Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Really? Looking at their site it looks to me like all students are required to take Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants.
saas.byu.edu/catalog/2008-2009ucat/UnivCore.php
- Status
saas.byu.edu/catalog/2008-2009ucat/UnivCore.php
J
jmcrae
Guest
The upper classes were certainly receiving education - it was they who were sending their sons to study for the priesthood, and their daughters to the convents, where they learned a great many liberal arts - in addition to the education given to those who were destined for civil leadership. Where are you getting the idea that the aristocracy was not being educated? (I thought we were discussing public education.)
K
kalt
Guest
You said that the CC was “actively” against education. Did you ever provide the information on that?Which doesn’t exactly help your case any, if you think about what you just wrote.It certainly took you guys longer than ‘3 seconds’ in any historical perspective.
I’m not the one insisting on a ‘modern concept of education.’ That would be you guys, equivocating. I’m saying that the church didn’t advocate ANY sort of education. No reading, writing, history studies…you know, education of any sort by any means–of the laity. The fact is, the Catholics could have continued the tradition of education that the cultures she came from had. The Greeks, Romans and Jews all educated their people. True, that education was mostly restricted to men and to people who could actually afford the teachers, but universities…institutions of learning–private tutors and teachers for hire–were very much around and very much active.
But the Catholics didn’t continue that aspect of those cultures, and didn’t begin educating the laity (or even approving the education of the laity by OTHERS) until over a thousand years after YOU claimed Catholicism came into being. That’s not exactly 'three seconds ago" in any historical perspective. If it took you guys a millenium to get your scholastic rears in gear, perhaps you should think twice about criticising a group that DID manage to handle the matter in our 'less than 3 seconds" of history.
As for you telling me to 'get over it…" Oh, come on. It wasn’t a problem for me; never has been. As I mentioned, I’ve written over 3000 posts on this forum and this is the first time I’ve said anything about Catholicism and education. There’s nothing for me to ‘get over…’ except this: when someone actually has the chutspah to criticise Joseph Smith (among whose first actions was to begin more than one school!) for not having as many universities as the Catholics did at the time he was born, I’m going to react to that with some…curmudgeonliness.
Especially in a thread where I"ve actually taken the Catholic side of the issue, and been treated as if I were a virulent and unreasonable opponent.
I agree that arguing that Mormons should have more schools–now or then–is dumb. But it’s dumb for the same reason your argument is dumb. Do 2 dumbs make a smart?
The 3 seconds ago refers to the period of history (modern era) not the time involved. Your church was** founded** in modern times–a mere 3 seconds ago. It’s not like your church was doing something that no one else was at the time.
K
kalt
Guest
I would be surprised if you do find a shameless membership drive in a school’s brochure. It just doesn’t happen. My son went to a Catholic HS, and no one tried to convert the non-Catholic kids. They weren’t allowed to attend so that “we” could get a captive audience to convert them. And the schools don’t use money as an incentive to enlarge membership.
Can you provide links to the schools you’ve looked at,so we can see what you’re talking about?
K
kalt
Guest
You say “discouraged” here, and you said “actively” so by the CC in an earlier post. Did you ever provide the CC documentation on that policy?
K
kalt
Guest
I just wish D would provide the CC documents she got this info from. She’s said, more than once now, that the CC actively prevented (or discouraged) everyone but the clergy from getting an education. If that were a policy of the CC, it would be written down. I’m not sure where D is getting her info, but a non-Catholic (maybe anti-Catholic) seems likely. I wonder if this is what Mormons teach their members about the CC. Comparing the CC’s role in education during the Dark Ages to the Mormon church’s in the 19th and 20th centuries is odd. Where in the world would someone come up with that? Is this how Mormons normally think of education–that they were pioneers? That the CC was “backward” for not organizing schools to educate every person–serf or lord–in the 14th century?! Just a bizzare argument.
Even in the US (the Protestant US, btw) during the colonial period, it wan’t common for a poor man’s kids to get an education. And the daughters of wealthy men got an education in only the things that the parents (and society) were worth paying for. There was no reason to teach the girls academics at the higher levels, since they would become wives and mothers, not businesswomen or doctors. Instead, they learned (at school) the fine art of housekeeping. (Needlework, etc.)
Times were different.
K
kalt
Guest
Thank you, to all of you, who are finding the truth for the rest of us. It seems that one thing is being said here, but that the truth is something not quite the same.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
As a parent with a non-Catholic student in a Catholic school I expect to have to pay more. I have no issue with that at all. One of the things I do have some issue with, and this is not just as a non-Catholic, but as a parent (and it’s a sentiment shared by many of our Catholic parents as well) is that we do not get any budget numbers.We get numbers from the committee’s running an auction or a festival that it raised $X, but after that there is no accounting for how it is spent. I don’t think it’s too much for a parent to say: “We’ve worked hard to raise money for the the school. Now show us where the money went.” Because that hasn’t been done, or can’t be done, there is continuous rumor that the parish church raids the school coffers when it so desires.
D
dianaiad
Guest
'Since when are parochial schools considered ‘public’ education?
You have, by the way, just proven my point rather than yours…the upper classes were getting educated–IF they joined the priesthood or became nuns. Remember, my claim all along has been that the Catholics reserved education for the clergy, and here you are…confirming that.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Any society which is run by a church that actively persecutes those who read books and think thoughts not approved of by the clergy is actively against education.
Given that arguing that Mormons should have more schools…when we have a better history in forming schools than just about any other group in history…is dumb, yes. Arguing that the fact that we didn’t instantly have more universities than the Catholics did when Joseph Smith was born, and that this fact makes our faith ‘useless’ is more than dumb–and that last argument is what makes my pointing out the slowness of Catholic educational endeavors valid.I agree that arguing that Mormons should have more schools–now or then–is dumb. But it’s dumb for the same reason your argument is dumb. Do 2 dumbs make a smart?
See, tu quoque is a fallacy when, say…a pot calls a kettle black. No matter who names the color, it’s still black. The problem comes when the pot calls the silver platter black and says that being black proves that it is inferior, untrue, false, stupid—or useless. First, we have the problem of the silver platter not actually BEING black (and the Mormons being incredibly proactive and involved in education), and the problem of…perhaps if the pot is not useless (and the Catholic church has gotten its act together and is firmly pro-education…and DID preserve a great deal of the world’s knowledge in its monasteries and convents), and it IS black (and the Catholic church did have a very slow start at educating the laity) then perhaps the pot ought to rethink the attacks it uses on others.
You know, the glass house and rocks scenario? Sauce for geese and ganders? He who is without sin throwing the first stone? Mote and beam? That sort of thing?
Ah, but we were.
At the time we were first growing, no other church was being hounded the way we were…and there were many other churches beginning. At the same time, none of the other churches coming into being at that time were forming universities. The Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, didn’t get around to it until 1874, and though they have quite a few small colleges and universities, none of them are ranked, never mind being tier 1 schools.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are rather critical of higher education in general, and prove that by not providing any.
Amish? Well…yeah…
Shakers …them neither.
Of course, there are those other Restorationists…the Stone-Campbell folks, who are responsible for Pepperdine University: and it is somewhat higher on the tier list than BYU is, to be honest.
Trouble is, the Churches of Christ didn’t start it. George Pepperdine did, in 1937; it’s a private college begun by a member who dedicated it to his faith, not by the church dedicating it to the members. Not that I am criticizing Pepperdine! Have you SEEN that campus? Wow. I’d love to go to school in Malibu!
…and that pretty much takes care of the ‘everybody else’ who was in our position at roughly the same time. A fair comparison isn’t between groups and what they were doing at the same time in the world’s history, but what they were doing at the same time in THEIRS.
So…the Mormons were educating their members from the very beginning, and had their first university going within 20 years of founding–in spite of being driven out of cities, and states, and the nation they called home–and having armies sent after them.
Nobody else, and I do mean NOBODY else, can say that.
M
MariaG
Guest
And?
And the point I was making is that ANOTHER reason Catholics get lower tuition is because of other Catholics who help support the school even though they have no children in it.
To give a discount to the non-Catholics is like telling grandma, who gave money to the schools to help her grandchildren, is told that her money is going to help a neighbor down the street but not her own grandchild. Or conversely, it is like telling grandma that it doesn’t matter how much money she gives to help with tuition, none will be applied to her grandchilds tuition.
You can’t separate out the two. The fact is, they do volunteer to help in the school, and the parish. And while the non-Catholics may volunteer in the school, they don’t volunteer in the Church and some of the support for the schools comes from the Church.
There is no subterfuge in the mission of Catholic schools. If you cannot comprehend the fact that there can be a discount given to Catholics who attend Catholic schools that teach catholicism to all who attend no matter how much they pay, I really can’t help you:shrug:
If it seems wrong to you, don’t send your child to a Catholic school.
M
MariaG
Guest
That would be seriously annoying. And I know that if it were me, it would be hard to think the best of the school/parish church.
T
TheosisM
Guest
sigh, I wish there was a Catholic discount for attending Georgetown 
D
dianaiad
Guest
It is obvious.
A: the Catholics were the primary controling cultural force in the western world for considerably over a thousand years.
B: During that time the Catholics educated their clergy.
C: During that time they did NOT have schools for anybody BUT the clergy.
E: During that time the schools for the laity were present in Byzantium and in areas controled by the Eastern Orthodoxy, but not in Catholic controlled areas.
F: Around the turn of the first millenium (about 1100 to 1200 AD, a few small colleges/universities, in order to stay in business, approached the church to ask her to approve of their existance and to allow them to provide an education to people who were thinking about joining the priesthood, but weren’t quite sure. They got the acreditation.
G: No other universities existed…if an institution of learning did not get that acreditation (though thats not what it was called, that’s what it, essentially, was…) they didn’t count. Their degrees were not recognized.
H: The Catholics themselves did not found a university until 14-something.
Since the other major Christian groups DID allow and sponser universities, and those universities flourished as long as the culture did, then the Catholics, living in the same time frame and having every inch as much (if not more) influence over their culture as these other Christian groups did, could have offered, or at least permitted, the same level of education.
Since that education did not exist under the Catholics–whereas it did elsewhere, the conclusion is logical…and inescapable.
The proof, I think, is this: as soon as the Catholics relaxed the stranglehold and actually encouraged learning and universities, they sprang up all over the place.
So my conclusion is based upon…if the cultures and the governments and the state of technology are pretty much the same everywhere (as is the way people farmed and lived) and education is prized in one place and not another, one can generally figure that the reason is the one thing the two areas did not have in common; the specific religion that formed the cultures involved.
I never, and I mean NEVER go to anti-Catholic sites or publications for information about Catholicism. I never even ask friendly non-Catholics. You know that about me- I’m vocal enough about it.
I simply look at history.Not religious history, just plain history.
J
jmcrae
Guest
They are meant for general members of the public who are Catholic, are they not?
Educational opportunities were utilized by the upper classes and the clergy - yes.You have, by the way, just proven my point rather than yours…the upper classes were getting educated–IF they joined the priesthood or became nuns. Remember, my claim all along has been that the Catholics reserved education for the clergy, and here you are…confirming that.
The lower classes were not clamoring at the doors asking to be let in - they had more important things occupying their time.
The first public university came into existence during the 1000s AD, which is the same time period as the discovery/introduction of a common written numerical system. That’s probably not a coincidence - once it became possible to write an accounts ledger using the base-10 system, a lot of other things also became easier to do, freeing up time for things like school.
K
kalt
Guest
Any society which is run by a church that actively persecutes those who read books and think thoughts not approved of by the clergy is actively against education.
You’ve made the same claim many times in this thread, but you still haven’t provided a shred of evidence. What gives? Don’t you have that evidence? If not, what are you basing this claim on?
You still don’t get it. Education wasn’t an unusual thing “3 seconds” ago. And don’t you think the fact that they were driven out of other places, which had establised education systems, could have been a factor in the Mormon’s creating their own system? Sounds like it was a case of do it yourself or do without. And, again, it was done at a time (3 seconds ago) when education wasn’t a rare idea.
FWIW, I’m not arguing that the CC is better than the Mormon church because it had more universities, so you can save those details for the person who is. We were talking about your comparing the CC in pre-modern times to the Mormon church in modern times.
Now, if you could provide us with the evidence for your claim. You said that the CC was “actively” discouraging education. Can you provide the Catholic documents that detail this action? If not, where did you get this information? It seems that you a drawing a conclusion without direct evidence. It’s what you think must have happened, and you’re basing this on the limited knowledge you have of the era. That’s fine if you say “I think it must have been…”. But you’re saying “the CC actively”, which is a very different thing. You are stating it as fact, but aren’t providing anything by your guesses on what “must have happened”.
Like it or not, times do matter. As I said in a much earlier post, nothing comes from nothing. Introducing education improves the society, but “education” has to have a purpose for the poor to accept it. They have studied the Amish, and though they don’t learn the same things that kids in the rest of the country learn, they know as many facts. If an Amish child is determined to stay “on the farm” and be a woodworker, will he see value in an English degree, or a Political Science degree? Come to think of it, is there much value in either degree for anyone? (Friend and relative of English/Political Science degree-holders who wonder what in the world they were thinking.
So, education improves society and the individual, but it’s society that determines whether education is valued or not. These two things aren’t separate. If you don’t think so, move into a poor city neighborhood that is controlled by gangs. See how many in that “society” value the education that is available to all of them. Do you think they would start their own schools if none were available to them already?
It’s nice to think that education is a value that everyone appreciates. But it’s not true. It was especially not true in pre-modern times. Education through most of history wasn’t what it is today.
Travel the globe and see how education is handled in other societies. Do some research into recent history of civil unrest and see the effect on the society, particularly the effect on education, to see how easily it is lost.
Time and place do matter.
K
kalt
Guest
Thank you for making the point I was trying to, but failing. To think that education will spring up out of nothing and for no particular, practical purpose is to assign a modern of idea of education to pre-modern people, and worse, is to blame them for not having a modern sense of education, which is really just senseless.They are meant for general members of the public who are Catholic, are they not?
Educational opportunities were utilized by the upper classes and the clergy - yes.
The lower classes were not clamoring at the doors asking to be let in - they had more important things occupying their time.
The first public university came into existence during the 1000s AD, which is the same time period as the discovery/introduction of a common written numerical system. That’s probably not a coincidence - once it became possible to write an accounts ledger using the base-10 system, a lot of other things also became easier to do, freeing up time for things like school.
We are blessed to live in a time when viewing education for education’s sake is possible. Many of us (but not all) want our kids to get a college education, even if they are going to do work that doesn’t require a degree. We value education for education’s sake in a way that people didn’t in the past.
It’s easy to pat yourself on the back for having this lofty ideal of education, but let’s be honest–this ideal came about because at one point a higher education paid dividends for more than just the elite. For that to happen, society had to have some sort of class mobility (that’s not the right term–hope you know what I mean) so that people who weren’t rich already could pay for an education and hope to recoup the expenses and then some. Ask a tenant farmer to pay for a university education for the kid who would never be able to rise above his social standing anyway?
- Status