Criticism of Bushman

[tooblue]

That's exactly the point ... I'm not not merely speaking about college age students, of which represent a tiny portion of the church population on the whole, but about the larger membership in general.

If parents and the home was consider the primary institution for distribution of truth and knowledge in the church then the role of seminary and BYU would be remarkably different.

As it stands now, those institutions far too often stand as a subsitute and not a companion to what is learned in the home.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That's exactly the point ... I'm not not merely speaking about college age students, of which represent a tiny portion of the church population on the whole, but about the larger membership in general.

If parents and the home was consider the primary institution for distribution of truth and knowledge in the church then the role of seminary and BYU would be remarkably different.

As it stands now, those institutions far too often stand as a subsitute and not a companion to what is learned in the home.

Ok, then, I guess we agree on more than I thought. Parents do need to take a larger role. They, however, don't know some of the early church history questions, either(using as an example the previously mentioned Joseph and polygamy). Also, how is one supposed to ask a question about something that one has no hint has even occured?

I don't depend solely on past-taken church classes for my religious instructions. I was somewhat shocked to learn after the fact, though, that there were some rather large holes in the actions of some in the early days of the church; by holes I mean some things taught well and some (learned, in some cases, well after the classes designed to instruct in religion were taken) very conspicously absent. I am not saying that the seminary teacher, the BYU instructor, & CES in general are solely to blame for any lack of religious knowledge. I am saying that certain things just do not get taught when there is a prime opportunity to do so.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by realtall

I am saying that certain things just do not get taught when there is a prime opportunity to do so.

Therein lies the optimum question ... what is the prime opportunity, did it pass us by, is it yet to come? I simply do not think the prime opportunity has presented itself, and that is a direct result of the membership, in general, and it's spirtual imaturity. Will the prime opportunity only come when the general body on the whole is sufficiently spiritually mature to discuss such issues?

[realtall]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Therein lies the optimum question ... what is the prime opportunity, did it pass us by, is it yet to come? I simply do not think the prime opportunity has presented itself, and that is a direct result of the membership, in general, and it's spirtual imaturity. Will the prime opportunity only come when the general body on the whole is sufficiently spiritually mature to discuss such issues?

I don't think that it is nebulous as all that. I think that the prime opportunity is in a religion class. The information is out there, it just isn't being taught by the church. People sometimes discover this on their own after never hearing about it at all from the church and are often quite shocked by it. I find it hard to believe that that was the prime opportunity for them to learn it.

[MikeWaters]

The problem is that you have courses at BYU titled "Church History" that are only church history in a superficial sense. They have selectively removed all history that is controversial, I suppose in a "lowest-common-denominator" fashion ("let not one student ever doubt").

In a way I think for tooblue to argue that real scholarship should not go on at BYU is a way of saying "if you want the truth, don't trust the church's representatives."

I no more want to read apologetic church history than I want to read anti-mormon-derived history.

It is sad to think that it is doubtful that Bushman's book could ever be the source material for a religion class at BYU.

It is misguided and wrong. The whirlwinds will come. And BYU will not prepare you for them with the schlock they call religious instruction (how do you give letter grades to a gospel doctrine class?).

[Mormon Red Death]

Mike Waters wrote:
"There are a lot of things that could be done, that have little to do with "meat" that would improve religious education at BYU. One idea I had was to require every student to read a diary of a Utah pioneer/settler. Students should come away with an understanding of their LDS cultural heritage. Right now, I would argue they don't."

Or they could require every student who graduates from BYU to read "The gathering of Zion" by Wallace Stegner (I also think that "Atlas Shrugged" should be required reading of every high school senior in America but that is a different topic)

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by realtall

I don't think that it is nebulous as all that. I think that the prime opportunity is in a religion class. The information is out there, it just isn't being taught by the church. People sometimes discover this on their own after never hearing about it at all from the church and are often quite shocked by it. I find it hard to believe that that was the prime opportunity for them to learn it.

But which religion class? BYU is extremely limited in it's scope of who it can reach! I did not attend BYU, therefore I would not have been offered such religous instruction. To balance out this obvious injustice does the chruch then build BYU's everywhere and in turn supplant the traditional educational institutions of geographic regions and enroll all of its children in these schools ... does it then become necessary to build Mormon High Schools on down to Mormon Elementary schools?

If Seatle Ute thought we were insulated before :shock:

[MikeWaters]

The way religious instruction is set up currently, it is basically the same as gospel doctrine classes. Everyone uses the same workbook. You basically go through the workbook, or the scripture and the workbook (depending on whether the class is focused on say Doctrine and Covenants or if it is Church History).

The goal of the class is, from what I can tell, just like Gospel Doctrine. Learn the basics of the gospel, learn saving doctrines. Then you give quizzes, projects, tests and assign grades on a curve.

So who teaches these classes? The same folks, in general, who become seminary and institute teachers. They are not historians, and mostly not scholars of any kind in the traditional sense.

If one is very generous, it could be called "advanced gospel doctrine." But the idea of understanding church history, understanding early Mormon migration, understanding doctrines in context of 19th century American religious beliefs--anything of this nature is not what the religion dept. is about.

I cannot ever recall a single interesting conversation/discussion that took place in a religion class. It is hierarchical (sp?). Nothing is really up for discussion. The average Elders Quorum has much more rewarding interaction and discussion than the avg. BYU religion class IMO.

I think this is why I found the account of Juanita Brooks in the DOM biography so touching. To be ostracized for speaking to the facts of the Mormon Meadows Massacre, to be threatened with excommunication by an apostle--imagine the dilemma faced by the honest seeker. And then to hear that the Prophet said "leave it alone" to the apostle (or something like that). No wonder tears are streaming down her face.

I think this is why non-specific attacks against Bushman as "faithless" anger me so.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But which religion class? BYU is extremely limited in it's scope of who it can reach! I did not attend BYU, therefore I would not have been offered such religous instruction. To balance out this obvious injustice does the chruch then build BYU's everywhere and in turn supplant the traditional educational institutions of geographic regions and enroll all of its children in these schools ... does it then become necessary to build Mormon High Schools on down to Mormon Elementary schools?

If Seatle Ute thought we were insulated before :shock:

Building BYUs everywhere? Wow that is such a GREAT idea!! :wink:

Answer: it doesn't have to be at BYU. It can taught in institute and seminary(or even Gospel Doctrine). There is ample opportunity in each.

I know that not everywhere has those first two things but if it is taught there then at least it would be a solid start.

[Mormon Red Death]

LDS Institute as the Uof Utah was absolutely amazing for me. I cite that as one of the reasons that I am active today. I had one teacher - Bro Peterson who I consider to be the finest teacher I have ever had (he also authored books on Utah indian wars, PhD in History). In fact, he was so good I wish my wife could take classes from him. We talked about things such as lying (like Abraham and J. Smith did) to the daughters of Lot.