Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[ZealouslyStriving]

44 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?  

Being informed of different "ideas" and having professors openly advocate for positions contrary to Church (their employer) teachings are two different things. It is the later that is the issue being dealt with.

But I think you know that.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

when the Church starts firing professors that might be more liberal in their thinking.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Being informed of different "ideas" and having professors openly advocate for positions contrary to Church (their employer) teachings are two different things. It is the later that is the issue being dealt with.

But I think you know that.

But they can be fired for not just something they might say in a class room.  They can be fired if their bishop even thinks they have any liberal ideas.  Do you not see how that can send a pretty strong message that if you are liberal on social issues, there is no room for you in the Church?  I certainly think there is no room for me in the Church.  Do you honestly think I am wrong?

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

But they can be fired for not just something they might say in a class room.  They can be fired if their bishop even thinks they have any liberal ideas.  Do you not see how that can send a pretty strong message that if you are liberal on social issues, there is no room for you in the Church?  I certainly think there is no room for me in the Church.  Do you honestly think I am wrong?

If by "room for me" you mean the Church looking the other way as you unrepentantly and openly engage in behavior contrary to moral standards- I guess not.

If by "room for me" being welcomed by a loving, supportive community as you try, like everyone else, to adjust your life to the Lord's commandments- Welcome.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

This is hilarious.  You really think that the Church promoted it's history incorrectly because they lacked the knowledge of the truth?  Or was it more that others outside the Church documenting the history that the Church for years claimed as just being anti-Mormon.  Most of everything I read and heard that was labled 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

So the way to improve critical thinking by students is to eliminate anyone who has a more liberal view to make sure only one point of view is ever exposed to students?  

 

[california boy]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

If by "room for me" you mean the Church looking the other way as you unrepentantly and openly engage in behavior contrary to moral standards- I guess not.

If by "room for me" being welcomed by a loving, supportive community as you try, like everyone else, to adjust your life to the Lord's commandments- Welcome.

I personally don't see either option as being viable given that the Church seems to believe there is no room at BYU to even have a different point of view and that a bishop is expected to notify the university if they even suspect a member of their ward who is a professor has more liberal views.

Seriously, can you not really see the serious of the message is that the Church is sending out?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is hilarious.  You really think that the Church promoted it's history incorrectly because they lacked the knowledge of the truth?  Or was it more that others outside the Church documenting the history that the Church for years claimed as just being anti-Mormon.  Most of everything I read and heard that was labled 

So the way to improve critical thinking by students is to eliminate anyone who has a more liberal view to make sure only one point of view is ever exposed to students?  

 

If you would like a constructive dialogue, try again. thank you!

[smac97]

19 hours 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.

Your invective is a few decades out of date.

30+ years ago, before the advent of widespread Internet access, this might have had some legitimacy, but it's getting harder to take seriously in 2025.  The notion that BYU students are cloistered, that they are cut off from the outside world, that they do not have access to critiques of their faith from a variety of perspectives, is unreasonable.  

The issue in this thread is whether the Church and BYU should allow some faculty/admin to actively subvert, undermine, work/speak against the Church's and BYU's religious principles and mandates as regarding a fairly narrow set of sociopolitical issues (gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.), while at the same time drawing a paycheck paid for by the religion they are seeking to subvert, undermine, work/speak against.  I think most people would say "No, it would be unreasonable for the Church and BYU to do this, and it would also be unreasonable to expect them to do this."  YMMV.

That's not to say that these faculty/admin can't do these things at all.  Free Speech is a beautiful thing, after all.  But the Church and BYU are not obligated - legally, morally, or in any other sense - to subsidize speech and behaviors calculated to undermine the Church and BYU.  This principle applies to more than just BYU, BTW.  See, e.g., here (from comments I made back when people were playing around with the "Y") :

Quote

Equality Utah has its offices in downtown Salt Lake City.  Although generally open to the public, I don't think they should be expected to acquiesce to ideological opponents setting up shop in there, or using their office front windows to post criticisms of their goals and policies.  See, even if someone disagrees with Equality Utah (I generally don't and in fact I find some of their efforts quite admirable), I think Equality Utah is not obligated to provide a forum for the expression of that disagreement.  There are all sorts of other places where its critics can go without violating the basic property rights of Equality Utah.  I think the law, and basic notions of common decency and respect, preclude such obnoxious and unseemly (and illegal) behavior.

But when it comes to BYU's property rights, it's "pass the popcorn."

And here (responding to you about the "Y" issue) :

Quote

Quote

Yea, exactly.  I think most will agree that because of their heavy handed reaction to the Y lighting,  

I reject this characterization.  If a bunch of Trump supporters had spelled out a giant red "MAGA" on the Y using flashlights, I think you wouldn't bat an eye at the Church shutting that down.  Not because the Church is "intolerant" or "hostile" to all Trump supporters, but rather

• because the Y is the property of BYU,
• because it is reasonable for BYU - like any private property owner - to exercise control over the behaviors on its property (including "messaging"),
• because NoFear is quite correct when he states that there are both "positive" and "negative" meanings "associated with the Pride flag,"
• because it is unreasonable for Party A to act in such a way as to foist a message onto Party B, to do so without Party B's consent, and then excoriate Party B as "intolerant" and "hostile" for not submitting to Party A's coercive and manipulative behavior,
• because there is a substantial measure of hypocrisy in demanding that BYU endorse "messaging" foisted upon it without its consent where those criticizing BYU would not hold themselves to that standard,

and so on.
...

Quote

If however their intent was to improve the relationship with the LGBT community, they could have used it as an opportunity to allow the Y lighting.

If Latter-day Saint missionaries set up a kiosk on your front lawn espousing the Church, and particularly the importance of the Law of Chastity, and if they did this without your consent, would you have let them proceed, using it "as an opportunity" to "improve the relationship with the" Church?

Well?  Would you and your family be "put{ting} blinders on" by not letting missionaries use your front lawn to, say, advocate for The Proclamation, the Church's definition of marriage, and other tenets of the Church with which you disagree?

And what if the missionaries did this in such a way as to give their audience the impression that they were doing these things with your endorsement and support and blessing?  Would you remain silent while they gave your neighbors, friends, passersby, etc. that impression?  Would you continue to let them do these things for months, even years?

19 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

If you object to missionaries setting up a kiosk on your front lawn espousing the Church, and particularly the importance of the Law of Chastity and the definition of marriage, and if they did this without your consent, does your objection to these behaviors mean you are "afraid of ideas that are different than {your} own"?

Do you have a duty or obligation to subsidize and otherwise provide a platform for people to come to your property and present ideas and arguments which contravene your own opinions/beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2025 by smac97

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If by "room for me" you mean the Church looking the other way as you unrepentantly and openly engage in behavior contrary to moral standards- I guess not.

If by "room for me" being welcomed by a loving, supportive community as you try, like everyone else, to adjust your life to the Lord's commandments- Welcome.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230430150424/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/04/30/byu-prof-becomes-bullying-target/

not exactley "welcoming", do you believe that she should be bullied for even mentioning her trans kid in class? She even got shade from the Utah Governor, Mike Lee. Are they that fragile they can't handle the mere mention of trans people? seems so. I thought they went on missions and were exposed to reality but they fall apart at the seems at a mention of someone trans kid

if BYU and the Church's actual "welcoming" for trans kids/families are evidence of "loving" then who wants it? 

Joe McCarthy died in 1957, let him rest in peace

 

Edited January 31, 2025 by Duncan

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Utah Governor, Mike Lee

Senator…

It was ridiculous imo.

Edited January 31, 2025 by Calm

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Seriously?  When means of publication improved? We are talking books.  Books have been around forever.  The books I learned church history from in both Seminary and BYU religion classes did not cover polygamy, let alone the sordid details. The church kind of came out with narratives closer to the truth once their history was exposed through the internet when suppression was no longer possible.

Edited January 31, 2025 by sunstoned

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your invective is a few decades out of date.

30+ years ago, before the advent of widespread Internet access, this might have had some legitimacy, but it's getting harder to take seriously in 2025.  The notion that BYU students are cloistered, that they are cut off from the outside world, that they do not have access to critiques of their faith from a variety of perspectives, is unreasonable.  

I agree. It kinda makes this witch hunt sound ridiculous.  Putting people's careers on edge depending what might be said in an elders quorum meeting that the bishop didn't fully support just so students don't hear a different point of view does seem like a fool errand.  While the Church can not control internet access, I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that the Church feels that suppressing any broader understanding of what it means to be a member of the Church outside of a very strict interpretation of doctrine is worth firing their professors that might voice a different perspective.  I believe the tighter the lines are drawn, the less students will feel like there is a place for them at BYU and in the Church.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The issue in this thread is whether the Church and BYU should allow some faculty/admin to actively subvert, undermine, work/speak against the Church's and BYU's religious principles and mandates as regarding a fairly narrow set of sociopolitical issues (gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.), while at the same time drawing a paycheck paid for by the religion they are seeking to subvert, undermine, work/speak against.  I think most people would say "No, it would be unreasonable for the Church and BYU to do this, and it would also be unreasonable to expect them to do this."  YMMV.

That's not to say that these faculty/admin can't do these things at all.  Free Speech is a beautiful thing, after all.  But the Church and BYU are not obligated - legally, morally, or in any other sense - to subsidize speech and behaviors calculated to undermine the Church and BYU.  This principle applies to more than just BYU, BTW.  See, e.g., here (from comments I made back when people were playing around with the "Y") :

And here (responding to you about the "Y" issue) :

Well?  Would you and your family be "put{ting} blinders on" by not letting missionaries use your front lawn to, say, advocate for The Proclamation, the Church's definition of marriage, and other tenets of the Church with which you disagree?

And what if the missionaries did this in such a way as to give their audience the impression that they were doing these things with your endorsement and support and blessing?  Would you remain silent while they gave your neighbors, friends, passersby, etc. that impression?  Would you continue to let them do these things for months, even years?

If you object to missionaries setting up a kiosk on your front lawn espousing the Church, and particularly the importance of the Law of Chastity and the definition of marriage, and if they did this without your consent, does your objection to these behaviors mean you are "afraid of ideas that are different than {your} own"?

Do you have a duty or obligation to subsidize and otherwise provide a platform for people to come to your property and present ideas and arguments which contravene your own opinions/beliefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

You obviously don't see a difference between a university that is suppose to be a institution of higher learning and exploring different ideas, and someone's personal front lawn.  

You evidently are not getting the idea that part of most university experiences includes exposure to different ideas and beliefs.  If BYU wants to run it's university like a sunday school class, then they have every legal right to do so.  And they have every right to fire anyone who may have a more liberal belief of what it means to be a member of the Church.  If that is your point, I have consistently affirmed the right of BYU and the Church to do whatever it wants.  We will see how this all plays out with the next generation of former members.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Seriously?  When means of publication improved? We are talking books.  Books have been around forever.  The books I learned church history from in both Seminary and BYU religion classes did not cover polygamy, let alone the sordid details. The church kind of came out with narratives closer to the truth once their history was exposed through the internet when suppression was no longer possible.

While you are talking books and a very narrow, biased interpretation, I'm talking every other form of publication up to now as well. And that our research, scholarship, funding, and interest in accuracy all have improved. You can read them, and see how much scholarship, discovery and funding has taken place since you were a seminary and institute student lugging your books around.

You seem to rather wish to represent the Church's motives. But your use of terms such as sordid details, closer to the truth, exposed, suppression, kind of, Seriously, etc. are worn-out hot air. Mission accomplished?

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

While you are talking books and a very narrow, biased interpretation, I'm talking every other form of publication up to now as well. And that our research, scholarship, funding, and interest in accuracy all have improved. You can read them, and see how much scholarship, discovery and funding has taken place since you were a seminary and institute student lugging your books around.

You seem to rather wish to represent the Church's motives. But your use of terms such as sordid details, closer to the truth, exposed, suppression, kind of, Seriously, etc. are worn-out hot air. Mission accomplished?

Sordid details = Using his position of power (ecclesiastical leader) to pressure 14 year old girls and other men's wives into marrying him.  All behind his first wife's back.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Sordid details = Using his position of power (ecclesiastical leader) to pressure 14 year old girls and other men's wives into marrying him.  All behind his first wife's back.

Oh I'm sure you can keep this up forever. But when you start a reply with "Seriously?" and proceed to use unserious rhetoric to betray your bias and spin rather than address the facts at hand, you've shot yourself in the foot.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/25/2025 at 10:01 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, very hard to go through, I've been there too.

Then there is the wondrously tedious process of increasingly making the employees’ lives so miserable, that they “fire” themselves, no explanation needed.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/30/2025 at 9:21 PM, 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.

I’m reminded of the debacles that were exposed at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. That school is infamous for programming students. Many universities program their attendees. What matters, apparently, is of what that programming consists and if one agrees with it.   

Quote

…when the Church starts firing professors that might be more liberal in their thinking.  

What do you think are some examples of “liberal thinking” that could get a BYU professor fired?

Edited February 10, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

Quote

Your invective is a few decades out of date.

30+ years ago, before the advent of widespread Internet access, this might have had some legitimacy, but it's getting harder to take seriously in 2025.  The notion that BYU students are cloistered, that they are cut off from the outside world, that they do not have access to critiques of their faith from a variety of perspectives, is unreasonable.  

I agree. It kinda makes this witch hunt sound ridiculous.  

Describing Elder Gilbert's efforts at BYU a "witch hunt" sounds ridiculous.  Unserious.  Puerile.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

Putting people's careers on edge

Nobody's "career" is at risk.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

depending what might be said in an elders quorum meeting that the bishop didn't fully support just so students don't hear a different point of view does seem like a fool errand.  

How unserious this is.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

While the Church can not control internet access,

And this.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that the Church feels that suppressing any broader understanding of what it means to be a member of the Church outside of a very strict interpretation of doctrine is worth firing their professors that might voice a different perspective.  

The Church can and does accommodate a fairly broad spectrum of perspectives on the religious doctrines of the Church.  The issue in this thread is whether the Church and BYU should allow some faculty/admin to actively subvert, undermine, work/speak against the Church's and BYU's religious principles and mandates as regarding a fairly narrow set of sociopolitical issues (gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.), while at the same time drawing a paycheck paid for by the religion they are seeking to subvert, undermine, work/speak against.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

I believe the tighter the lines are drawn, the less students will feel like there is a place for them at BYU and in the Church.

Your "no place ... in the Church" schtick is getting pretty long in the tooth.  This quote from Hamba is from 2021:

Quote

Quote

 2} ... Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a very reasonable set of doctrines regarding gender and sexuality.  Membership in the Church is not compulsory, so nobody is forced to accept these doctrines.  Membership in the Church only has real meaning if you accept its fundamental premise that it is led by God, that God chooses prophets and apostles to lead and govern the Church, and that we become closer to God by exercising faith and keeping the commandments.

All of this is undermined if and when members of the Church - such as some faculty/admin at BYU - actively speak and act to subvert some of the Church's most important and potent doctrines affected by broader sociopolitical forces (re: gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.).  I get that some people disagree with these doctrines, and so may find these subversive efforts not only acceptable, but praiseworthy.  This ends-justify-the-means approach is not a reasonable or moral position to take.  

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

Quote

 

Quote

If Latter-day Saint missionaries set up a kiosk on your front lawn espousing the Church, and particularly the importance of the Law of Chastity, and if they did this without your consent, would you have let them proceed, using it "as an opportunity" to "improve the relationship with the" Church?

Well?  Would you and your family be "put{ting} blinders on" by not letting missionaries use your front lawn to, say, advocate for The Proclamation, the Church's definition of marriage, and other tenets of the Church with which you disagree?

And what if the missionaries did this in such a way as to give their audience the impression that they were doing these things with your endorsement and support and blessing?  Would you remain silent while they gave your neighbors, friends, passersby, etc. that impression?  Would you continue to let them do these things for months, even years?

 

You obviously don't see a difference between a university that is suppose to be a institution of higher learning and exploring different ideas, and someone's personal front lawn.  

It is an analogy, a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

I get that you don't want to address the analogy.  You have no obligation to do so.  But I think we all know what you would do if missionaries from the Church attempted to use your front lawn to advocate for The Proclamation, the Church's definition of marriage, and other tenets of the Church with which you disagree.  I would not blame you if you took exception to such behavior. 

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

You evidently are not getting the idea that part of most university experiences includes exposure to different ideas and beliefs.  

You are proposing that BYU and the Church should allow some faculty/admin actively speak/act against the Church's doctrines regarding gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations.  I find that absurd. 

The notion that BYU students are cloistered, that they are cut off from the outside world, that they do not have access to popular notions about these issues, is likewise absurd.

For my part, I think social/moral issues should only be a very limited party of a "university experience."   Universities are, or should be, places to go to obtain training and education for gaining employment.  Moral values should mostly be taught in a religious setting.  As it is, BYU is unique in that it a setting for both secular and religious/moral learning. 

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

If BYU wants to run it's university like a sunday school class, then they have every legal right to do so.  

BYU can walk and chew gum at the same time.  It can provide instruction as to both secular knowledge and religious/moral knowledge.  I should know, as I received two degrees from there (as did my wife, my parents, several siblings, etc.).  

Faithful members of the Church want BYU to perform as the Church intends.  People like you are in favor of some self-selected BYU faculty/admin using their positions to subvert the Church's teachings and doctrines.  As between these two contradictory perspectives, I think the former should plainly prevail.  And it is.  And I am glad of that.

On 1/31/2025 at 5:43 PM, california boy said:

And they have every right to fire anyone who may have a more liberal belief of what it means to be a member of the Church.  

I think society is getting sick and tired of self-selected folks misappropriating teacher and other positions in society to promulgate their personal preferences and beliefs on a fairly narrow set of issues (gender and sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc.).  A teaching/admin position at a school is not there to be used as the teacher's personal platform for spouting off on sociopolitical issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2025 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 1/24/2025 at 7:24 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. Harvard chose the truth over dogma. I suppose Harvard could have said, “no, we aren’t going to outsource funding to non-Puritans, cede leadership to non-Puritans, and allow peer review of scholarly work to come from people who aren’t dedicated to Puritan Christianity."

But if they did that, would Harvard be Harvard? The answer, of course, is no. If it did that, it would be Liberty University.

 

Well said and this is what is boils down to really. I get @smac97s points though and am sympathetic. I have often felt that it seemed odd for students at BYU to expect BYU to become something that seems antithetical to the mission of the church the funds it. If one wants to be openly gay maybe BYU isn't the place for you?  But I also believe as the church tightens its grip on the secular side of things BYU does become more like Liberty. If BYU wants to be recognized as premier University in the academic world it may struggle based on the position of the powers that and the outline SMAC has provided.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well said and this is what is boils down to really. I get @smac97s points though and am sympathetic. I have often felt that it seemed odd for students at BYU to expect BYU to become something that seems antithetical to the mission of the church the funds it. If one wants to be openly gay maybe BYU isn't the place for you? 

If "openly gay" means "violating the Law of Chastity and/or the Honor Code," then yes, BYU "isn't the place" for such persons.  BYU is very open as to its standards and requirements.  If an individual wants to engage in behaviors that contravene those standards/requirements, there are hundreds and thousands of other colleges and universities available to that person.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I also believe as the church tightens its grip on the secular side of things BYU does become more like Liberty.

I get that's the narrative that critics of the Church are selling.  It's not holding up very well.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If BYU wants to be recognized as premier University in the academic world it may struggle based on the position of the powers that and the outline SMAC has provided.

I think there is room in academia for BYU as a top-notch academic and religiously-affiliated institution.

And if there isn't room, then it is the competency and credibility of the academy that is increasingly in dispute, not BYU's.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Too bad Gilberts' goons missed this guy

https://kutv.com/news/local/byu-baseball-player-arrested-on-child-lewdness-charge

[MrShorty]

I'm currently reading Matt Harris's Second Class Saints. As it relates to this thread, I find it interesting that the church and BYU and CES and leaders were often upset at LDS intellectuals who didn't believe in the church's "race doctrine" of the time. From the "Swearing Elders" group that met at the U in the early '50s to Pres. Wilkinson at BYU trying to figure out how to bring his faculty in line with the church's teachings. While LDS intellectuals were not the only source of doubts and dissent on the church and its leaders, the way Harris describes it, it was a significant source of doubt and dissent. Some leaders tried to get people fired (Lowell Bennion eventually did get fired, according to Harris).

After reading Harris, it seems to me that dissenting and "liberal" intellectuals can provide an important (necessary?) counter to conservative forces in the church that don't want to even consider that some of our beliefs and practices might be in error.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

If "openly gay" means "violating the Law of Chastity and/or the Honor Code," then yes, BYU "isn't the place" for such persons.  BYU is very open as to its standards and requirements.  If an individual wants to engage in behaviors that contravene those standards/requirements, there are hundreds and thousands of other colleges and universities available to that person.

For you and the BYU honor cold office even a gay person holding hands is a violation of the honor code.  That seems harsh to me. Everyone can decide for themselves  Essentially, a gay person can attend if they are willing to have no openly romantic relations with the same sex and of course no physical activity at all. If an LDS gay person is happy doing to attend BYU then more power to them. I think ultimately they may end up unhappy there.

 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I get that's the narrative that critics of the Church are selling.  It's not holding up very well.

I don't know how BYU is viewed academically currently so I cannot opine. I guess if they are tightening the screws we will see. 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is room in academia for BYU as a top-notch academic and religiously-affiliated institution.

I don't disagree. It depends on whether they allow academic freedom by their educators.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

And if there isn't room, then it is the competency and credibility of the academy that is increasingly in dispute, not BYU's.

Thanks,

-Smac

How so?  Because they do not agree with what academic freedom and free thought with your opinion?  

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For you

No, not for me.  I have never said this.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and the BYU honor cold office even a gay person holding hands is a violation of the honor code. 

Not sure this is so.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That seems harsh to me.

I guess it's an "eye of the beholder" thing.

I got married while at BYU.  Would me holding hands romantically with a woman other than my wife be appropriate?  

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Everyone can decide for themselves.

I don't know what you mean here.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Essentially, a gay person can attend if they are willing to have no openly romantic relations with the same sex and of course no physical activity at all.

That's probably correct.  I'm not sure there is any level of plainly same-sex behavior that is permitted at BYU.

Similarly, there would have been no level of me stepping out on my new wife when I was at BYU.  Is that "harsh?" 

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If an LDS gay person is happy doing to attend BYU then more power to them. I think ultimately they may end up unhappy there.

That will depend on the individual.

I've commented on this before, but I'll lay it out as a marker now: I think the "sexual identity" thing is fading.  I think more and more people who are sexually attracted to people of their own sex are open to the idea of "sexual fluidity" (heck, it's effectivelyl baked into the "B" part of the LGBT acronym). 

See, e.g., here:

Quote

I am currently trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."

I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity."
...
My focus has been about the concept of "sexual identity," not "sexual attraction."  The difference, for me, is that the former purports to be what the person is, whereas the latter is what the person experiences/feels.  

From the linked article:

Quote

Sexual orientation has been defined as an enduring aspect of the self, but emerging evidence reveals that people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time. To examine this possibility, we present a large longitudinal analysis of sexual orientation identity fluidity among New Zealand adults (N_total = 45,856; age = 18–99; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority (LGB+) ns = 746–3,387). Over seven years, 5.7% of participants changed sexual identities at least once. Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities) and most common in people who initially reported a plurisexual identity. Although women reported higher rates of plurisexuality than men, they were not more fluid in their identities, contradicting the notion of male fixedness and female plasticity in sexuality. Moreover, openness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity, while political liberalism and lower conscientiousness were associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity and more identity changes over time. Overall, our study shows that sexual identity can be fluid into adulthood and has implications for how we understand contemporary human sexuality.

I think there will be a lot of pushback at this, as "sexual identity" has come with enormous sociopolitical clout and consequences.

In any event, I think the more individuals are willing to set aside, or subordinate, notions of "sexual identity," and to instead embrace the moral and ethical framework offered in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the more comfortable "gay" people will be in attending BYU.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't know how BYU is viewed academically currently so I cannot opine. I guess if they are tightening the screws we will see. 

I think a lot of the bloom has come off the Academy's rose in the last many years.  They are increasingly seen less as ennobling institutions of higher learning, and more and more as leftist indoctrination camps.  And as expenses continue to spiral upwards (despite no appreciable corollary improvement in educational competency in students), I anticipate we will see a substantial reversal in the fortunes of many, many colleges and universities.  As the value of the credential fades, and as the politicization endures, and as the ugly racalist/sexist notions continue to be foisted onto students (particularly the male ones), more and more people will look to alternative means of developing skills and career paths.

In other words, the Academy will likely have far bigger problems on its hands than putting on some sort of collective and performative hissy fit about a religious school - gasp! - promulgating a religion-based set of behavioral ethics and actually expecting its students to abide by them.  And even if that happens, i don't think most people will care about the opinions of self-absorbed academics screeching from the windows of the Ivy Towers they inhabit.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think there is room in academia for BYU as a top-notch academic and religiously-affiliated institution.

I don't disagree. It depends on whether they allow academic freedom by their educators.

I think we need to be candid here. 

We all know that kerfuffles at BYU about "academic freedom" pretty much always center not on academic disciplines or topics, but rather about a relatively few hot-button sociopolitical issues, namely,

• Gender and Sexuality (pretty much every departure from the Law of Chastity and the Proclamation as can be imagined, but pretty much always in the "LGBTQIAA+" sphere or, to a lesser extent, 3rd wave feminist stuff);
• Marriage (of the "Same-sex" variety, as nobody seems to be protesting for polygamy or group marriage . . . yet);
• Abortion (elective) (res ipsa loquitur); 
• Race Relations (recent notions about DEI, Kendi-endorsed racism and vilification, etc.);

and about faculty/admin speaking about these topics in ways directly contravening the religious doctrines and policies of BYU's sponsor, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If I am in error here, I would be open to correction.  Show me a recent instance (say, in the last 20 years) where BYU has encountered an "academic freedom" issue unrelated to the above handful of sociopolitical issues.

Are biology professors at BYU having their research in that field suppressed?  Electrical engineering professors?  Law professors?  Any of these?  Bueller?  

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And if there isn't room, then it is the competency and credibility of the academy that is increasingly in dispute, not BYU's.

How so?  Because they do not agree with what academic freedom and free thought with your opinion?  

Because the Academy has, in many important ways, lost its way in terms of intellectual inquiry.  Political conformity is paramount.

I do not begrudge hardcore "liberal" colleges and universities doing as they please.  I think their excesses, when examined in the Free Market and by donors and state legislatures, will take their toll.  Meanwhile, I think there is room in academia for BYU as a top-notch academic and religiously-affiliated institution.  All the hand-wringing by Peggy Fletcher-Stack and her cohort of subversive BYU faculty/admin folks, all the fretting about BYU losing the "best and brightest" if BYU dares to require faculty/admit to do what they said they would do when they were hired (including, its is embarrassingly necessary to point out, that they not actively work against and attempt to subvert the religious doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

I think the people who infiltrate BYU and attempt a "Long March Through the Institutions"-style subversion of its sponsoring institution (or else develop such pernicious notions after arriving) have a pretty inflated sense of self-importance.  There have been, for some decades now, far more credentialed eggheads than there are teaching positions in the United States.  If a person gets hired to teach at BYU, he or she should count his lucky starts (or, better yet, humbly thank God for the privilege of teaching there).  If that person thereafter gets delusions of grandeur, such that he wants to set himself up as a voice of authority and influence alternative and superior to that of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I suspect they'll eventually be sussed out and shown the door.  And, sadly, I must say "good riddance" to such persons.  I do not want to see such persons at BYU.  And there will likely be many dozens of very qualified candidates very eagerly submitting CVs and hoping to take that now-vacated spot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I got married while at BYU.  Would me holding hands romantically with a woman other than my wife be appropriate? 

False equivalency.  A gay single person who openly demonstrates physical affection that would not violate the law of chastity for a heterosexual is not welcome at BYU.  Didn't you have a thread on this sometime ago?  An accurate comparison would be a gay person who is married holding hands with someone else. But a gay person who is married who attended BYU would not be welcome now would  they?