cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religious Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2014, 07:57 PM   #11
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
One must sympathize as well with colleagues who, with full respect to Kimball's authority, do not see what it would mean to apply his prophetic language to the article they need to write or the class they need to teach. Just what "pernicious, atheistic influences" ought we to guard against, and just what are the "gospel methodologies" that might serve as alternatives? In 1988, Jeffrey R. Holland, then BYU's president, proposed a positive linkage between our educational and religious missions when he urged the faculty to resist hyper-specialization, by which we seek merely to "imitate others or win their approval," and instead to assume the responsibility of "those educated and spiritual and wise [to] sort, sift, prioritize, integrate, and give some sense of wholeness . . . to great eternal truths." But the machinery of specialization was already
in place, and it has only accelerated.
The great tool of Satan is.....specialization of faculty?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 08:01 PM   #12
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Our disciplines and ever more specialized subdisciplines are designed to bracket and ultimately to suppress the larger, integrating questions that once defined liberal education, but it is comforting, not to say professionally advantageous, to imagine that no paradigm or assumptions frame our approach to psychology or sociology or political science or literary criticism, or at least that it is not our job to exhibit or to question those assumptions. A teacher "progresses" (produces articles, accumulates citations, gains tenure) by suppressing the perennial questions about human nature and its purposes and proceeding on the basis of the accepted methodologies, as if these were neutral and had no bearing on such questions.
Who knows what this even means. He just dances around not getting to anything tangible. Not providing any concrete examples.

Perhaps his proof of having not fallen for this trap is that he has not published in academic journals? Surely there would be many faculty candidates who could provide similar proof in their CVs.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 08:22 PM   #13
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
For the still small but vocal and increasingly influential group of Mormon progressives, this statement may be dismissed as the prejudice of a passing generation: After all, it's not actually "scripture," they argue, and in any case its tradition-bound teaching is clearly less compelling ethically (to say the least) than the progressive commitment to "equality," which reflects the very heart of Christianity. If it seems that this new progressive-liberal ethics is at odds with plain church teachings on sexuality and the family, the new liberals recur to a progressive recasting of the doctrine of continuing revelation to explain away any contradiction: Church leaders will catch up with the progress of equality eventually.
Ok, here is what the Proclamation on the Family says:

Quote:
THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
I'm trying to find the doctrine on homosexuality--why it exists, where it comes from, whether it is a sin, etc. Can't find it.

Earlier in the proclamation:

Quote:
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
Again, where is the doctrine on sexuality?

Dear Br. Hancock, tell me about these plain church doctrines on sexuality. Is it a sin to be gay? Why are people gay? What will happen to "gayness" in the next life? Why can't gay persons easily convert to being non-gay?

If being gay is not a sin, what are the implications of that? If being gay is a sinful state, what does that say about free agency?

Everything is clear to Br. Hancock. I just wish he would explain it to the rest of us.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 08:10 PM   #14
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I keep thinking about this article. Because when I check CG for new posts, it's the main one that has appeared in the feed.

It's an important question--how does BYU assume or maintain a unique religious component to its education in a country where this doesn't really exist very much?

My objection to Hancock's article is that he fails to really think about this in any kind of meaningful way, other than to dog what has perceives as his enemies. He's shallow. But he is addressing an important question.

So he's a question: what do you get at BYU (or should get) that you don't or can't get from a public or private university + institute?

BYU
1. I always thought it was weird to have church in a lecture hall. I never liked that.

2. It's easy to get "lost" at BYU. I never had a calling in four years. I gave one or two talks total during four years. And one of those was only because I mentioned I had never given a talk to my roommate, who had a calling that allowed him to ask the Bishop to give me that assignment.

3. It's easy to go through BYU and never talk to much about religion or personal beliefs. Because the assumption is that everyone has the same beliefs, there's not a lot that you really compare or contrast. I found that I was much less likely to get into a gospel conversation in Provo than I was in Texas.

4. I found most of the religion classes to be the equivalent of Sunday School or Gospel Doctrine classes. Some of them I liked, some of them I didn't. For the same reasons that I like some Gospel Doctrine teachers and I don't care for others. Dan Hone. I think that's the name of the guy who taught my freshman BoM class. He was just so sincere and honest that he made it work for me. I had others who felt gimmicky and like they were on stage performing. Didn't like that. I did find the grading to be frustrating in those classes. I didn't like the pressure of grades in a class whose purpose was to discuss religious truth.

5. Not a lot of religious discussion in my other classes. I was a science major. But I also took humanity classes. I did have one teacher in science who was from a foreign country, and he would break in with life lessons and religious experiences. Again, very sincere salt of the earth guy, I enjoyed that. Then again, I've always enjoyed stories more than dry lectures.

6. I think the obvious primary benefit of BYU is the ability to date members of your own faith. You can do it that at other places, but the dating pool among members is smaller. So there's a greater chance you will end up marrying in the faith. A lot of my friends who went to state schools married in the faith as well. But their wives aren't as good looking as mine.

7. Some might argue that if I had gone to a different university that I would have encountered ideas and philosophies that would have caused me to lose faith. Ok. Like what? That there is a huge biological component to ethical decision making (Hancock's example). I've encountered that idea. And yet I still go to church every Sunday. It's not the ideas that are the big deal. It's a lot about friends and values. But that's also a choice one can make wherever one is. Provo, or anywhere else. Most of the people I know that have left the church because of ideas left because of religious ideas. Like something from church history that didn't square right with them. They didn't learn about those things sitting in History 308 class. And they certainly didn't hear them in BYU religion classes, which as far as I can tell steer clear of controversial topics from church history. Preparing NO ONE to deal with them.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.