Anyways, it seems once again that the SCMC is disquieting to people. In a recent thread on the aptly named MAD board, the hoary old specter of the SCMC has been raised once again:
John D the first wrote:Does the church have a tighter leash on scholarship? It seems like the church is actually more open to honest scholarship then it was at the time of Quinn's excommunication.
Also, what is the "strengthening of the members committee"? I've never heard of it from any pro-Mormon source. I also saw on one Anti-Mormon site that Daniel Peterson is part of it. IF this is true, maybe he can fill us in.
The responses, as one might expect, are of the "damage control" variety. Here's Calmoriah:
Do a search on the committee and you will find what Dan's experience amounted to--being asked by a member of the committee to go and speak to an individual with questions along with someone else (I think someone who knew the member).
He never claimed to be a member of the committee but that hasn't stopped some from insisting that he is.
Correction: he claimed to be an "agent" (his own words) for the committee, and admitted that he and his "friend" interrogated some man for nearly four hours in a confined space. Calmoriah makes it sound completely toothless and benign, though I doubt very much that it felt that way for the man being interrogated.
Here is our very own beloved Wade Englund, who is apparently very worried that people might misconstrue what the SCMC is all about:
wenglund wrote:From what I have gathered over the years, the function of the Correlation Committee is similar to that of the division of the State Education Department that sets the Core Curriculum. The intent for both entities is to ensure that the respective sets of students receive the very best education possible.
As for the Strengthen the Membership Committee, it's role is not unlike, in some ways, guidance counselors at school. Their function is pretty much described in their respective titles.
And, with all due respect to Michael Quinn, I think he may be inadvertantly projecting his very exclusive 1970's experience and perception of these committees onto today's general membership of the Church--who, most likely, haven't even a clue of the existence of these committees, let alone felt any adverse impact therefrom, though presumably they have reaped the benefits of a higher quality of spiritual education.
????? I find it curious that so many of the TBMs on the thread equate "a higher quality spiritual education" with the ferreting out of dissidents and contrary opinions.
Anyways, as was to be expected, DCP later swoops in to respond:
Daniel Peterson wrote:-A-
I actually work at BYU, so perhaps my experience should carry some weight: Nobody has ever -- not once -- told me what books to assign in a class or critiqued my course syllabi. Nobody has ever -- not a single time -- monitored my research or told me which articles to write, which books to work on, or what papers to deliver at which academic conferences.
-B-
The "Strengthening Church Members" committee, so far as I can tell, is little more than a small clipping service. Comparisons of it to a detective agency (let alone to the FBI or even the CIA or the Gestapo) are pure fantasy, with no basis in any reality that I'm aware of. And, no, I am not a "member" or "agent" of the committee. (Of course, I wouldn't admit it if I were, right? Time to put on our tin-foil helmets! And beware of those black helicopters hovering overhead!)
In response to -A-, well, obviously no one amongst the hierarchy is going to care, unless DCP starts doing things which reflect embarrassingly on the Church. As to -B-, I wonder why he consistently responds to questions about the SCMC with these silly, "tin foil hat" replies? His claim not to be an "agent" of the committee is in direct contrast to one of his earlier posts. I would be interested in seeing him explain why he has gone back on what he said earlier.
Most provocatively, a poster called "1/2shell" posited a series of questions to the Good Professor:
(red mod text ibid.)Daniel,
I am curious. Do you ever find yourself biting your tongue or refraining from saying something in a public forum (such as message boards) that might be in conflict with your position(s) at BYU?
Do you ever have to pull back in order to respect the fact that BYU is owned by the LDS church?
Does someone such as yourself who is visible both at BYU but publicly as well have to create a guideline for themselves in order to self monitor public comment?
Would you feel comfortable discussing your public record in a private (classroom or otherwise) setting?
Do you ever feel a disconnect between your private beliefs and your employer's expectations?
You will be the one feeling a disconnect if you ask personal none of your business questions. ~ Mods
Not surprisingly, DCP has not responded to any of these questions.
Sadly, the SCMC business has not yet been taken up by any of the posters, in favor of a discussion regarding academic conformity (which, in all fairness, was in the title of the thread). Quite a good post by a person called "Monkeyspawwish":
I am at UVSC in the Philosophy department, and I'm surprised at how many of our instructors and professors here were priorly employed at BYU. They were either fired, quit, or were "not re-hired" for various reasons--like Jeff Nielsen, the adjunct professor who was not re-hired because of his opinion article in the SL Tribune on the FMA. I think that a good academic institution (where people go to learn how to learn, not just learn how to believe) requires openness to questioning--questioning of the world around us, as well as the questioning of our own beliefs. This is sometimes not what BYU promotes. It is not BYU's will for students to leave the institution thinking that the LDS church may not be all there is. I just think it's not a good idea to mix religious beliefs at the same place and time as scientific exploration and ideological scrutiny (learning how to learn, not just believe.) In this way, I think people do not realize how BYU's education isn't as good as it's cracked up to be.
It will be interesting to see if the thread evolves. I will keep my eyes peeled.