Mormons to Professor: “Later”
June 13th, 2006Normally, I’d just link to something like this, but I want to hear from you all about the BYU professor who lost his job for disagreeing with the Mormon Church’s recent gay marriage amendment hoo ha.
“In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church.”
In accordance with me, that is a recipe for losing the smart people. o
Patatomic, so it’s ok for Reid to voice his opposition, but not for Nielsen? That is part of the hypocrisy the Nielsen is speaking out against.
Even if Nielsen was employed by BYU, isn’t the role of higher education to ask the tough questions, not just of students, but of the world?
If you sign up to teach at BYU, you aren’t allowed to question or contradict? How then does the body of collective knowledge grow?
You and Sebastian’s treason claims are laughable. How is Nielsen betraying anything? Betraying a hypocritical church? Calling the hypocrisy out? Wouldn’t Reid be cited for the same thing? I’m still laughing about Sebastian’s comment.
Scott, I believe that BYU forces the church into a weird series of contortions. The secular and spiritual can attempt to meet there, but the emphasis isn’t on academic freedom, inquiry or studied critical thinking. It’s on learning the church line and towing it throughout one’s life. My experience as an artist and liberal student at BYU helped me in my decision to leave the church and also introduced me to some amazing friends. Friends who I am certain are tired of me bringing up church stuff, but who love me anyway.
blurb, I may not agree with your decision, but I respect that you made one and left the church instead of being a hypocritical whiner denouncing the actions of the church while pronouncing your devotion with the next breath. If you believe that you’ve had a personal revelation to the contrary, then start your own church. Feel free to claim the title of the “one mighty and strong.” Maybe in a 150 years there’ll be a commemorative plaques everywhere you did something and your followers will mark up your blog with a red pencil.
While there may be more flexibility with other organized religions, at least with Mormons and Catholics, if you don’t believe that the head of the church is in charge and sets doctrine, then get out. If you can’t believe 100% of what your freely chosen religion believes, then get out and find one that you can or start your own. These particular religions are not democracies and may not be for everyone. I see no purpose for being a cafeteria Mormon/Catholic/etc of any stripe.
Sebastian
blurbo:
Reid is not employed by the church, Nielsen is/was. I’m not sure that I see the hypocrisy.
Speaking of laughing…I’m still laughing at your clogs. Not that you wear them, but HOW you wear them. C’mon Jon, all the cool guys know to NOT wear the strap behind your foot, but rather on top. Top strappers are cool Jon. Join the club.
And yes Jon, you do have some very patient friends. We DO love you and ALL you have done for us (recalling all the hours you have logged in tech support/crisis mode). Talk about patience.
Sebastian: I’m not sure that 100% blind obedience is healthy. Shouldn’t there be room for a bit of grey? Why does it have to be black and white?
sebastian, what about “the church” (in whatever denominational context) being a living, growing thing? in order to be a healthy community of any sort, doubt and constant questioning are vital.
“If you canít believe 100% of what your freely chosen religion believes, then get out and find one that you can or start your own.”
i do believe a true mormon or catholic–or any other judeochristian offshoot with rigid central authority–can speak doubt and disagreement while still being devoted to the church as a whole.
without that right, which is as vital as breathing, the church will ultimately become a monolithic, dead waste of space.
and, as jon originally suggested, lose all the smart people.
Harry Reid should be fired from BYU too.
Harry Reid is not a employed by the church, so I suppose he’ll still be minority leader for a while yet. The clear message from the First Presidency of the church was to support the passing of the constitutional amendment to protect marriage. To do otherwise was not to support and sustain the leaders of the church. Whether the church takes disciplinary action for Harry Reid or any other member who didn’t support the amendment is between them and their Bishop.
Harry Reid is a very public figure and his action was an embarrassment to the church. Much like missionaries, I’d think the church ought to hold his actions to a higher standard. But then, maybe that’s why I’m not in a position of authority.
My guess is nothing will happen to any of them unless they publicly pursue their disagreement.
Sebastian
Reid has opposed the constitutional amendment but he has not disagreed with the Mormon heirarchy on the ultimate issue of whether gays should be discriminated against by their government. It’s better than nothing, but it’s not enough. Still, I’m thankful that the Mos can’t fire him from the Senate, although I imagine there were some scornful looks from Hatch every now and again.
Nice sidestepping the issue of hypocrisy… Point is, the church is being hypocritical. If those within aren’t allowed to call it, the implosion that Eight Hour Lunch mentioned may not be so far fetched.
Atomic, blurbomat supports an open clog wearing policy and will fire no one for how they wear their clogs.
Patatomic, as you know, there are things in the church that are black and white and there are areas for grey. The church’s stand on the celibacy of gays and opposition to gay marriage are black and white. The church has no position on why people are gay. You are free to research, exercise academic freedom, and choose any reason you want from nature to nurture.
If the church at some time in the future supports gay marriage, then I will welcome all those gay couples into the temple for sealings and try to endure all the knowing smiles by the progressives.
Are you blindly obedient to the other 99%? And why not to the remaining 1%? I wonder if we all don’t find some area of disagreement with the church to prove we aren’t mindless. We can point to it and say, “See, right there, I don’t follow the brethren. I’m free.” And then bask in our faux superiority.
Sebastian
I count my experience at BYU as one of the greatest educational experiences ever; experiencing life as a “true believer” and then working my way out of the Church provides a contrasting view of life that I am thankful for.
This Professor has done a brave thing, but it is only a start to his journey. Here’s to hoping that his travels along this path don’t stall with merely criticizing a Church to which he maintains allegiance, apparently. It is a hard path to continue on, and even when one leaves, it is hard to admit to oneself how twisted the LDS Church is. Harry Reid is doing good things, but still, he gives allegiance to an authoritarian organization that is fundamentally at odds with human rights and social justice.
Treason…indeed. Choose this day whom ye will serve.
It’s too bad that these certain churches/religious groups are focusing on this *issue* instead of, you know, people dying horrific deaths halfway across the world…hunger…disease…famine…
No no, let’s worry about how we can persecute MORE people!! BAD people!! GAAAAAY people!!!
It angers me because it really gives the church a bad name. I’m not mormon, but I’m religious and am pro-choice and am pro-evolution, etc. The important tenants of religion are to love your neighbors– not love your only straight neighbors. I think many churches follow this idea, but it’s the ones who don’t who are the loudest.
“The Church” and “BYU” are both businesses and as such, the President and Councilors of those businesses will do what they think is in the best interest of the business. The hard part is when the people that belong to those organizations get their ‘religion’ and ‘beliefs’ all mixed up in the business part because “The Church” divided cannot stand. It is not acceptable to believe only 9/10th of what they preach. If you have your own belief in that remaining 1/10th and it does not comply, you must be removed or be assimilated. Members of my family may have their 1/10th of their own beliefs but they hold it close to the vest because they are unwilling to lose the structure and benefits that “The Church” provides them and their families. I understand that. (Surrounding yourself with people that only agree with what you believe and back up everything you are saying kind of sounds like our current presidential situation.) It’s healthy to have differing opinions even if only for the reason of broadening our understanding of each other. It’s too bad that “The Church” feels the need to toss out the differing opinions to create a false sense of cohesion. Of course, thatís just my ëopinion.í
I just read about this earlier today. I find it very sad. It makes me very glad I never attended BYU. As someone else said, college years are supposed to be all about exploring who you are and what you believe by taking hard and objective looks at both sides of every issue. I learned in college that I was pro-choice, pro-evolution, and pro-gay rights. I also learned that I believed in the restored gospel. (And trust me, MY family would have preferred me ‘coming out’ to becoming Mormon.) Things like this sometimes make me wish that I didn’t believe in the restoration so deeply, that I could just go back to life as it was before my baptism. But I do believe, and now my children do too. While I never expect the church to reverse its stance on homosexuality, I am disappointed to the point of being almost heartbroken about all of this.
I’m so thoroughly disappointed. I had hoped that his comments, his very carefully worded, extremely respectful, well delivered and intelligent comments, would be received in the spirit they were delivered. When I was active I was told that active questioning was good, that it was encouraged because the church was true and so questions would only strengthen conviction.
This violates everything I believe about the importance of academic freedom and freedom of expression. Nielsen was beginning a dialogue that should have been welcomed by the church if their stance is truly valid and valuable. This reaction means they have lost the opportunity to explain and support their position on a subject that needs more elucidation.
Has there been any church discussion on dealing with the vital issues of basic rights for long-term partners if marriage is denied?
monkeyaker, you mean like the thousands of tons of equipment, supplies, food, clothing, and other necessities that the church ships to countries worldwide when there are disasters? Or the digging of hundreds of wells, and donations of medicine and equipment to hospitals across Africa? Or the millions of dollars given as scholarships to the poor worldwide to educate themselves and build a better life?
Those aren’t focused on because they aren’t controversial. The church is a very large, efficient organization that is capable of both persecuting people and saving them at the same time.
You should spend some time in the Newsroom at lds.org to find out what is really going on.
Sebastian
Mr. Nielsen’s column is just sloppy. A “current preponderance of evidence suggests” — and thus we KNOW that homosexuality is natural? Kind of a jump from preponderance to certainty, eh? But — even if what we “know” from science is false, arguments against gay marriage are based on fear. Good to know. God wouldn’t cause by nature inclinations that can’t be properly realized — well, what about the general inclination toward adultery? And so on.
But I thought he was employed by a university rather than a church. Universities trade in arguments, not sanctions — if you make an argument they don’t like, they ought to refute you. If you make bad argument, they ought to refute you thumpingly. And if they trust their audience to listen both sides and decide based on the strength of the argument, they ought to let it go at that. Firing this guy suggests they lack confidence in their arguments or their audience.
BYU can do as it likes, but if this is really consistent with their mission then it’s useful to know that it is more a training ground for a highly sophisticated form of propaganda rather than an institution training people to seek truth.
And yes, of course, this kind of thing happens against right-wing opinions at more typical campuses all the times. But it’s shameful there and it’s shameful here.
Hello.
I am thrilled that private institutions like BYU are allowed to fire people for any reason they want. This allows them to clearly demonstrate to the world what kind of institution they really are. As a result, the world knows that BYU values conformity over intellectual rigor and independent thinking.
Hooray! Perfect transparency! No one will ever be tricked into thinking that BYU is a typical (or, you know, worthwhile) university!
You better believe J. Nielsen wasn’t tricked. BYU never promised not to fire him if he ever spoke out publicly against the church who pays him. In fact, they told him the opposite. How can you blame BYU for doing exactly what it says it will do–indeed what it has always done, what both Nielsen and all of us knew it would do again this time–with people like him? Where’s the controversy? What’s the issue? That BYU is a poor conductor of free speech and independent thought?
Fucking DUH.
Would you rather private institutions were forced not to fire certain people? Who should force them? What if the private institution is yours? You want to be forced not to fire someone who writes articles about how gay people should be ground up and formed into McNuggets for wealthy Caucasian children? What BYU did is the act of a poorly-functioning university, but it’s a far fucking cry from immoral.
By the way, Nielsen’s original arguments, whose ends I agree with, were pathologically dim:
“How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.”
Translation: How could somebody not believe something that I personally believe, when I clearly and obviously believe it?
That is not the kind of “thinker” I want teaching my kid philosophy. Actually, that brand of logic seems perfectly suited for a BYU professor. Their loss, I guess.
“If you canít believe 100% of what your freely chosen religion believes, then get out and find one that you can or start your own.”
Sebastian’s statement above is HORRIFYING to me — and 100% why I left the church. If there had been any room for gray I would have stayed. But to me, the idea that as members of an organization we are to believe 100% the ideas of those in power, especially when there is little to no room for your own thoughts and ideas, demonstrates an imbalance and abuse of power. Why does the church and Sebastian have to be so exclusive? Where’s the threat in church members saying, “Ok, most of this fits for me, but let’s talk about the stuff that doesn’t? And how can we agree to disagree and still have a relationship?” What are you afraid of? What comfort does conformity and strict obedience provide you? And why is that necessary?
Black and white thinking hurts my heart because it fuels stigma and separation which is psychologically and socially damaging — BECAUSE IS 100% UN-CHRIST LIKE. And YOU KNOW IT, even if you’re not suppose to think about it.
Meanwhile, doesn’t the Mormon church remember their own history? During the entire 1st half of Mormon history, THEY WERE THE WEIRDO FREAKS only developing their modern day conservative veneer over the last 60 years. With this in mind, I would have been so proud if the Church could have been a shining example of tolerating, if not cultivating compassion, for those living alternative lifestyles. And LOVING THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE, not only when they can get in line and conform. In a world that’s not so black and white, it actually is possible to do that while not condoning their choices. Maturity allows gray to be okay.
Coming from an atheistic background, I have to constantly remind myself why people stick with a church or other organization whose values or actions are just plain bogus. Obviously this guy has a lot of courage (both within himself and externally, in terms of his actions) to do what he did. A lot more than someone doing the same thing who was on the faculty of a university where free speech is more tolerated. My reaction would be to just ditch the whole LDS from my life and be done with it, but not having grown up in a religion, I guess that isn’ty so easy to do. I mean, I just don’t understand (though I would love to be enlightened) why anyone with crtical-thinking skills and a decent education would stick with a church that not only hates gays (as many religions do) but also believes in some guy who went west and founded a religion based on a “scripture” he MADE UP all by himself, as you noted on May 16. Anyway,
“Those arenít focused on because they arenít controversial. The church is a very large, efficient organization that is capable of both persecuting people and saving them at the same time.” -Sebastian
Glad we cleared that up. Now maybe we should take out the “persecution” part…..
Yak,
I think, at the end of the day, people don’t care about the historical foundations of their faith. For example, what are the Bible’s true origin’s? The only thing we know for sure is that it’s been heavily and arbitrarily revised over the centuries from whatever it originally was (if it actually originally was anything at all…could be just as made up as Alice in Wonderland). But that doesn’t stop people from believing it.
Facts have nothing to do with faith–whether or not the faithful themselves think they do. I think people believe in something because it lends a sense of purpose or reason or significance to their lives. It takes a lot to make a person abandon all that.
Similar to what other commenters have said, I had the experience of being at a private Christian school where certain people were quietly stifled because of their beliefs. Shortly after I graduated, two professors lost their jobs because their opinions didn’t agree with those of one the creators of the Left Behind series, who had become a major donor for the school. That type of stubbornness, incorporated with the power of money, makes me sad.
But I do think that it is important for people to maintain their own strong beliefs, and to interact with others about those beliefs in a HEALTHY way, especially in a university. One of the professors who lost his job taught about critical commitment, about holding to one’s most important beliefs after deep reflection on them, but still being able to hear others out and to be open to other thought. When universities are unwilling to promote this kind of discussion, it seems they are making a statement about the level of intelligence that they see in their students. In college I learned how to think for myself, because I was being bombarded with so many conflicting views.
Of course private schools, especially religious ones, usually adhere to some set of standards based on their respective religious beliefs. But the most respectable schools are those that can develop graduates who have strong minds and good thinking skills. They need to teach students how to think, not what to think. If they do that, they may lose a few to that religion, but they will probably gain a few, also.
In the LDS church there *are* issues of blacks and whites, I mean black and white. *Sigh*. And I just got my asbestos suit back from the cleaners).
Pat, this quote one of the things that keeps you in my “really cool Mormons” list:
“Iím not sure that 100% blind obedience is healthy. Shouldnít there be room for a bit of grey? Why does it have to be black and white?”
—
Sebastian, I have to question your take on the humanitarian efforts of LDS, inc. There’s a church near my house that I’d guess cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3-4 million to build. From that hill I can see at least five more just like it. Maybe you could explain to me why God wanted brick instead of siding, and why he needed a full-size basketball court instead of food for starving children. Just wondering.
It’s nice to know a post such as this will generate comments such as these. Entertaining and insightful. Knowing little about the Mormon faith (other than having a couple friends who have left it) or BYU, it’s been very enlightening. Thanks to all.
Yak, aren’t most religions’ scriptures/bibles/good books “made up”? Or at least extremely fleshed-out versions of the historical facts (which generally can’t be proven)? I haven’t read the document you refer to, but my observation is that most religions make up what they need to attract followers.
EightHourLunch,
Exodus 25:31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.
…
Exodus 25:39 Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels.
The Lord ordered a candlestick made alone from 75.6 lbs of gold. Do you need more examples?
I guess He likes nice things. He has taste, refinement.
Which leads me to the only evidence I’ve seen that the Mormon church is not true which is their abominable standardization on Windows. The Lord would obviously be a Mac user with a Quad G5 and dual 30″ screens.
See, I can disagree with the brethren too. Let’s just hope it’s one of those gray areas.
Sebastian
While I’m not a member of the LDS church, I can certainly understand their interest in not employing people who publicly disagree with their positions. I don’t see this as very different from an IBM employee advocating for Macs or an attorney rooting for the opponant’s position in litigation. Opinions might be fine, but publicly opposing your employer is foolish and one option for the employer should certainly be termination.
As for BYU, hopefully publicity from incidents like this will reduce their public perception as an honest and independent university. The marketplace, though applicants, potential employers of their graduates, and their alumni, will decide whether their policies are right or wrong for their needs. I knew a number of BYU alums in law school, and knowledge of facts like this would certainly influence my opinion of their undergraduate preparation.
And for the record, I personally oppose the FMA, both because I’m fairly libertarian and because I eventually want to marry my boyfriend.