Elder Oaks speaks at Harvard.

[UtahDan]

Here is the transcript:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school

Not too kind to the academy:

Many factors contribute to our people’s predominant shallowness on the subject of religion, but one of them is surely higher education’s general hostility or indifference to religion. Despite most colleges’ and universities’ founding purpose to produce clergymen and to educate in the truths taught in their chapels, most have now abandoned their role of teaching religion. With but few exceptions, colleges and universities have become value-free places where attitudes toward religion are neutral at best. Some faculty and administrators are powerful contributors to the forces that are driving religion to the margins of American society. Students and other religious people who believe in the living reality of God and moral absolutes are being marginalized.

Some have suggested that religion is returning to intellectual life. In this view, religion is too influential to ignore in these times of the Taliban and the political influence of some religious organizations. But it seems unrealistic to expect higher education as a whole to resume a major role in teaching moral values. That will remain the domain of homes, churches, and church-related colleges and universities. All should hope for success in this vital task. The academy can pretend to neutrality on questions of right and wrong, but society cannot survive on such neutrality.

[SoonerCoug]

Wasn't he just speaking to the LDS student association at Harvard or someting along those lines?

[UtahDan]

Wasn't he just speaking to the LDS student association at Harvard or someting along those lines?

It says it was at the law school as part of the "Mormonism 101" series. It is clear from his remarks that they are not intended for an LDS audience (though no doubt that was a huge chunk of the audience). Who put it on I don't know.

[woot]

Here is the transcript:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school

Not too kind to the academy:

It sounds like he's wishing the academy would do his job for him. It's quite silly that he seems pissed about academics being "neutral at best" toward religion. I assume this means he'd be in support of Wiccans and Muslims and Heaven's Gaters preaching to students? Did he think for 5 minutes about his talk before he gave it?

[tooblue]

It sounds like he's wishing the academy would do his job for him. It's quite silly that he seems pissed about academics being "neutral at best" toward religion. I assume this means he'd be in support of Wiccans and Muslims and Heaven's Gaters preaching to students? Did he think for 5 minutes about his talk before he gave it?

Did you think for five minutes before posting? Lumping Muslims in with Wiccans and Heaven's gaters? Seriously?

[pellegrino]

It sounds like he's wishing the academy would do his job for him. It's quite silly that he seems pissed about academics being "neutral at best" toward religion. I assume this means he'd be in support of Wiccans and Muslims and Heaven's Gaters preaching to students? Did he think for 5 minutes about his talk before he gave it?

Now woot, don't get all huffy on us. Darwinists and academics have been pissed for years because of the dominance of religion in all sectors of society, now that the pendulum has swung the other way it's completely normal for religionists to express their displeasure. Just relax and enjoy the ride.

[Indy Coug]

It sounds like he's wishing the academy would do his job for him. It's quite silly that he seems pissed about academics being "neutral at best" toward religion. I assume this means he'd be in support of Wiccans and Muslims and Heaven's Gaters preaching to students? Did he think for 5 minutes about his talk before he gave it?

It sounds like you're ignorant about the historical roots of higher education --- who was the driving force behind it and the original purposes thereof.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is another article on the talk:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700012474/Dont-marginalize-religion-Elder-Oaks-says-to-Harvard-law-students.html

I am a little surprised at the harsh tone used by Oaks. Here is another example in addition to the quotes listed above:

.... on the subject of religion Americans in general are 'deeply religious' but 'profoundly ignorant.'

Ouch. And in the Q/A session, he finished up a question about evangelicals with what seemed like an unnecessary jab at some fellow religionists:

When asked by another student from Harvard Divinity School whether Mormons considered themselves to be evangelical Christians, Elder Oaks demurred. "In many organizational things that they do, we are not identified, and so it's a hard question to answer," Oaks said. "We sympathize with some things, but if a person were describing the religious landscape, I don't think we'd want to be listed in the religious landscape as evangelical Christianity. ... And from what I read about some of the pronouncements from some of their leaders, I think that feeling would be mutual."

Ironically, those same evangelicals would probably have agreed with most of his criticisms of secularism.

Is our cause helped by such aggressive language?

[Indy Coug]

I don't know if it helps, but what he said is absolutely right. Ask a question, get an answer.

[Fiyero]

This talk reads like the second draft of a talk that he gave to the legal profession three or four years ago. Many similar passages but taking it to the next level, with a harsher tone like JL just said.

[Indy Coug]

It's my opinion that our leaders as a general rule aren't blunt enough and that it is rapidly becoming the time in human history for "plain speaking".

[TripletDaddy]

Here is another article on the talk:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700012474/Dont-marginalize-religion-Elder-Oaks-says-to-Harvard-law-students.html

I am a little surprised at the harsh tone used by Oaks. Here is another example in addition to the quotes listed above:



Ouch. And in the Q/A session, he finished up a question about evangelicals with what seemed like an unnecessary jab at some fellow religionists:

Ironically, those same evangelicals would probably have agreed with most of his criticisms of secularism.

Is our cause helped by such aggressive language?

In fairness to D-Ho, his "profoundly ignorant" quote is actually a Gary Lawrence quote from his book, "How Americans View Mormonism."

After that part of the quote, he goes on to add context which I think isn't overly offensive, but actually illuminates the point he is trying to make

For example, 68% said they prayed at least several times a week, and 44% said they attended religious services almost every week. At the same time, only half could name even one of the four Gospels, most could not name the first book of the Bible, and 10% thought Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife

Some of these examples are actually fairly comical.

His next point is a bit puzzling.

Many factors contribute to our people’s predominant shallowness on the subject of religion, but one of them is surely higher education’s general hostility or indifference to religion. Despite most colleges’ and universities’ founding purpose to produce clergymen and to educate in the truths taught in their chapels, most have now abandoned their role of teaching religion.

I wonder about the accuracy of this statement. If we truly want our citizenry to be educated in basic matters of theology, why cite higher education (college/grad school) as the culprit? Seems like this talk would have been better given at an elementary school.

Do we really want religion being taught in grad school as part of standard curricula in engineering, science, law, and medicine? We are too diverse a nation to interject religion into matters that are largely secular. Perhaps I am misunderstanding his call for change.

I think his talk was a nice talk, though.

[RobinFinderson]

It will be interesting to watch as religion's place continues to slip among the most educated classes even as it thrives among the least educated classes. I've thought this was an accurate description of what has been going on in this country for some time, and now I can quote Elder Oaks as an LDS authority in agreement with me.

[woot]

Did you think for five minutes before posting? Lumping Muslims in with Wiccans and Heaven's gaters? Seriously?

False equivalence. Those are all things he disagrees with. I made no hint that they are similar other than being belief systems I doubt Oaks would want preached in school.

Now woot, don't get all huffy on us. Darwinists and academics have been pissed for years because of the dominance of religion in all sectors of society, now that the pendulum has swung the other way it's completely normal for religionists to express their displeasure. Just relax and enjoy the ride.

Oh I understand, it just seems like they should find ways to complain that aren't insane. It's not different from the Moms who insist on dressing their kids in pro-Jesus shirts but that will work to suspend any kid who wears an anti-Jesus shirt. Their position lacks consistency.

It sounds like you're ignorant about the historical roots of higher education --- who was the driving force behind it and the original purposes thereof.

Why do you think this matters? Things aren't allowed to change? As science and scholarship have become more serious endeavors, of course spiritual beliefs and their truth claims have been filtered out. I support philosophy and world religions classes as much as anyone, but preaching religion in any class should be frowned upon. I'm simply surprised that Oaks would suggest otherwise.

[I.J. Reilly]

Why do you think this matters? Things aren't allowed to change? As science and scholarship have become more serious endeavors, of course spiritual beliefs and their truth claims have been filtered out. I support philosophy and world religions classes as much as anyone, but preaching religion in any class should be frowned upon. I'm simply surprised that Oaks would suggest otherwise.

Wait, is this a claim that spiritual belief is not a "serious endeavor?"