I agree. At the same token, do we know if this individual prayed? It would appear that he didn’t but we don’t know until he told us whether or not he did.

yeah, i guess there should be more clarification. In the Peter and Paul example, Paul was an Apostle, on the same level as Peter disagreeing with Peter on an issue and letting him know quite clearly. But Paul, being an Apostle also, like Peter, received direct revelation from God on the running of the church, so that would be more akin to Elder Holland and Elder Eyring going at it today.

The example of Moses: Moses trusted in his father to counsel him on matters, so it isn’t some random Israelite who came to Moses and said, “your plan to feed us with mana from heaven sucks!”

So I still stand by my point that if we do not agree with something the Prophets have spoken, it is not arguing publicly with the prophets that we need to do, but instead, go to God Himself and ask Him, as He has told us to do when we lack wisdom.

Do we think the Brethren did not go to the Lord in prayer before coming out with their statement? Why shouldn’t we do the same before we speak publicly about what the Prophets said?

“I’m also sad because BYU evidently STILL haven’t gotten any decent PR folks, this being only the latest in a decade-long series of PR debacles…”

I can’t claim in special insight into this particular case, but knowing what I do about higher ed PR, I doubt that BYU’s PR crises over the years can be attributed to non-decent (indecent?) PR folks. Rather, I would guess that the issue is more with administrators (and — students, alumni, coaches, employees, and political officials) who don’t understand PR, don’t consult with PR folks before getting themselves into trouble and don’t make it easy to handle crisis communications situations after they occur.

It’s amazing how often PR people are the last to know — even when we stress over and over again to not take action and/or talk until you speak with us first. This is not to say that PR people have any say (or should have any say) over hiring decisions, student discipline, etc. In most cases, the act itself (that sparks the PR issue) can’t be avoided; however, what we can do is help everybody be clear about what’s going on and why and ensure that it proceeds with as much decorum, civility and by the book (or if there is room for interpretation then not by the book, but in the way that leads to the best feelings among the various parties involved) as possible.

In addition, BYU’s PR issues are certainly magnified and intensified by a press/punditry that is often openly hostile to the mission and environment of the institution itself.

Of course, if Nielsen was truly concerned about his relationship with BYU, he would have run his letter to the editor by the PR department thus providing an opportunity for him to work things out with the administration. Not that I blame him for not doing so. He did what he felt he needed to do, and he managed to get great PR for himself by doing so.

Perhaps since we’re used to a much stricter standard of speech and behavior with respect to the general authorities, we’re not as good at distinguishing between various levels of violations of it. I think that the Nielsen piece was needlessly and excessively antagonistic, especially for a BYU prof.

A friend who teaches at Notre Dame stopped by the other day, and the conversation inevitably turned to the gravely disappointing performance of Father John Jenkins in his first year as president. Against the claim that Notre Dame’s Catholic identity has been severely compromised, Fr. Jenkins regularly notes that 54 percent of the faculty is Catholic.

Ah yes, my friend says, it is probably true that 50 to 54 percent of the faculty are “checkbox Catholics.” He is referring to the fact that new faculty are invited to check a box indicating their religious preference, so to speak. One box is “Catholic,” another is “Christian, non-Catholic,” and a third is “Other.” Check “Catholic” and you are forever after counted as a Catholic–regardless of whether you believe or are observant, and maybe only because you were baptized in the Catholic Church. “Catholic” is closer than the other options on offer. If you don’t go to church, it is not just any church you’re not going to; you’re not going to the Catholic Church. A very large part of the 54 percent, I am told, is composed of checkbox Catholics.

The philosophy department at Notre Dame has about 60 faculty members. In 90 percent of the courses, friends at Notre Dame say, eminently pertinent documents such as the encyclicals Veritatis Splendor and Fides et Ratio are not read and, probably, not even referred to. In the world of academic certification, the philosophy department ranks 13th in the nation. The question persistently asked is not, “How do we create an authentically Catholic philosophy department?” but, “How do we get to a single digit?” To play in the big ten, you play by the rules of the big ten. What does Catholic have to do with it?

Notre Dame has an endowment of around 4 billion. That is largely the work of Fr. Ted Hesburgh, who led the school for 35 years and is now nearing ninety. Fr. Ted recognized that the alumni of Notre Dame are, with exceptions, “meat and potato Catholics.” He knew Notre Dame’s constituency. The community of the Holy Cross which founded Notre Dame, is different from the Jesuits. The Jesuits, Holy Cross priests will tell you, have typically accented the production of graduates who are marked by worldly success and deracinated Catholicism. Witness Georgetown and Boston College. Now, it is said, the same dilution of Catholic thought and life is increasingly evident at Notre Dame.

That may be excessively grim. There is much evidence of a vigorous Catholic life at Notre Dame. It is simply that it has a tenuous connection to the education that is offered, especially where one might most expect it, as in philosophy. In any event, it is not terribly reassuring that 54 percent of the faculty once upon a time checked the Catholic box.
(Richard John Neuhaus, FIRST THINGS, 6/16/2006)

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3951446

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3947340

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3947537

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3947531

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3947541

Then it has changed since I was there … ;)

DKL is concerned about Nielsen’s livelihood, about which he can rest soundly. Nielsen seems to have taught one course per semester. Whatever his teaching job was, it wasn’t his primary source of income. That gives him the freedom to say whatever he wants, but makes him much less relevant as an example of violated academic freedom.

The courses he taught seem to have related to his expertise in business organization, not to any academic background in philosophy. He wasn’t a professor, an assistant professor, or an adjunct professor. He was an instructor filling a particular role in the philosophy department. So the high language about academic freedom and open debate and the role of philosophy doesn’t impress me much in this case (where they might if an actual academic was actually being fired for actually teaching philosophy).

Stephen M suggested that Nielsen is using the incident as a springboard to a tenure-track job somewhere else, but that’s most likely not the case. Nielsen doesn’t have the academic qualifications to seek a tenure-track job. Even if he wanted to teach in a business department elsewhere, creating a very public controversy of any kind with your institutional leadership is not a smart career move for any part-time instructor anywhere.

So I believe that Nielsen is legitimately exercising his right to speak his mind, and he strikes me as sincere in doing so. While BYU is getting some bad PR, however, BYU as such didn’t fire Nielsen; his department chair did. Part-time contracts come with no presumption of renewal. I was an adjunct for two years, the whole time on a semester to semester contract, and if I had created more problems for my department head than I was worth, I would have been dropped like a hot potato. Tenure-track faculty are much less vulnerable to the decisions of a single department head, but a great deal more care is also invested in their hiring. There is much less to see here than you’d think.

If I’m wrong on the facts, please, let’s hear the truth of the matter. But there’s no point in debating tenure or academic freedom or climates of fear at BYU if they are irrelevant to the facts of the case.

“Third, the principle of common consent makes the the membership key arbiters of apostolic incompetence. Attempts by the church structure to quiet open discussion of the issue runs counter to that principle.”

Where has the church tried to quelch members from expressing their points of view on this issue?

In regards to Mr. Nielsen, it wasn’t the church that fired him, nor the BYU Administration, but the dean of his school. We do not know anything else about the situation, because nothing else has been brought to light.

In regards to the issue of SSM, can you show me any instances of the church trying to squelch Mr. Harry Reid’s voice? After all, he’s in a position of high influence, Senate Minority Leader and all.