The infamous Seventh East Press interview with Sterling McMurrin
 

I was pleased to see Waters lionize my old hero Sterling McMurrin yesterday. My last year living in Utah the Seventh East Press, a student publication at BYU, published the linked interview of Dr. McMurrin by Blake Ostler, then a BYU student. As a young college student on my way out I loved the infamous McMurrin interview. In retrospect, I think it had a big impact on LDS culture, and maybe somewhat on my outlook. Not long after the interview the Seventh East Press suffered a (metaphysical) vigilante attack that burned it to the ground and scattered its type. BYU shut it down. I hope you enjoy the interview as much as I did 24 years ago.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...CISOSHOW=14326

Here's a quotation from the interview I remember well (I found it on an anti-Mitt Romney site when searching for this interview):

“I came to the conclusion at a very early age, earlier than I can remember, that you don’t get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple. So I simply don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic. I think that all of the hassling over the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is just a waste of time. Many things have been intentionally ignored and sometimes concealed or have been taken to have religious meanings or implications which, in my opinion, have no religious connections whatsoever. I believe that the Church has intentionally distorted its own history by dealing fast and loose with historical data and imposing theological and religious interpretations on the data that are entirely unwarranted.”

I haven't read the article, but I'm beginning to think SM is highly overrated and possibly a POS.

I hope you read it because I wanted you to know him as I did. Please read it and then tell me if anything he says is factually incorrect (any factual thing).

I read a bit. It was interesting that he pointed out that when he joined CES out of college, the Church was genuinely interested in legitimate scholarship. However, that changed. My brother in law's younger brother was a Fulbright Scholar at Penn who did his master thesis on the LDS Church getting more conservative. I haven't read his final thesis, but in conversation he indicated that he believed external influences were the biggest variable impacting this shift. He believed that as the acceptable values of society began to shift farther and farther from those of the LDS church the LDS church became more and more basic. He even spent a lot of time researching GC talks from the 1st half of the 20th century and spoke of how they routinely touched on deeper LDS theology, but starting in the 50's things began to get more and more basic.

It is an interesting dichotomy facing the Church. It is going to need its scholars, but it often alienates them. With the growth or the internet and Mitt thrusting us moreso into the public view scrutiny is going to come. This is not just the anti shit we find in "Christian" bookstores. However, the Church seems wary of its own scholars. Just on this venue it seems that no believing LDS Scholar feels as if he or she has any street credential until they have endured some extent of ecclesiastical interference. I certainly sense a divide between the LDS Church and its community of scholars. Does BYU even keep its best scholars? I guess the answer is in certain disciplines it does but in those subjects where legitimate scholarship will lead to those issues the leaders rather not have public, I doubt it.

Interesting times ahead over the next couple of years.

Whereas now the boobs are out, perhaps as the Church recognizes it needs its scholars some of you boobs will be in. ;)

Waters, he's right up your alley:

"Apostle Packer apparently doesn't want the Church historians to produce honest history. There are some things in his statement that I can agree with. For instance, you should teach children--small children--differently from the way you teach adolescents, and you should teach adolescents differently from the way you teach adults. The problem, in part, is that Apostle Packer wants to treat the adults as children. But this is nothing new in the Church. Much of our adult literature and teaching is on a child's level."

--Sterling McMurrin

See also, SU's post about the masses of zombies.

I read most of it. I htink that if push came to shove and SU was forced to bare his soul about the Church (as opposed to the muck-stirring he enjoys so much here and on CB) he would give answers not too far from what SM gave in this interview.

SU do what SU gotta do.

Sounds like rationalization at best ;)

Seattle will forever be looking for an adequate salve ... so will Brother McMurrin.

Look, I'm not asking for a deep mysterious doctrine to be taught. I'm not asking for the heavens to be opened. I'm not asking for a new Pentecost.

I'm only asking for an explanation of why an entire race was denied eternal blessings.

Do you really want an answer, or do you want someone to attempt to answer the question? It sounds more like you want someone to pay you some attention.

I'm only asking for members to move on!

Move on from what? A politician's answer ("That's past us")?

And what of church history since the reversal ... how long has it been? What aspects of church history is most relevant to your children? What is the point of your question -what is your motive?

My motive is so that when your kids ask you why it was, you don't have to make something up ("probably for the same reason non-Levites were denied"), or have to tell them "We don't know, it's never been told to us".

Sounds like he is convinced he is smarter than the average person, that the church and the general body is out of touch -out of reach even ... that he 'deserves' or is owed something more.

Why would you make something up? Why would you say it's never been told to us? Is that how you answer when asked about faith? Who is responsible for your answers.

Why would you not use it as a learning and teaching opportunity? Why would you not ask; well, since the reversal how has the church acted, how have times changed? Is the issue a stumbling block or an opportunity?

So SU is the McMurrin of CG. Tex is Joseph F. Smith.

We know that David O. McKay was equally defensive of each of them when they came under attack. So who is the David O. McKay of CG? You creek?

The death knell was when they hired a candy bar salesman who didn't have the sense to not copy and paste his addresses to the university.

The death knell came when BYU decided to take a moral stand. Against the sculpture "The Kiss."

I really have no sense of what the future holds for BYU. And that's why my discretionary funds don't go to support it. They don't need my money to do more of the same.

Not me. I wish I was such a good person.

This is puzzling. I had not read this interview for about 24 years and only read the first 2-3 pages today. The part I read today still seems to me to be very good. Clearly McMurrin remains among the best and the brightest LDS culture has produced, and clearly he was a man of enormous integrity. I was once very familiar with the interview, and my memory is that I agreed with about all of what he said, and I'd be surprised if that has changed. All of you should read this. His comments are timeless.

what is puzzling to you? I was sincere and I think you just said I was right. Perhpas you disagree with my characterization of your usual activity here?

Sounds like it goes along with Mauss' work in sociology (Mauss focuses on post WWII).

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books...252020711.html

I was very sad at the whole "The Kiss" issue. I never attended BYU, I just root for their sports teams.

That's very thoughtful, Goat. And quite true.

The worst part about it, was hearing the brand new Museum director (I think he was Australian) defending the decision ("there is a long tradition that the intimate is sacred and private").

I could tell while he was talking, that both he and I knew his career, outside of BYU, was over and done.

I am not sure why that is so painful to admit. Seeing such a program develop at UVU would be wonderful, IMO. And it would bring pressure on BYU LDS studies to improve.

(I love Tom Griffith - what a great guy)

I am firmly on record as being against the GA-as-president trend. But I think you are overstating the damage a bit. Both Oaks and Holland went on to become GA's. Not just GA's, but apostles. Do you really think they were that much different before they were GA's, i.e, while they were presidents at BYU? Of course, the GA's will have more of a mandate to lead in a certain way, but let's not kid ourselves. Previous presidents did what the board of trustees wanted. To me, the biggest disadvantage of the GA-as-president trend is that it severely restricts the candidate pool and we end up getting lesser-qualified presidents. Ironically, it could be argued that BYU-Idaho has a better president now than BYU-Provo.

Of course, in my fantasy world, BYU would get a non-GA president with outstanding academic credentials and with a willingness to push the BOT as much as possible for radical change regarding academic freedom, legit LDS studies, etc. Maybe someday.

Tremendous interview. Thanks for posting this. It's the best thing I've read about Mormonism in years.

Those kind of people don't even think of taking jobs at BYU, much less think about or aspire to being president of BYU.

We can always hope. Mr. Sunshine.

Yes, and the fact that a guy like that would go to BYU-Idaho (of all places) gives me some hope for BYU-Provo's future.

You think BYU-I's president challenges the BOT on anything?

I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you....

Only one reason he took that job: because he is a man who does what the Brethren ask him to do.

I have no idea how much he challenges the BOT. But you have carved out an awfully convenient and self-serving logical position: anybody who would accept a BYU admin position couldn't possibly be a quality leader or independent thinker. That's just BS.