Criticism of Bushman

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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 can just hear the gum smacking socal blonde (female or male) now; "yah like, what is UP with this whole polygamy thingy ... were told to date lot's before marriage aren't we?"

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by realtall

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.

I think scholarship in religion at BYU would be a huge mistake and infact retard progress ... what then would seperate us from every other religion and their respective seminaries? What if a man were called to serve as Bishop even though he had not attented BYU? Would the general membership regularly turn to Brother IgraduatedfromBYU for confirmation of the truthfullness of everything the Bishop has to say?

I don't know what the answer is, but I do feel it is comming and that real progress is being made ... the shear fact that they have changed the manner in which the missionaries teach the gospel is a HUGE step forward in and of itselfs and demonstrates that the Lord has some confidence in the parents of the church to teach their children correct principles!

[MikeWaters]

I had made changes in the missionary curriculum long before it was official.

The Missionary Guide was so atrocious, that I never opened it again after the first month. I would have gotten more out of reading the phone book (again lowest common denominator).

The important part of the new change is that it encourages a different sort of mentality of our missionaries. A mentality that many had even before the change.

Bring the bottom up. Instead of bringing the top down.

[SteelBlue]

Mike, I went back and read the thread, and I think you may have given the guy a little too much credit. I'm not convinced that he knows how the book has been received in the religion dept. at BYU. Nor am I convinced that you'd never see the book used as course material at the Y. It appears to me that he may just be some grad student in the religion department trying to "help" his argument by claiming backing from that whole department.

I am personally very curious as to how that book has been received there. I'm not convinced that this bigbluecougar guy really knows.

[MikeWaters]

my guess is that it has been received much better in the history dept. (guys who actually do Mormon and Utah history) than the religion dept.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

my guess is that it has been received much better in the history dept. (guys who actually do Mormon and Utah history) than the religion dept.

You'll get no argument from me there.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by 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?).

Mike, you'd know better if you had read the book.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I think scholarship in religion at BYU would be a huge mistake and infact retard progress ... what then would seperate us from every other religion and their respective seminaries? What if a man were called to serve as Bishop even though he had not attented BYU? Would the general membership regularly turn to Brother IgraduatedfromBYU for confirmation of the truthfullness of everything the Bishop has to say?

I don't know what the answer is, but I do feel it is comming and that real progress is being made ... the shear fact that they have changed the manner in which the missionaries teach the gospel is a HUGE step forward in and of itselfs and demonstrates that the Lord has some confidence in the parents of the church to teach their children correct principles!

You quoted me but I just can't see how your response is a reply to what you quoted.


My general point, for the last time, is that there are some large omissions in the Church's history as taught by CES(& BYU) - and not all of them flattering. I say that members should at least be introduced to these things by the church because, among other reasons, there is a good chance that they will learn about this piecemeal from other sources and probably wonder what the heck is going on and why they never heard about it before. It is better that they hear about it and are taught the truth about it then get it sprung on them at some future random time.


I'm not sure what your point is, other then (I think you're saying) parents should be responsible for teaching to the potential holes in CES curriculum timeline. I think that it is the parents who should reinforce the gospel priniciples and BYU & CES who whould be teaching the historical context of said principles(as well, of course, as the principles themselves being primary) and some specifics regarding the historical context. Also, you threw in something about how there would have to be BYUs built up all over the country(world?) in order for the Church to teach the whole picture. I'm not sure what was up with that.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by realtall

You quoted me but I just can't see how your response is a reply to what you quoted.


My general point, for the last time, is that there are some large omissions in the Church's history as taught by CES(& BYU) - and not all of them flattering. I say that members should at least be introduced to these things by the church because, among other reasons, there is a good chance that they will learn about this piecemeal from other sources and probably wonder what the heck is going on and why they never heard about it before. It is better that they hear about it and are taught the truth about it then get it sprung on them at some future random time.


I'm not sure what your point is, other then (I think you're saying) parents should be responsible for teaching to the potential holes in CES curriculum timeline. I think that it is the parents who should reinforce the gospel priniciples and BYU & CES who whould be teaching the historical context of said principles(as well, of course, as the principles themselves being primary) and some specifics regarding the historical context. Also, you threw in something about how there would have to be BYUs built up all over the country(world?) in order for the Church to teach the whole picture. I'm not sure what was up with that.

My response isn't necessarily directed at you but your ideas were mostly what I was considering when I posted my thoughts.

If BYU were to offer more in-depth religious instruction to students, such instruction could not be matched by far flung Wards and branches therefore creating an institutionalized priesthood in the church. Such a priesthood would effectively undermine our lay priesthood … in other words only those who attended BYU would be eligible to serve in governing offices in Stakes and Wards.

It seems like an awfully radical idea but when you consider that is what has occurred in most every other religion such and idea worries me ... hence, perhaps the only way to combat such a notion would be to build more BYUs ... That is where my thoughts were going.

[Mormon Red Death]

essentially is that what happens anyway tooblue? Some stake president feels that "Whatever is good for Byu is good for the stake (or bishop or EQP)