So, some of you might have read the last thread where I complained about the lack of a formal theology department/degree at BYU. BYU has a philosophy department and a religious education department, but no meaningful overlap between the two. With the philosophy department focusing more on ancient philosophy and philosophy or politics, the relgious education department focusing on reading church histories and religious texts.

I just found out, BYU decided to narrow down the focus of their religious education department even further. They will no longer consider those that have earned a PhD in (New Testament, Old Testament, or American Religious history)for positions teaching in the religious education department. Only veterans from the CES are allowed. This affects doctorates who are faithful members and are published in the exact field that the religious education department is supposedly specializing in. Having the outside degree is what gets you nixed.

Its called the "Strengthening of Religious Education in Institutions of Higher Education." It seems whenever the church throws "Strengthening" onto something, it's to clamp down the
natural curiosity and freedom of its members.

For those interested. Yes. I saw the post on the /r/mormon reddit sub.

I looked at the twitter linked to the post. The changed happened last summer.

You might want to take a look. Note the discussion as well. Its amazing how much the TBMs love the drop in academic quality. They are leaning on the old argument of "teaching by the spirit" being superior to any worldly book learnin. They've also resorted to calling the poster an apostate.

https://twitter.com/AlanFarnes/status/1364786358452056067?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1364786358452056067%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Flsp0dd%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dtrue

Me, trying to be funny:

Ya gotta think twice about constantly going back to snoop through your ex's underwear drawer!


But yeah, someone needs to keep an on what the biotch is up to. When's the last time it was something decent/good?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ya gotta think twice about constantly going back
> to snoop through your ex's underwear drawer!

Well that's disturbing. Does she know you visit her house when she is out?

I can absolutely see them doing this. When I was at BYU some 20 years ago most of my religious studies classes were taught by members with PhDs in New Testament, Ancient Civilization, etc. While they were certainly believers, there were definitely times that they didn't shy away from controversial discussions, such as things in Book of Mormon that didn't make sense, ways that the early New Testament church seemed disconnected from anything in Mormonism, etc.

I could see where BYU would want to clamp this down and not give students any inkling that things aren't utterly perfect. Filling the faculty slots with indoctrinated but under-educated CES people seems like the way to accomplish this.

I took a class in Jesus and the New Testament at my decidedly non-Mormon school. The professor had some interesting ideas that did not strictly conform to the dogma and theology of the mainstream Christian churches. So I can see why BYU would want to avoid an academic approach. Trained academics are going to follow knowledge wherever it leads.

Wowza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only veterans from the CES are
> allowed . . . Having the outside degree is what
> gets you nixed.
===============================


It's a cult.

Yes.

A true university strives to avoid stagnancy and incestuous thinking and they do so by hiring faculty that come from a variety of schools of thought, literally and figuratively. If a “school” wants the opposite (one size fits all groupthink), then they do the opposite. “Acceptable” results guaranteed.

Yes, but now they’re owning it. They know Joseph made it all up so they’re not so keen on pretending they’re some kind of scriptural authority. The tide has turned. They’re stuck with maintaining a narrative they know is false, so those who seek the truth need not apply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2021 01:54PM by bradley.

I think their was a typo in their statement and it was supposed to read, " "Strengthening of the strangle hold the gerontocracy has on Religious Education in Institutions of Higher Education."

Because as Boyd so elegantly put it, "Sometimes the truth is not very useful."

In your original thread, you wrote:

"I've started to look into some classic theology and philosophy. I like to listen to youtube videos while I code. So, I spent a few weeks listening to some priests talk about the Summa from Aquinas. That got me interested in looking into some of the arguments for the existence of God and the nature of the universe."

"I found a lot of evangelical theology courses just thrown up on youtube, 100s of hours, several courses, several specialized points of emphasis. Systemic theology, classic theology, open theism, process theism, post-conservatism, post-modernism etc. etc. etc."

After all that effort, I am curious why you haven't posted about any substantive theological issues that you have discovered or found interesting; perhaps in contrast to Mormonism. One might legitimately ask: "What does traditional theology have to offer Mormonism in understanding God, and God's relationship to human beings and the world?" such that BYU should take it seriously theologically--particularly when such views are anathema to its own teachings. After all, BYU is not advertised as a theological seminary.

That said, I imagine there are faithful Mormons today that have PhDs in theology, and who would like to teach at BYU, and who might be able to contrast traditional and Mormon theology in a way that was favorable to Mormonism--if the Church were not so paranoid of religious thinking that was too deep.

I haven't really posted much about the problems I have found because I feel that I am a novice. I don't have much to offer to the conversation. I enjoy listening and reading in these subjects, but really if it came down to it I'd probably be eviscerated by anyone with a knack for debate.

But, since you asked:
1. I have been looking into the problem of infinite regression. The LDS church gives an unsatisfying half answer, basically stating that We know Jesus has gone through the process of becoming a God, and Heavenly Father has as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this goes back indefinitely. They essentially push the problem down the line into the realm of mystery where Mormon cosmology has failed to investigate.

2. The divinity of Jesus. Was he God when he came to earth? Was it really necessary for him to be 100% God to pay for the sins of mankind, or just perfect? I learned that the trinity really only gained major acceptance in the 3rd century. I don't know what the understanding was before then, really. I am not sure of the question myself as to whether a trinity is a necessary part of the whole atonement process or if that is just some pet belief of Aquinas.

That's all I can think of for now.

Well, from my perspective you have offered a lot by just bringing up the contrast between traditional theology and Mormonism in these two threads, and I am disappointed that there has not been more substantive interest.

Moreover, when people venture into theology they necessarily are driven deeply into metaphysics, where there really is no place for dogmatic insistence of one view over another. (Unless one leaves the realm of rationality altogether) After all, an argument could be made that it is all nonsense; at least from a scientific or philosophical point of view.
________________________________________

Although I also do not consider myself to be an expert on these matters, here are a few very brief thoughts on your two issues:

> 1. I have been looking into the problem of
> infinite regression. The LDS church gives an
> unsatisfying half answer, basically stating that
> We know Jesus has gone through the process of
> becoming a God, and Heavenly Father has as well,
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that this goes
> back indefinitely. They essentially push the
> problem down the line into the realm of mystery
> where Mormon cosmology has failed to investigate.

Exactly! Whenever the term "infinite" is invoked in any subject (except pure mathematics) as an explanation or finality for some aspect of reality one is already in deep metaphysical trouble. Here is how theoretical physicist Frank Close put it:

"[I]nfinity is transcendent, beyond measure, signifying a failure of understanding rather than a real answer. To put this into context, the probability of chance can range from zero . . . to an absolute certainty at 100 percent. "Infinity," by contrast, is boundless and immeasurable; it has no quantifiable meaning. In the context of the questions that the scientists were posing, the answer was nonsense, . . . For physicists, *infinity* is a code word for disaster, the proof that you are trying to apply a theory beyond its realm of applicability."

In short, postulating infinity, or the infinite, (or "the absolute") as part of a definition or explanation of God takes one from the meaningful to the mystical. It is giving up on rational, naturalistic, theology. One might ask at this point, "What more is there to investigate?" How does one investigate 'infinity?' What does it even mean?

You will notice that as you read traditional theology--ancient or modern versions--you find all sorts of attempts to make sense out of the infinite, leaving you (at least me) scratching my head. So, if theology is to make sense, either Mormon theology or traditional theology, it has got to find a way to define God without appealing to the infinite. Few traditional theologians are willing to go down that road, but it is a quite natural path for Mormon theology because of its finite, materialist foundations. That said, the infinite regress problem associated with Mormon theology must come to an end short of a fall back position that just embraces the traditional infinite and absolute God that was first rejected. And, of course, this doesn't address the problems associated with finitism; much less the anthropomorphic version of traditional Mormonism, where God looks just like us humans.
______________________________________

> 2. The divinity of Jesus. Was he God when he came
> to earth? Was it really necessary for him to be
> 100% God to pay for the sins of mankind, or just
> perfect? I learned that the trinity really only
> gained major acceptance in the 3rd century. I
> don't know what the understanding was before then,
> really. I am not sure of the question myself as to
> whether a trinity is a necessary part of the whole
> atonement process or if that is just some pet
> belief of Aquinas.

The concept of the trinity is incoherent, and it reflects an attempt to reconcile (1) the finite Jesus; with (2) the absolute version of God born of Greek philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism.

Suppose one takes the position that God (the Father) is a finite personage, and Jesus is a separate finite personage, neither of whom are infinite, absolute, omnipotent, etc. They are just highly intelligence beings. With that starting point, it is at least conceivable that human life is part of some "divine" plan, orchestrated by God and Jesus; and that Jesus' incarnation was somehow part of such a plan. Building upon that, it is, I suppose, conceivable that the Mormon "plan of salvation" is at least minimally logically possible--even if there is no evidence for it; and notwithstanding all sorts of questions as why such "redemption" was even necessary in the first place. But at least we have something to talk about (and to rationally discuss and dismiss). With the trinity, we are starting out with a notion of God that doesn't make any sense to begin with. What is perhaps most fundamentally lost is the notion of God as a single, unified, personage, where at least it would make sense to talk about God's will, desires, motivations, decisions, morality, love, etc. etc.

Anyway, thanks for your post. I would think that those people here on RfM that have left Mormonism only to embrace some alternative traditional view of God, would have a comment about all of this. For reasons explained, leaving Mormonism on the basis of critical thinking, and then jumping into either a traditional Catholic or Protestant faith is NOT a step up in either critical thinking or rationality.

Thanks for your reply and short discussion on these topics.

I guess its just disappointing and a point of embarrassment that a church that has had such influence in my life and it tangled up in my family affairs, is taking one more step towards close-mindedness and seems to be lacking in any curiosity.

I would love for the church to open up a bit, and be more like Hugh B. Brown instead of Bruce R. McConkie.

They have hurt everyone that holds a degree from BYU, as it becomes more and more apparent that the school doesn't think that systematic investigation for the sake of knowledge is worth anything.

A Church doesn't need to study theology much when they have a Prophet at the helm. Why try to puzzle Scripture to reason anything for ourselves when all we have to do is have the Prophet ask God directly? Such a religion has a university (if it has one at all) with a very small theology department (if it has one at all).

A dog or cat never learns that it's wrong to soil the carpet when the owner pushes the animal's face into it. But that's what Mormon leadership always does, and they are "so inspired" that they don't have the foresight to see that this is one of the very tactics that causes people to leave the church.

Another reason for their actions. CES employees receive vigorous training and cuts if they do not measure up. In other words they are indoctrinated to the hilt. Plus, they have spent years working with youth, gaining the skills to bullshit them as well as being adored by these same youth. I think these combinations, the charisma the CES educators possess, are a good fit for a lot of the students. In other words, I think they just might be more "entertaining", tell the right jokes, etc. than say those other stiffer PHD pics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2021 01:57PM by presleynfactsrock.

I love your analogy, cludgie!