{"id":169,"date":"2009-06-17T12:52:32","date_gmt":"2009-06-17T12:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/mormoninquiry\/2009\/06\/heresy-at-byu.html"},"modified":"2009-06-17T12:52:32","modified_gmt":"2009-06-17T12:52:32","slug":"heresy-at-byu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/mormoninquiry\/2009\/06\/heresy-at-byu.html","title":{"rendered":"Heresy at BYU"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 1911, when “heresy” wasn’t such a dated term, as related at Mormon Organon<\/a>. The whole episode (in which several BYU profs of that era came under suspicion for teaching the sort of things that are supposed to be taught at universities) sort of shows how heresy got such a bad name. Five out of six <\/em>BYU students signed a petition opposing the action against the faculty members. The language of the petition is quite persuasive (although it obviously didn’t persuade anyone in the LDS educational bureaucracy at the time). A couple of excerpts from the student petition:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Even if it were desirable for a Church school to maintain an attitude contrary to the generally accepted stand of the scientific world, it is absolutely impossible for the reason that, except in theology, the Church does not furnish adequate material for college work, and we must necessarily look elsewhere.<\/i> A good point for any denomination that wants to be in the education business.<\/p>\n

The general theory of evolution is not put forth as theological doctrine, but is held to simply as a working hypothesis, because of the great number of observable facts in Nature which it explains and to which it gives meaning. It will be discarded without a tear just as soon as another hypothesis is brought forth which explains a larger number of facts …<\/i> The emphasis on explaining facts still seems like a non-confrontational way to support the teaching of evolution at universities sponsored by conservative denominations.<\/p>\n

Other recent posts on this topic:<\/strong><\/p>\n