Posted on 06/14/2006 3:09:59 PM PDT by DBeers
PROVO - As an American citizen, Jeffrey Nielsen felt compelled to publicly question the LDS Church's opposition to same-sex marriage. As a Brigham Young University instructor, he now is paying the price.
The LDS-owned school will not rehire Nielsen after spring term because of his remarks in an op-ed piece earlier this month.
"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," the part-time philosophy teacher and practicing Latter-day Saint wrote in the June 4 Salt Lake Tribune.
Four days after the column ran, BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham sent Nielsen a letter informing him of his dismissal.
"In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church," the letter reads. "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over."
Besides losing his BYU job, Nielsen now fears he could lose something more precious: his church membership.
"I have no desire Related Articles LDS authority and gay marriage to be anything but a member," he said Tuesday in an interview.
LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle said members are free to voice their own opinions. He cited Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon who also opposes amending the Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
The Nevada Democrat did, however, vote for a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and also for the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The problem for Nielsen is that he could not continue to collect a BYU paycheck while challenging church leaders.
Nielsen, who has taught at BYU for several years, said he was scheduled to teach classes summer, fall and winter. For now, he plans to finish teaching this term.
BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said the decision to let Nielsen go came from the philosophy department.
"The department made the decision because of a recent opinion piece that publicly contradicted and opposed a statement by the First Presidency," Jenkins said. "Such contradiction is in violation of university policy."
In a statement read over pulpits the week before Nielsen's column ran, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.
Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles went to Washington to show the church's support for the measure.
Despite that push and a flood of letters from Mormons, the Senate rejected the amendment June 7.
Like thousands of Latter-day Saints, Nielsen chose to express himself on the matter. His stand, however, was in public opposition.
"Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear," Nielsen wrote. "Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim."
Nielsen's column also criticized church leaders, saying he finds "quite troubling" their statement that God has ordained marriage as a union between one man and one woman - especially given the faith's history with polygamy.
He stressed he sustains the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles but rejected the premise that they are "immune from thoughtful questioning or benevolent criticism."
"In my mind, there is no contradiction between raising some questions and concerns and at the same time sustaining" church leaders, he said Tuesday. "Even though I realize, for the vast majority of church members, those two things are contradictory."
Nielsen maintains he wasn't attacking religious or theological claims, but rather commenting on a moral issue.
Former BYU professor David Knowlton can empathize with Nielsen's position.
Knowlton was denied tenure from the Provo university in 1993 after he criticized the church's missionary program in the independent Sunstone forum.
"Obviously, the decision is unfortunate," said Knowlton, now an associate professor of anthropology at Orem's Utah Valley State College. "I really feel for him and his family because it's a horrible thing. I've been through it."
Nielsen acknowledged the fallout has been rough on him, his wife and his children. He said he never meant to create conflict but added he felt the need to speak out.
The father of four conceded he has endured sleepless nights since the column appeared but reaffirmed Tuesday he is sticking by his views and his religion.
"I'm walking a very fine line here, trying to do what I think is morally correct," Nielsen said, "and at the same time maintain my membership."
Nielsen has more questions
Opposition to same-sex marriage isn't the only LDS Church stand Jeffrey Nielsen questions. The part-time Brigham Young University instructor, who will not be rehired for contradicting church statements, said he wants to address other moral and social issues. He urges church leaders to:
The opinion piece:
Well, if you criticize your boss in public, you might want to consider the consequences of it beforehand.
If you don't believe in the tenants of the Church in which you claim membership and that Church owns the university at which you serve as a teacher, what else would you expect when you display your opposition. Neither the Church nor the University is a democracy. Uphold and support the Church and its standards or go find another gig.
If he feels that strongly about gay marriage, I applaud his decision to sacrifice his employment at an institution that opposes his deeply-held beliefs.
Best of luck to him in finding a pro-gay faith community to join. (There are plenty out there.)
Too bad the Catholic church doesn't have the cohones to do the same at their schools.
College Education ping list
Let Republicanprofessor, JamesP81 or McVey know if you wish to be placed on this ping list or taken off of it.
Sounds like he needs more practice.
Most Catholic schools are as relentlessly liberal as the secular schools.
And Catholic schools have a point of view that is even harder to overcome since they tend to CRUSH opposing opinions.
They stand for "Social Justice." Otherwise known as repression.
Nielsen acknowledged the fallout has been rough on him, his wife and his children. He said he never meant to create conflict but added he felt the need to speak out.
Promoting the illegitimate platitude of "homosexual marriage" versus putting food on the table and supporting your family???
--Nielsen makes the dumb lemming choice and heads cliff bound -a methodology that defines the political party of irrelevancy...
Homosexual marriage is a noble cause only in delusional minds and irrelevant political parties...
Martyring oneself for an illegitimate cause and then claiming victimhood status IS the dummiecrat way...
"State clearly the the church's position on the past denial of priesthood to blacks.
Clarify the nature of polygamous teachings in the church, both past and future. "
Reveal "real membership numbers" and churchwide activity rates.
Allow worthiness interviews between church leaders and teenage members to occur only in the presence of a parent or guardian.
Permit nonmember or non-tithe-paying parents to attend their children's LDS temple weddings.
I think his some of his other questions were quite interesting.
I had no idea parents who weren't tithing are not allowed to attend their kids' wedding. Thats messed up.
I’ve never understood people who try to mold an existing faith and tenant to conform to what they believe rather trying first, to find a belief and faith that fits better what they believe.
To each their own. There are many reasons why I don’t call myself a Catholic or even a Christian anymore but I truly respect their beliefs and am not out to change them or their faith or the tenants of their faith.
Actually, from reading his article, it seems that his offense wasn't so much his objection to the Church's political campaign to impose its beliefs on non-members, but that he carried the argument much further, and expressed strong disagreement with how the Church requires its members to arrange their family lives. A couple of years ago, the heavily censored BYU student newspaper ran a letter to the editor from a student, expressing opposition to the political campaign, and it didn't seem to cause any fuss; but the student did not carry the matter further and express objections to Church teachings regarding members' marriages. This teacher can't seriously expect the Church-owned university to continue to employ him, when he is publicly expressing disagreement with what the Church requires of its own members. Religious groups run their own schools and universities in order to provide their members with an education which is consistent with the group's religious teachings.
I find the Church's political campaign to be appallingly hypocritical, however. This is a Church which long claimed the right to practice polygamy, no matter how distasteful and immoral the majority of U.S. citizens thought it was, and only gave up the practice under military force from the federal government. Now they want to dictate marriage laws for non-Mormons?
If he thinks this is hard on his family, wait until they find out he is gay.
No, they want to have the same ability to impact public policy as environmentalists, abortionists, gun-foes, gun rights advocates, etc.
Ping?
Nobody who isn't a Church member in good standing, and holding a current "temple recommend" is allowed to enter the temples for any reason. Tithing isn't a special requirement, it's just one of many requirements for "worthiness" to hold a temple recommend. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. They want the temples to be special places, reserved for members who have a serious commitment to the faith. The "wedding" ceremony is unlike any other faith's ceremony, and focuses on matters which are baffling to anyone not familiar with the religion, and not believed by anyone other than faithful members. When a ceremony is about being "sealed for eternity", it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have guests in attendance who don't actually believe that's possible.
I think America's cultural obsession with weddings is absolutely sick, and I think it's at the root of the objections to restrictions on guests at Mormon temple weddings. It's considered normal in this country for parents of the bride, and/or the couple themselves to spend a colossal amount of money on an extravagant wedding, and for the bride and her mother to be utterly obsessed with the details of the dresses, menu, flowers, venue, etc. for as much as a year leading up to the wedding. The marriage itself seems like an unimportant afterthought. This sort of nonsense has never been prevalent in Mormon culture (though there are certainly wedding receptions, and no restrictions on who may attend them).
And no, I'm not a Mormon -- just an objective observer of their culture.
I agree. I don't understand why a person would be a member of a religious body if he doesn't believe what it believes. It seems like it should be a no-brainer, but apparently not, for some!
Those other groups don't have the same sort of inherent hypocrisy in their campaigns. And due to it's size and highly structured organization, one would think the LDS Church would have a tremendous amount of indirect influence on this issue, without conducting a direct campaign. Frankly, I think the leaders are a tad nervous that legal recognition of gay marriage would quickly lead to legal recognition of polygamy/polyandry, and a new surge of interest in the polygamy from some segments of the membership, and perhaps the development of some new polygamous sects that have a lot more respectability than the current child-molesting polygamous Mormon cult groups (one of which currently has its leader featured on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.