Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/27/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

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

.............  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.

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."

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).

When I was briefing legal cases at BYU in 1963, it didn't seem to me that my understanding of the words of Chief Justice John Marshall would be any different if I were at Boalt Hall (which no longer exists) at UC Berkeley.  By the way, I got perfect scores on my briefs, and religion had nothing to do with it.

Religion may have had something to do with my class in NT with Robert Patch.  What I liked about Prof Patch was that he made the NT come alive, so that even today (a lifetime later) I have a hard time thinking about the Apostle Paul without imagining the he looked like Robert Patch.

On 1/27/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

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.

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

The subversion I recall at BYU took several forms, but most importantly the subversion by President Ernie "The Attorney" Wilkinson takes the cake, and all of it has been published.  He had secret spies reporting to him about suspicious professors, and then he denied doing it.  Some of my professors organized an effort to prove his guilt, and they succeeded.  Misbehavior and dishonesty can occur in high places.  We have long since discussed on this board the misbehavior in the Honor Code Office, and the lack of integrity by Provo PD in reporting to the Honor Code Office.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

On 1/27/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

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

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.

A military academy should not be compared to BYU because they have very different purposes and are designed to serve very different institutions.  I understand the difference particularly well since I served on active duty with the USMC for 4 years, and then went to BYU.  Vive la différence !!

On 1/27/2025 at 10:14 AM, smac97 said:

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

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

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

D'accord.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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.

I guess if the goal is to program rather than educate, then you are absolutely right

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess if the goal is to program rather than educate, then you are absolutely right

How exactly is ethnobotany undermined by a university holding to moral principles and determining that their employees should do the same?

(I chose ethnobotany because one of the leading researchers in the field is a church member.)

Edited January 29, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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.

When I was in my graduate program we had one entire class hour devoted to a handful of our program professors sitting down to instruct us to “not put off having children” while we were in school.  They directed their comments to the women in the program.  I thought it was weird at the time for our professors to insert themselves into our personal family planning.  Looking back I’m suspect they were pressured by the university to emphasize family over education, even though we were already in the program.  The proclamation had just been released. 
 

In addition, there were some pretty critical lessons around human sexuality that went against typical church policy at the time that I’m sure if the university had caught wind of, they would’ve shut it down. I’m glad I got the tiny bit of information on the topic that I did get. If I were to go back to graduate school again, I would absolutely make a different university choice because I feel as though my particular degree could’ve benefited from a little more variety in training.  That said, I am very grateful for the education I did receive.  My degree has shaped my life in some very crucial ways.  I can’t not be grateful.
 

 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

When I was in my graduate program we had one entire class hour devoted to a handful of our program professors sitting down to instruct us to “not put off having children” while we were in school.  They directed their comments to the women in the program.  I thought it was weird at the time for our professors to insert themselves into our personal family planning.  Looking back I’m suspect they were pressured by the university to emphasize family over education, even though we were already in the program.  The proclamation had just been released. 
 

In addition, there were some pretty critical lessons around human sexuality that went against typical church policy at the time that I’m sure if the university had caught wind of, they would’ve shut it down. I’m glad I got the tiny bit of information on the topic that I did get. If I were to go back to graduate school again, I would absolutely make a different university choice because I feel as though my particular degree could’ve benefited from a little more variety in training.  That said, I am very grateful for the education I did receive.  My degree has shaped my life in some very crucial ways.  I can’t not be grateful.
 

 

My undergraduate degree was from BYU.  It was in a STEM field, so religion was not usually discussed in the classroom.  I was also married for all but my Freshman year, so I never had to deal with living in approved housing. My time at BYU was a positive experience, but when it came time for graduate work, I chose different schools.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How exactly is ethnobotany undermined by a university holding to moral principles and determining that their employees should do the same?

(I chose ethnobotany because one of the leading researchers in the field is a church member.)

There is nothing wrong with ethnobotany until you exclude everything else from the program.  Education is the expansion of knowledge, not the restriction of beliefs and ideas.  If education was only restricted to religious dogma, we would still be forced to believe the earth was the center of the universe. 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2025 by california boy

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is nothing wrong with ethnobotany until you exclude everything else from the program.  Education is the expansion of knowledge, not the restriction of beliefs and ideas.  If education was only restricted to religious dogma, we would still be forced to believe the earth was the center of the universe. 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my question.

[Dario_M]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

There is nothing wrong with ethnobotany until you exclude everything else from the program.  Education is the expansion of knowledge, not the restriction of beliefs and ideas.  If education was only restricted to religious dogma, we would still be forced to believe the earth was the center of the universe. 

 

 

Agree. ⬆️

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Agree. ⬆️

So you agree that insisting that school employees be able to advocate against the moral stance of the Church makes the ability to study the used of plants in indigenous cultures somehow better?

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you agree that insisting that school employees be able to advocate against the moral stance of the Church makes the ability to study the used of plants in indigenous cultures somehow better?

Every university has ethical standards. At BYU, they layer onto those standards a strict commitment to orthodox Mormon belief and behaviors, some of which aren’t moral in nature (e.g. it isn’t immoral for a a non-Mormon instructor at BYU to drink coffee in the privacy of his own home).

The issue here is about whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment should be in continuous jeopardy based on whether their bishops happen to think their personal beliefs are orthodox enough.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Every university has ethical standards. At BYU, they layer onto those standards a strict commitment to orthodox Mormon belief and behaviors, some of which aren’t moral in nature (e.g. it isn’t immoral for a a non-Mormon instructor at BYU to drink coffee in the privacy of his own home).

The issue here is about whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment should be in continuous jeopardy based on whether their bishops happen to think their personal beliefs are orthodox enough.

Again, not the point I was making.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

The issue here is about whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment should be in continuous jeopardy based on whether their bishops happen to think their personal beliefs are orthodox enough.

I think the issue is whether some BYU faculty/admin are justified in speaking/acting against the doctrines and policies of the Church (as to a relatively few hot-button sociopolitical issues, such as gender and sexuality, marriage, abortion, and race relations), and against the leaders of the Church which sponsors BYU, in subverting the Church's efforts to provide a religious education to its students, in subverting the intended purpose of BYU, of engaging in "Long March Through the Institutions"-style behaviors, in doing all of this while drawing a paycheck heavily subsidized from the very religion they are attempting to subvert, and in doing all this under the euphemistic pretext of "{having} intellectual integrity."

When these behaviors are being defended by anti-Mormons such as yourself, I think that's a pretty good barometric reading as to where we are.  Unlike you, I genuinely love the Church and greatly admire BYU (I went there twice, after all).  I want BYU to fulfill its intended purposes and mission in providing a high-quality secular and religiously-informed education.  "By study and also by faith" and all that.  

As I noted back in 2022:

Quote

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.

I have read remarks by Elder Holland and Elder Gilbert, and find ample reason to surmise that there are some things seriously amiss at BYU. 

I have also listened to CWIC Media and A Thoughtful Faith and considered the evidence they have presented.  

I think these folks, whatever their flaws, have the Church's and BYU's best interests at heart.  That includes retaining BYU's capacity to provide a high-quality educational and religious experience for its students.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2025 by smac97

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you agree that insisting that school employees be able to advocate against the moral stance of the Church makes the ability to study the used of plants in indigenous cultures somehow better?

Oh wait no. I've read it wrong then. I'm not agree with that no. 

[Analytics]

[deleted]

Edited January 30, 2025 by Analytics

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the issue is whether some BYU faculty/admin are justified in speaking/acting against the doctrines and policies of the Church (as to a relatively few hot-button sociopolitical issues, such as gender and sexuality, marriage, abortion, and race relations), and against the leaders of the Church which sponsors BYU, in subverting the Church's efforts to provide a religious education to its students, in subverting the intended purpose of BYU, of engaging in "Long March Through the Institutions"-style behaviors, in doing all of this while drawing a paycheck heavily subsidized from the very religion they are attempting to subvert, and in doing all this under the euphemistic pretext of "{having} intellectual integrity."

When these behaviors are being defended by anti-Mormons such as yourself, I think that's a pretty good barometric reading as to where we are.  Unlike you, I genuinely love the Church and greatly admire BYU (I went there twice, after all).  I want BYU to fulfill its intended purposes and mission in providing a high-quality secular and religiously-informed education.  "By study and also by faith" and all that.  

As I noted back in 2022:

I have read remarks by Elder Holland and Elder Gilbert, and find ample reason to surmise that there are some things seriously amiss at BYU. I trust their assessment of what is going on at BYU more than yours.

I have also listened to CWIC Media and A Thoughtful Faith and considered the evidence they have presented.  I trust them more than I trust you. 

I think these folks, whatever their flaws, have the Church's and BYU's best interests at heart.  That includes retaining BYU's capacity to provide a high-quality educational and religious experience for its students.

Conversely, I think you despise the Church, that you constantly speak against it and attempt to persuade others to your point of view about it, and I therefore surmise that you would be in favor of "Long March Through the Institutions"-style behaviors by some BYU faculty/admin insofar as such efforts against the Church align with yours.  Concomitantly, I also surmise that you would be opposed to efforts by Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc. to address these "Long March Through the Institutions"-style behaviors.

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw that the only thing you quoted me as having said was this:

Quote

The issue here is about whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment should be in continuous jeopardy based on whether their bishops happen to think their personal beliefs are orthodox enough.

Was my summary of the article fair? I uploaded it to ChatGPT and asked "Would it be fair to summarize the article thusly? "The issue here is about whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment should be in continuous jeopardy based on whether their bishops happen to think their personal beliefs are orthodox enough."

ChatGPT4o said:

Quote

Yes, based on the article, your framing of the issue as a question of whether BYU professors should be allowed to have intellectual integrity or whether their employment is in continuous jeopardy due to bishops' assessments of their orthodoxy is a fair characterization of one of the central concerns raised.

The article highlights:

• Increased Scrutiny: BYU’s administration has been ramping up oversight of faculty members’ beliefs, particularly regarding marriage, family, and gender.
• Lack of Transparency: Professors report uncertainty about what specific beliefs or statements might be considered disqualifying.
• Ecclesiastical Oversight: Bishops, who do not follow a standardized set of criteria, play a growing role in determining faculty members' employment eligibility, leading to what some describe as “bishop roulette.”
• Fear and Self-Censorship: Faculty members feel pressured to suppress their true views to avoid repercussions.
• Impact on BYU’s Reputation: Scholars argue that this approach may isolate BYU from respected religious universities like Notre Dame or Georgetown and diminish the quality of education.

The article presents these concerns in the context of BYU’s identity crisis—whether it will embrace a model of academic rigor alongside religious commitment or continue down a path of ideological retrenchment. Your statement captures the stakes of this debate, though a more neutral phrasing might acknowledge that BYU sees this as an effort to align faculty with its religious mission rather than a direct attack on intellectual integrity.

I then asked this followup question:

What's your opinion? Is it *possible* for a school like BYU to "align faculty with its religious mission" and simultaneously be a place where "the pursuit of all truth" is sincerely encouraged?

ChatGPT4o says:

Quote

It's possible in theory, but in practice, it depends on how truth and religious alignment are defined and enforced.

A religious university can encourage rigorous intellectual inquiry while maintaining a faith-based mission if it fosters an environment where difficult questions and diverse perspectives can be explored openly. Some religious schools, like Notre Dame or Georgetown, manage to balance faith with academic freedom by allowing scholars to engage critically with their religious tradition rather than enforcing strict doctrinal adherence. However, when alignment with religious doctrine becomes a litmus test for employment, the pursuit of truth inevitably becomes constrained by institutional boundaries.

BYU’s current trajectory, as described in the article, seems to be moving toward greater ideological policing—where faculty members are uncertain about what is "allowed" and feel compelled to self-censor. This creates a climate of fear rather than one of genuine intellectual exploration. The more a university requires faculty to conform to specific theological positions (especially as judged by non-academic religious authorities), the harder it becomes to engage with the full breadth of scholarship, particularly on contentious issues.

In that sense, the two goals—unfettered pursuit of truth and strict doctrinal alignment—are in tension. The key question is whether BYU’s leadership is willing to tolerate a range of perspectives within a faithful framework or if it will continue narrowing the scope of acceptable inquiry. If the latter, then "the pursuit of all truth" at BYU will always come with an asterisk: only the truth that does not challenge church doctrine too much.

 

Edited January 30, 2025 by Analytics

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Wondering what caused you to go off on this rant,

I suppose I was in an off mood.  I edited it a bit to take out the personal jabs, for which I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose I was in an off mood.  I edited it a bit to take out the personal jabs, for which I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks. I edited my posts as well.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you agree that insisting that school employees be able to advocate against the moral stance of the Church makes the ability to study the used of plants in indigenous cultures somehow better?

If you are going to a university to be programed, then BYU is a perfect place to put blinders on and only look at your faith in a very narrow scope.

If you are going to university to get an education, then part of that education is hearing different thoughts and ideas that you might not have ever been exposed to before.  Learning is how to take what you learn, figure out for yourself if you believe it is true or not through testing what is taught.

A university that is afraid of ideas that are different than their own and shut down any knowledge that is not approved by them is not educating, it is programing and grooming.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

you are going to university to get an education, then part of that education is hearing different thoughts and ideas that you might not have ever been exposed to before

Considering most universities are predominantly liberal and young people are typically more liberal, then it would seem that most universities don’t fulfill this ideal in the major area of politics, at least not for students from liberal families.

https://www.cspicenter.com/p/diverse-and-divided-a-political-demography
 

Found this tidbit in the study interesting as well. Apparently some forms of diversity are worth promoting…others not so much.

Quote

Highly-educated Democrats are least likely to have politically mixed networks compared to the less-educated or highly-educated Republicans.18 This hyper-segregation among well-educated Democrats may be relevant for elite American students, though the FIRE study did not specifically ask about this.

 

Edited January 31, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If you are going to a university to be programed, then BYU is a perfect place to put blinders on and only look at your faith in a very narrow scope.

If you are going to university to get an education, then part of that education is hearing different thoughts and ideas that you might not have ever been exposed to before.  Learning is how to take what you learn, figure out for yourself if you believe it is true or not through testing what is taught.

A university that is afraid of ideas that are different than their own and shut down any knowledge that is not approved by them is not educating, it is programing and grooming.

Boy, by the way you're talking, you would think young "Mormons" would never hear of "the gays" unless some liberal professor at BYU goes against established teachings on morality and let's the proverbial "cat out of the bag"!

😂

[Okrahomer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Considering most universities are predominantly liberal and young people are typically more liberal, then it would seem that most universities don’t fulfill this idea

That’s the issue I have been trying to think through, but with respect to faith rather than politics.  It seems to me that there are far more influences (both subtle and not so subtle) nudging university students toward non-belief.  It would be quite challenging (I think) in an entirely secular setting to write a curriculum that ensures the reasons to believe are represented fairly.  The typical secular university is simply not equipped with an appropriate vocabulary.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Considering most universities are predominantly liberal and young people are typically more liberal, then it would seem that most universities don’t fulfill this ideal in the major area of politics, at least not for students from liberal families.

https://www.cspicenter.com/p/diverse-and-divided-a-political-demography
 

Found this tidbit in the study interesting as well. Apparently some forms of diversity are worth promoting…others not so much.

 

I think that is part of my point.  Hearing diversity of opinions is part of education.  I find it quite sad when members of the Church think that if someone leans more liberal, then they can't fit into the Church.  Don't you see that kind of mindset as being problematic?  Does the gospel only work if a member is politically conservative?  Is it important for students to see that you can be more liberal in your political views and still fit into the Church?I

[california boy]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Boy, by the way you're talking, you would think young "Mormons" would never hear of "the gays" unless some liberal professor at BYU goes against established teachings on morality and let's the proverbial "cat out of the bag"!

😂

And this is also part of my point.  Students are going to be exposed to different ideas and beliefs in the real world.  I always felt that the best place to  learn that the gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone even if you have more politically liberal ideas is a good thing.  Being in an environment where students can feel they are in a safe place to ask questions and get honest answers is a good thing.  I feel universities, should prepare their students in broad ways to lean not everyone believes exactly the same things.  At university they should be learning ways to define their own values for themselves and learn how to hold onto those core beliefs.  If the Church feels like exposure to ideas outside a very narrow interpetation of what it means to be a follower of Christ, then what does thats say about their messaging?

Tell me how well it worked out for the Church to not educate its members on Church history?  The idea that if the members only receive a sanitized version of what happened, then they will stay in the Church?  Did that idea work out well?  Do you think trying to institute a similar approach at BYU is somehow going to have better results?  

Edited January 31, 2025 by california boy

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is it important for students to see that you can be more liberal in your political views and still fit into the Church?I

Given that only around half of BYU students according to the data (48%) are conservative (30% liberal), why would it be very difficult for most students to figure out you can be liberal in your political views and still fit in the Church?

Edited January 31, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

And this is also part of my point.  Students are going to be exposed to different ideas and beliefs in the real world.  I always felt that the best place to  learn that the gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone even if you have more politically liberal ideas is a good thing.  Being in an environment where students can feel they are in a safe place to ask questions and get honest answers is a good thing.  I feel universities, should prepare their students in broad ways to lean not everyone believes exactly the same things.  At university they should be learning ways to define their own values for themselves and learn how to hold onto those core beliefs.  If the Church feels like exposure to ideas outside a very narrow interpetation of what it means to be a follower of Christ, then what does thats say about their messaging?

Tell me how well it worked out for the Church to not educate its members on Church history?  The idea that if the members only receive a sanitized version of what happened, then they will stay in the Church?  Did that idea work out well?  Do you think trying to institute a similar approach at BYU is somehow going to have better results?  

The Church was able to provide an improved history once the quality of historical knowledge and the means of publication improved, and as the Church was better able to fund them. This has nothing to do with her strategy of political neutrality.

I would say religious people who are politically active can lean either way politically, and using the Gospel to justify their position (when they do), is a function of their bias and not their knowledge acquisition. This is a behavior in critical thinking that universities ostensibly teach their students to avoid, and when not avoided, they and their professors are doing their students and society as disservice.

Where there has been no improvement in the quality of diverse opinions detracting from the Church’s doctrine, there is no incentive to fund and promote them in the university setting. Professors at BYU cannot hide behind a “diverse” opinion while promoting bias and an unhelpful skillset.