Choyo Chagas wrote:are/is there at BYU: college of nothing ? college of nothingness ? college of nonexistence ? college of nonentity ? college of negation ? college of nullity ? college of nihility ?
apparently, there are colleges of narrowmindedness & nonsense & needlessness...
as for the other letters, however, i can't help you
Yahoo Bot wrote:No. He's qualified to teach those subjects at BYU. Not likely he'd be qualified to teach any of those subjects, including the Book of Mormon, at SMU, Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard etc. unless he has published or obtained his doctorate in the fields of religion or theology or scripture.
I see. I guess we can infer then that the College of Religion Education at BYU is basically a continuation of the seminary program? A sort of LDS amateur (nothing wrong with that, by the way) or layperson continuing education program?
- DOc
No. The College of Religious Education has two missions: Educate seminary teachers and provide the two hour religion credit. That's it. Professors assigned to that department, even though they have skills or qualifications in other areas, are only supposed to do those two things.
I still like to complain about my Book of Mormon course before I went on my mission. It was taught by a recently released mission president (who later became a general authority) who was just a local businessman. So incredibly boring. Taught sitting down and reading from the manual. I am surprised today that I ever wanted to read the Book of Mormon. These instructors there aren't the same kinds of instructors seen in other departments, although my Junior English professor was much the same.
The College of Religious Education is changing and improving. More people with PhD training in pertinent fields are being hired in the college, and the quality of research and writing is improving. I don't think it is fair or accurate to say that the entire department is filled with amateurs who are essentially teaching Sunday School for credit.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
It sounds like the author of that piece is saying "What Boyce said is doctrinally accurate, but he shouldn't have said it." That's always a difficult argument to make.
Johannes wrote:It sounds like the author of that piece is saying "What Boyce said is doctrinally accurate, but he shouldn't have said it." That's always a difficult argument to make.
The piece would have been more effective if he had done his own analysis and shown specifically how he disagrees with Boyce's readings.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I don't know if this was noted before, but I just noticed Bokovoy has also responded to this topic, with a post on Faith-Promoting Rumor:
August 16, 2017 by David Bokovoy Duane Boyce and the Interpreter: A Step in the Wrong Direction
....I believe that a healthy spiritual approach would encourage the pursuit of a variety of ways in which a believer might thoughtfully engage these issues. There is simply no need to use the type of inflammatory language Boyce adopts in an effort to establish proper religious boundaries of intellectual orthodoxy. Moreover, I believe that a distinction should be made between a spiritual critique versus an intellectual one. I would have more respect for Boyce’s attempt if he had actually acknowledged that it was primarily a critique of religious orthodoxy. At least then it would be an honest attack. Instead, Boyce presents a criticism based in religious belief and pretends that he is making an actual scholarly critique. Then he accuses Givens, Mason, and Hardy of being intellectually flawed AND religiously unorthodox. I find this fundamentally dishonest.....