gradual intellectual, cultural, and institutional evolution. The rise of Enlightenment ideals, the professionalization of education, and the increasing pluralism of American society all contributed to Harvard’s transformation into a leading secular university. This change mirrors broader trends in higher education and society at large.

And this:

Quote

Tell me more about this part: "By the 20th century, Harvard had embraced secular humanism, emphasizing the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values independent of religious doctrines." Why did Harvard embrace secular humanism? Is it possible for an institution of higher learning to embrace "the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values" *in the context of" "religious doctrines"?

Harvard's embrace of secular humanism in the 20th century reflects broader intellectual and cultural shifts toward emphasizing knowledge and ethics as universal, independent of specific religious doctrines. However, your question about whether an institution of higher learning can pursue knowledge and ethical values within a religious framework is both insightful and complex. Here's a deeper dive:

---

Why Did Harvard Embrace Secular Humanism?

1. Intellectual Independence and Pluralism:

   • The rise of rationalism, Enlightenment ideals, and scientific inquiry encouraged the idea that truth could be pursued through reason, observation, and evidence, without reliance on religious frameworks.
   • Harvard, aiming to be a global intellectual leader, sought to position itself as a bastion of open inquiry, welcoming people of all faiths and beliefs. This necessitated a departure from reliance on any one religious doctrine.

2. Broader Societal Shifts:

   • The 19th and 20th centuries saw increasing religious diversity in the U.S., and Harvard adapted to a pluralistic society. A secular approach avoided favoring one tradition over another, aligning with the ethos of religious neutrality.
   • Secularism also aligned with America's growing emphasis on the separation of church and state.

3. The Professionalization of Knowledge:

   • During Charles W. Eliot’s presidency (1869–1909), Harvard transformed into a modern research university. Emphasizing rigorous, evidence-based inquiry, Harvard de-emphasized theological training and instead prioritized fields like science, medicine, law, and humanities.
   • Ethics became a field of philosophical inquiry independent of religion, drawing on universal principles rather than specific doctrines.

4. Global and Cosmopolitan Goals:

   • Harvard aspired to be an inclusive institution that could attract the best minds globally, regardless of their religious backgrounds. A secular humanist orientation was seen as better suited for fostering inclusivity.

5. Shift in Academic Focus:

   • Religious doctrines often prioritize specific "truths," whereas secular humanism allows for ongoing questioning and evolution of ideas. This was appealing to a university aiming to advance cutting-edge research and intellectual progress.

---

Can Institutions Embrace Knowledge and Ethics Within a Religious Framework?

Yes, institutions of higher learning can—and many do—embrace the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values within a religious context. The key difference lies in how these pursuits are framed and whether they are open to external perspectives.

Examples of Religious Institutions Excelling in Scholarship:

1. Notre Dame (Catholic):
   • The University of Notre Dame integrates Catholic teachings with a commitment to intellectual inquiry, offering robust programs in science, law, and ethics.
2. Brigham Young University (LDS):
   • BYU fosters academic excellence while adhering to principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, blending religious teachings with secular disciplines.
3. Yeshiva University (Jewish):
   • Yeshiva blends Jewish religious education with rigorous secular academics, including law and medical schools.
4. Islamic Universities:
   • Institutions like Al-Azhar University in Cairo pursue knowledge in both religious and secular fields, grounded in Islamic principles.

---

How Religious Institutions Navigate Knowledge and Ethics

1. Integration of Faith and Reason:

   • Religious institutions often argue that faith and reason complement each other, enabling the pursuit of knowledge within a meaningful moral framework.

2. Moral and Ethical Foundations:

   • Religious teachings provide ethical guidelines that shape how knowledge is used (e.g., bioethics in Catholic or Jewish contexts).

3. Critical Inquiry with Boundaries:

   • While religious institutions encourage intellectual exploration, they may set boundaries based on doctrine (e.g., limits on teaching ideas that directly contradict core beliefs).

4. Openness to Secular Knowledge:

   • Many religious institutions engage with secular disciplines while maintaining a religious lens. For example, Catholic universities often adopt natural law theory in philosophy and law.

---

Tensions and Challenges

1. Intellectual Openness vs. Doctrinal Fidelity:

   • Striking a balance between adherence to doctrine and fostering open inquiry can be challenging. Overemphasis on doctrine may stifle innovation, while too much openness may dilute the institution's religious identity.

2. Inclusivity:

   • Religious frameworks may exclude those who do not share the faith, limiting diversity in students and faculty. However, this is mitigated in institutions that welcome people of all beliefs while maintaining their religious ethos.

3. Public Perception:

   • Religious institutions are sometimes perceived as less "scientific" or objective, although many excel in secular disciplines while adhering to religious principles.

---

Conclusion

Harvard's embrace of secular humanism was driven by its desire to foster inclusivity, intellectual independence, and global leadership, aligning with the broader trends of modernization and pluralism. However, religious institutions can and do pursue knowledge and ethical values effectively within their doctrinal frameworks. The choice between secular and religious models often reflects differing philosophies about the relationship between faith, reason, and universal truth. Both models have their strengths and challenges, and the pursuit of knowledge and ethics can thrive in either context with thoughtful leadership and clarity of mission.

"Yes, institutions of higher learning can—and many do—embrace the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values within a religious context."

I think that is correct.

I also think that BYU can do this, and in fact has been doing it for quite a while now.

I also think that recent controversies at BYU center on a fairly narrow set of sociopolitcal/moral issues (the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc. ).  BYU can proceed with its educational endeavors without needing to capitulate to secular or other perspectives on these matters.  Put another way, these controversies would likely not exist but for the "Long March through the Institutions"-type efforts by some BYU faculty/administration, who apparently deliberately seek to 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 the foregoing - and relatively small - set of sociopolitcal/moral issues.

On 1/24/2025 at 5:24 PM, Analytics said:

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.

BYU seems to have done a pretty good job of resisting the forces that secularized Harvard, and at the same time built up a formidable reputation and competency in education.

Also, the "Puritans," the distinct religious movement that founded Harvard aren't really around any more, so nobody was here to "mind the store" re: Harvard's religious proclivities.  In contrast, BYU's sponsoring institution is alive and well, and looks to be so for the foreseeable future.  The institutional Church is doing well and managing the schools it sponsors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2025 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I disagree with this sentiment.  See, e.g., this presentation by Prager University:

This doesn't actually address my point. I am not discussing the question of whether or not science and religion can co-exist. I am addressing a very specific point about whether or not the hard sciences are advanced through prayer or through the process of experimentation and observation. That was my entire point.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I disagree that "{t}hese are separate things from matters of faith."

That's fine - go ahead and disagree. It's no skin off my back. But you haven't convinced me either.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This doesn't actually address my point. I am not discussing the question of whether or not science and religion can co-exist. I am addressing a very specific point about whether or not the hard sciences are advanced through prayer or through the process of experimentation and observation. That was my entire point.

I don't see that as an either/or scenario.  Who can say that some scientists have not made scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, etc. via the methods we Latter-day Saints so regularly endorse, that is, through hard work and study, and also prayer and inspiration?

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Have any scientists or mathematicians ever claimed that to have had inspiration from God as part of their efforts to advance knowledge in their discipline?

Yes, many scientists and mathematicians throughout history have claimed to have been inspired by their faith in God or credited divine inspiration as part of their intellectual pursuits. These individuals often viewed their scientific or mathematical work as a way of understanding the universe and its laws, which they believed were established by a Creator. Here are some notable examples:

---

1. Historical Figures

Isaac Newton (1643–1727)

• Field: Physics, Mathematics
• Inspiration: Newton believed that studying nature and the universe was a way of understanding God's creation. He wrote extensively on theology and saw his scientific discoveries as evidence of a divine order.
• Quote: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)

• Field: Astronomy, Mathematics
• Inspiration: Kepler saw his work in discovering the laws of planetary motion as uncovering the divine plan of the universe.
• Quote: "O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee."

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)

• Field: Mathematics, Physics
• Inspiration: A devout Christian, Pascal credited his faith for much of his philosophical and scientific thought. His famous work Pensées reflects his religious devotion.
• Quote: "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know."

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855)

• Field: Mathematics
• Inspiration: Gauss, often called the "Prince of Mathematicians," was known for his deep religious faith. He reportedly said he felt God’s hand guiding him in his work.
• Quote: "To praise God, I must begin by studying His creation."

Michael Faraday (1791–1867)

• Field: Physics, Chemistry
• Inspiration: A deeply religious man, Faraday attributed his discoveries in electromagnetism to the laws set forth by a Creator.
• Quote: "The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God."

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)

• Field: Physics
• Inspiration: Maxwell, who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, was a devout Christian who saw his work as uncovering God's truth.
• Quote: "Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them."

---

2. Modern Figures

Francis Collins (1950– )

• Field: Genetics, Medicine
• Inspiration: As the leader of the Human Genome Project, Collins often speaks about how his faith and scientific pursuits align.
• Quote: "I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith."

John Polkinghorne (1930–2021)

• Field: Physics, Theology
• Inspiration: Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist who became an Anglican priest, argued that science and faith are deeply connected.
• Quote: "Science and religion are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge."

Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976)

• Field: Quantum Mechanics
• Inspiration: Heisenberg, known for the Uncertainty Principle, was influenced by metaphysical and theological ideas.
• Quote: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you."

---

3. Broader Themes

Mathematics and Divine Order

• Many mathematicians have seen mathematics as a universal language created by God to understand the universe. For example:
  • Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) was deeply religious and saw mathematics as revealing the order of God's creation.
  • Kurt Gödel (1906–1978), known for his incompleteness theorems, explored theological arguments, including an ontological proof of God’s existence.

Scientists on Wonder and Awe

• Even those without specific religious affiliations, such as Albert Einstein, have expressed reverence for a higher order or divine intelligence. Einstein famously remarked: "I want to know God’s thoughts—the rest are details."

---

Conclusion

Many scientists and mathematicians have claimed inspiration from God, viewing their work as a way to explore and understand divine creation. These individuals often saw no conflict between faith and science, considering their disciplines as complementary ways of pursuing truth. Their legacy reflects the profound influence of spirituality and religion on the advancement of human knowledge.

YMMV.

58 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's fine - go ahead and disagree. It's no skin off my back. But you haven't convinced me either.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From ChatGPT:

Ahh, the God ChatGPT has spoken.

Seriously, this still isn't addressing my point. But, whatever.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Many institutions of higher learning were founded by religious groups, and operated quite well for many years before becoming secularized.

Non sequitur. Hopefully we can agree that hypothetically, some religions have some beliefs that aren't true. If one of those religions with some false beliefs starts a college, it doesn't mean their false beliefs are scientifically plausible, much less true.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like the secularization trend was about more prosaic forces at work.  From the Deseret News article in the OP:

Yes, those are the points that I think miss the mark.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Yes, institutions of higher learning can—and many do—embrace the pursuit of knowledge and ethical values within a religious context."

Let's look at a case study. BYU Professor Donald W. Parry said the following in an article that was published in the Ensign not too long ago:

Quote

Many of us have fond memories learning about Noah and his ark during our days at home and in Primary....

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.” Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense, revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

So, does BYU still teach that the story of Noah's ark can be taken at face value because "we are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets"?

Does BYU teach one thing in the geology department and something else in the religious department? Are students taught to compartmentalize their thinking? If a professor accepts the truth of the matter and explains why the "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" are wrong on this issue, is he in danger of losing his job?

Or is the implausibility of these truth claims something that is just ignored?

Is figuring out a way to reconcile geology, biology, and "the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" in a way that doesn't cause a professor to be afraid of losing his job consistent with the idea of BYU being a place for the pursuit of real knowledge?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

BYU seems to have done a pretty good job of resisting the forces that secularized Harvard....

From your reference, the forces that secularized Harvard include diversity, and emphasis on "reason and morality over traditional Christian doctrines," "enlightenment thought, emphasizing reason, scientific inquiry, and individualism," intellectual exploration, modern research, a shift towards disciplines like science, philosophy, and social sciences rather than theological studies, meritocracy, prioritizing intellectual achievement rather than religious affiliation, and being "a place for critical thinking and open inquiry."

If you are right and BYU is doing a pretty good job of resisting these forces, we can agree to disagree about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. To each his own.

Your source goes on to say that at Harvard, "The idea of a university as a place for critical thinking and open inquiry was increasingly seen as incompatible with a singular religious doctrine." That's exactly my point. See the case study above as an example.

 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

My assessment has also been influenced by this 2022 CWIC Media video: BYU Comments- Yes, It's Happening

Excerpts from the automated transcript:

• "losing our daughter to BYU radicalism... she's convinced men are the patriarchy ... that is {} the church becomes the oppressor that's how ... it is a natural turn against the church..."
• "professors who have come from various backgrounds 5:35 that teach against the family proclamation..."
• "I'm also a parent of a child who is radicalized at BYU we've been through three years of hell because someone convinced my son that he didn't understand his emotions and he was actually a woman and this is {from} an authority figure..."
• "white students were to uh were to stand up ... the professor told her white students to stand and recite 'As a result of being raised as a white person in this society I have a racist worldview I have deep racist biases I have developed racist patterns and I have investments in the system of racism because it has served me really well."
• "my oldest daughter is at BYU she's been surprised by the anti-family proclamation teachings..."
• "as a BYU student I thought I would find a place to study without having to defend my beliefs this no longer exists that's at BYU..."
• {From an anonymous BYU professor}: "{I} can attest that things have seriously changed in my time as a faculty member..."
• "this is not what I imagined..."

 

-Smac

You managed to slice and dice my comments to the point that I can't even understand what I said or what your point is in response.

I will say this about the quote you inserted.  What do you think is going to happen when those students referenced above step out in the real world and find out that their boss and fellow workers also don't believe in the things you called out and never had anyone challenge those beliefs until they are in an entirely secular situation and confronted about their beliefs?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

My assessment has also been influenced by this 2022 CWIC Media video: BYU Comments- Yes, It's Happening

Excerpts from the automated transcript:

• "losing our daughter to BYU radicalism... she's convinced men are the patriarchy ... that is {} the church becomes the oppressor that's how ... it is a natural turn against the church..."
• "professors who have come from various backgrounds 5:35 that teach against the family proclamation..."
• "I'm also a parent of a child who is radicalized at BYU we've been through three years of hell because someone convinced my son that he didn't understand his emotions and he was actually a woman and this is {from} an authority figure..."
• "white students were to uh were to stand up ... the professor told her white students to stand and recite 'As a result of being raised as a white person in this society I have a racist worldview I have deep racist biases I have developed racist patterns and I have investments in the system of racism because it has served me really well."
• "my oldest daughter is at BYU she's been surprised by the anti-family proclamation teachings..."
• "as a BYU student I thought I would find a place to study without having to defend my beliefs this no longer exists that's at BYU..."
• {From an anonymous BYU professor}: "{I} can attest that things have seriously changed in my time as a faculty member..."
• "this is not what I imagined..."

I will say this about the quote you inserted.  What do you think is going to happen when those students referenced above step out in the real world

Oh, please.  Huge numbers of BYU students have served missions, spending 18-24 months in another part of the world, often learning another language, figuring out other cultures and perspectives and beliefs, and so on.  They have often been "in the real world" far more than other students of like age.  Many are markedly more cognizant of the "real world" than their compatriots in other schools.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

and find out that their boss and fellow workers also don't believe in the things you called out

You mean like missionaries experience?  For 18-24 months?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

and never had anyone challenge those beliefs until they are in an entirely secular situation and confronted about their beliefs?

Who is doing this "confronting"?  About what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2025 by smac97

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, please.  Huge numbers of BYU students have served missions, spending 18-24 months in another part of the world, often learning another language, figuring out other cultures and perspectives and beliefs, and so on.  They have often been "in the real world" far more than other students of like age.

You mean like missionaries experience?  For 18-24 months?

Who is doing this "confronting"?  About what?

Thanks,

-Smac

You seriously don't believe that their coworkers and others are not going to challenge these snowflake students belief that if you are gay you should be considered a sinner for marrying the person they love and will be kept out of the presents of God for eternity?  Boy you do live in a big bubble.

And are these missionaries up front with their investigators by telling them how the Church treats those that are LGBT?  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

You seriously don't believe that their coworkers and others are not going to challenge these snowflake students belief that if you are gay you should be considered a sinner for marrying the person they love and will be kept out of the presents of God for eternity?  Boy you do live in a big bubble.

Says the guy who apparently presupposes that doctrinal/religious disagreement with same-sex marriage is some fringe viewpoint.  See, e.g., here.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  For myself, I would find it pretty strange for "coworkers" to quiz - and then condemn (whatever it is you mean by "challenge these snowflake students") - other people regarding their religious beliefs.  Frankly, I think most employers would put the kibosh on that, as it may end up being religious harassment/discrimination.

I am curious if you would endorse "coworkers and others" "challenging" people about their religious beliefs while in the workplace.  

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

And are these missionaries up front with their investigators by telling them how the Church treats those that are LGBT?  

We teach the Law of Chastity, and ask that all people adhere to the same moral standard.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you are right and BYU is doing a pretty good job of resisting these forces, we can agree to disagree about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. To each his own.

I'm glad we can agree on this point.  I think diversity of viewpoints, perspectives, approaches, etc, is, or should be, an important part of higher education.  As it is, there is way too much monoculture going on as to secularism and political ideology in college campuses.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your source goes on to say that at Harvard, "The idea of a university as a place for critical thinking and open inquiry was increasingly seen as incompatible with a singular religious doctrine." That's exactly my point. See the case study above as an example.

Your point is also that BYU will devolve if it fails to follow Harvard's secularized trajectory.  I don't think that's the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huge numbers of BYU students have served missions, spending 18-24 months in another part of the world, often learning another language, figuring out other cultures and perspectives and beliefs, and so on...

I would suggest that while the missionary experience gets people out into the real world, it’s done under a regime that is designed to minimize their exposure to the culture, perspectives, and beliefs surrounding them. Here’s a personal example that illustrates the point. I grew up in a part-member family and once every year or two, a well-meaning member of our ward would tell the missionaries “why don’t you go visit the Analytics family? It’s a really nice family where everyone is a member but the father. He’s a great guy; practically a dry Mormon.”

The missionaries would then knock on our door, and my father would graciously and warmly welcome them in. We’d sit down as a family and engage in small talk. After a nice conversation the missionaries would say they’d like to teach my dad more about their religion; would he be willing to take the first discussion? 

He graciously said, “That sounds wonderful; I’d love to learn more about your religious beliefs. I’ll spend as much time as you ask of me carefully listening and considering everything you have to teach me. However, I have one condition. For every hour I spend listening to you about your beliefs, you have to spend an hour listening to me about my beliefs."

The missionaries never took him up on this offer. They’d rather spend 100% of their time knocking on doors in the cold than spend 50% of their time teaching discussions and 50% of their time learning about different beliefs. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm glad we can agree on this point.  I think diversity of viewpoints, perspectives, approaches, etc, is, or should be, an important part of higher education.

I'm surprised to hear that. Do you think BYU encourages a diversity of viewpoints, perspectives, approaches, etc.? My economics professor at USU said that when Ernest Wilkinson was the dean at BYU, he personally interviewed everyone who applied for a job in the Econ department and grilled them about whether or not they believed Keynesian economics had any validity--if they did, he wouldn’t hire them.

Interestingly, diversity of viewpoints, perspectives, and approaches is the main focus of Harvard’s mission statement. 

Quote

 

The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.

Beginning in the classroom with exposure to new ideas, new ways of understanding, and new ways of knowing, students embark on a journey of intellectual transformation. Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created. From this we hope that students will begin to fashion their lives by gaining a sense of what they want to do with their gifts and talents, assessing their values and interests, and learning how they can best serve the world.

 

In contrast, BYU’s mission statement presents the conflicting goals of teaching the “truths" of the gospel of Jesus Christ and being “enlightened” by living prophets, while also paying lip service to "the pursuit of all truth.” I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts on my questions about the conflicts between the facts of geology and the gospel. For your reference, I asked:

So, does BYU still teach that the story of Noah's ark can be taken at face value because "we are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets"?

Does BYU teach one thing in the geology department and something else in the religious department? Are students taught to compartmentalize their thinking? If a professor accepts the truth of the matter and explains why the "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" are wrong on this issue, is he in danger of losing his job?

Or is the implausibility of these truth claims something that is just ignored?

Is figuring out a way to reconcile geology, biology, and "the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" in a way that doesn't cause a professor to be afraid of losing his job consistent with the idea of BYU being a place for the pursuit of real knowledge?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

As it is, there is way too much monoculture going on as to secularism and political ideology in college campuses.

What is your basis for believing this? There might be some truth to this regarding “political ideology”, but regarding secularism? I seriously doubt it.

Regardless of how much monoculture you believe happens in typical secular universities, the monoculture at BYU has to be a million times worse. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your point is also that BYU will devolve if it fails to follow Harvard's secularized trajectory. 

No, that isn’t my point. 

Edited January 28, 2025 by Analytics

[california boy]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who apparently presupposes that doctrinal/religious disagreement with same-sex marriage is some fringe viewpoint.  See, e.g., here.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  For myself, I would find it pretty strange for "coworkers" to quiz - and then condemn (whatever it is you mean by "challenge these snowflake students") - other people regarding their religious beliefs.  Frankly, I think most employers would put the kibosh on that, as it may end up being religious harassment/discrimination.

I am curious if you would endorse "coworkers and others" "challenging" people about their religious beliefs while in the workplace.  

We teach the Law of Chastity, and ask that all people adhere to the same moral standard.  

Thanks,

-Smac

From my point of view, any religion that is so scared of their members hearing a variation on its points of doctrine even within their religious community to the extreme that they are willing to fire professors at a university definitely has a problem.  It seems to me freedom of thought and be willing to hear other points of view should a core belief for those seeking truth.  Tightly controlling thoughts and ideas doesn't really fit what I believe to be is the message of Christ. It seems totally counter to the very purpose of coming to earth.  

My whole life I have valued diversity and hearing different life experiences from people around me.  Being in a religion that you want to live in that stiffles anything outside an extremely narrowly defined set of rules isn't doing its members any favors.  That doesn't sound like an education.  It sounds like programing and control.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:58 PM, california boy said:

I feel this is probably the most important statement concerning the crackdown of professors BYU is making.  I don't believe students follow what professors think about social issues such as gay marriage much at all.  That comes from friends that they may have that are gay and the social expectations of those around them.  If they are coming from outside the Utah bubble, what a professor says isn't going to change their real world experiences.  

I also believe  there will be more long term issues that will surface if more and more employers start looking at BYU as a religious institution that happens to be an educational institution rather than an educational institution that happens to be a religious institution.  What BYU prioritizes does affect how other view the value of that diploma.

Outside the Mormon corridor, I think there is already skepticism on just what a degree from BYU means.  In the past the Church has fought that preception by having top professors that bring the academics up to a level that requires others to respect those degrees.  When you no longer are able to attract top professors because frankly most of those educators don't need to teach at BYU, but rather choose to teach there as a way to help build zion it will be difficult to maintain that top tier status in various fields.  Telling those professors what they can and cannot teach might erode away the very reasons why they choose to teach there.  Having their livelihood in the hands of a bishop roulette doesn't seem like something they would want.

By far, my best professors i had came from outside academia.  They came from the private sector where their talents were proven and real world experiences taught them different ideas that were taught from those that became professors within the BYU and Mormon bubble.  If I had not had those professors that were brought in because of their skills and knowledge of real world situations, my education would have been more just a diploma and not an education that prepared me for my career.

How in the world does insisting that professors agree with the Proclamation on the Family and don't teach against it in classes in any way affect the fields of acedemia in which the University should be focused?

Being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make ones math, or any number of non- moral subjects, wrong.

To say that a university has to allow for opposition to it's core moral values in order to be top tier is laughable.