DiscussMormonism.com

I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I imagine that they have a difficult time being objective, as even the syllabus encounters issues wherein subconsciously it plays in the favor of the "one true faith".

I imagine they would be as objective as any religious school with an agenda. I did a semester at Falwell's excuse for a school, and the "disclaimer" in my biology syllabus pretty much said that they didn't believe in the stuff (science), but were teaching it for accredidation. Mind you, we stayed on the same chapters of DNA for the entire semester.

GIMR wrote:I imagine they would be as objective as any religious school with an agenda. I did a semester at Falwell's excuse for a school, and the "disclaimer" in my biology syllabus pretty much said that they didn't believe in the stuff (science), but were teaching it for accredidation. Mind you, we stayed on the same chapters of DNA for the entire semester.

Wow, the whole semester? I imagine theres a point when you realise its a scam I guess. That would have been mine.

Mercury wrote:

GIMR wrote:I imagine they would be as objective as any religious school with an agenda. I did a semester at Falwell's excuse for a school, and the "disclaimer" in my biology syllabus pretty much said that they didn't believe in the stuff (science), but were teaching it for accredidation. Mind you, we stayed on the same chapters of DNA for the entire semester.

Wow, the whole semester? I imagine theres a point when you realise its a scam I guess. That would have been mine.

I dropped them about 3/4 of the way in. Talk about redundant. I go to a Christian school now, but at least you're allowed to disagree. I do that all the time, it's fun. Regent is most definitely conservative in their leanings, but I refuse to be a puppet. One of my "required courses" is some dumbass class on cults, I wonder what they'll say about the LDS church, and how much correcting I'm going to have to do. I've been lucky so far, none of my professors have objected to my speaking "out of turn/out of the box", though a few students have. But Regent has teachers from all across the globe teaching their online classses, so perhaps that accounts for the diversity I've seen so far. But it's bound to get interesting. I'm only persuing my BA with them. I want a more serious school for my Master's....something tells me Regent won't let their students read Gnostic texts and stuff like that...

The Book of Mormon classes are what you'd expect, seminary. None of the religion classes are "real" in the sense that you'd apply critical methods but they might be less Sunday School than some might think depending on the teacher. My history of Christianity class was really good and basically just that without much mention of the restoration. The teacher for my world religion class insisted that every historical religious leader was in fact a true prophet and became very irritated with students who questioned that. And then I had an New Testament class with a grad student who obviously thought of himself as a rebel and disdained RMs who thought they were scriptorians. He liked my term paper (half a joke) that went for an existential interpretation of the atonement and nearly flat out denied the divinity of Christ.

They are not objective, and their teachers would make no claim or effort to be objective. The point of the courses is to increase faith, 'Gospel understanding,' and obedience to 'Gospel principles.'

Don

DonBradley wrote:They are not objective, and their teachers would make no claim or effort to be objective. The point of the courses is to increase faith, 'Gospel understanding,' and obedience to 'Gospel principles.'

I agree with this assessment. The only apologetic rationale I learned in any of my religion classes at BYU was the two Cumorah theory. My Pearl of Great Price class never mentioned the controversy with the Book of Abraham. I believe that the required religion classes at BYU are designed to offset the secular learning of the students' other courses. I don't know how it is with the upper division religion classes...I only took what was minimally required.

Mercury wrote:I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I imagine that they have a difficult time being objective, as even the syllabus encounters issues wherein subconsciously it plays in the favor of the "one true faith".

THey pretty much are like advanced seminary classed and do not explore difficult issues at all.

Jason Bourne wrote:

Mercury wrote:I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I imagine that they have a difficult time being objective, as even the syllabus encounters issues wherein subconsciously it plays in the favor of the "one true faith".

THey pretty much are like advanced seminary classed and do not explore difficult issues at all.

What of comparative religion courses? Do they have them? if they do is it just one analysis after another telling the student what aspects of the great whore this or that particular religion is?

Mercury,

yes, they do (as i wrote in my post). It's basically just a memorization exercise. Buddhists believe this, Hindus believe that. There was no judgement. In fact, as I mentioned in my post, my teacher frustrated students because of this, and insisted that every major religious figure in history was a true prophet. A lot depends on the teacher. There is a big orange book (or was) called "world religions" you can get from that church supply place.