Byu Prof Fears Mormon Scholars Are Giving In To Secularism

[JAHS]

"In recent years, Ralph Hancock has witnessed what he considers a troubling trend among Mormon intellectuals — the temptation to hide their faith under the bushel of moral relativism.

The Brigham Young University political science professor believes that many LDS bloggers and scholars — even at Mormonism’s flagship school — have fallen sway to secularism, which views equality as sameness, freedom as being without limits, and tolerance as more important than established morality, especially in sexual matters.

Such LDS progressives, he says, feel free to disagree with Mormon officials on issues such as same-sex marriage, the central role of the family in LDS theology and women’s ordination to the faith’s all-male priesthood.

And here is Hancock’s deepest concern: The "dominant orientation" of the so-called bloggernacle — the universe of Mormon blogs — "assumes the moral superiority of intellectuals to church authorities."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1872447-155/byu-prof-fears-mormon-scholars-are

 

I tend to agree with this trend to some degree. There seems to be a lot of bloggers out there who claim they are faithful members of the church but who sometimes surprise me with some of the stances they take on certain issues.

[ERayR]

Sounds pretty close to me.

[thesometimesaint]

If you want three different answers just ask two different Mormon's.

[Avatar4321]

We need to remember the Book of Mormon more

[Buzzard]

I agree with his last sentence.  I read some blogs from time to time, and the ones that are educated often come across as "I have a PhD, so I'm smarter than the General Authorities".  

The Brethren are not necessarily smarter, though there are some pretty smart men among them, but they are called to lead us.  If you don't want to be led, you might be in the wrong religion. 

[rockpond]

"In recent years, Ralph Hancock has witnessed what he considers a troubling trend among Mormon intellectuals — the temptation to hide their faith under the bushel of moral relativism.

The Brigham Young University political science professor believes that many LDS bloggers and scholars — even at Mormonism’s flagship school — have fallen sway to secularism, which views equality as sameness, freedom as being without limits, and tolerance as more important than established morality, especially in sexual matters.

Such LDS progressives, he says, feel free to disagree with Mormon officials on issues such as same-sex marriage, the central role of the family in LDS theology and women’s ordination to the faith’s all-male priesthood.

And here is Hancock’s deepest concern: The "dominant orientation" of the so-called bloggernacle — the universe of Mormon blogs — "assumes the moral superiority of intellectuals to church authorities."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1872447-155/byu-prof-fears-mormon-scholars-are

 

I tend to agree with this trend to some degree. There seems to be a lot of bloggers out there who claim they are faithful members of the church but who sometimes surprise me with some of the stances they take on certain issues.

It's a very interesting article and I think Hancock makes some good points, Miller as well. It could be the start of a very productive dialogue. That said, I also dislike what I feel is Hancock's frequent rebutall to those he disagrees with: he labels people and arguments as liberal/progressives and seems think that such is contrary to the gospel. But maybe I've misinterpreted him.

[Paddy]

There is a issue when American cultural and political ideology becomes a lens through which the gospel of Jesus is interpreted in an international church. Many members outside the U.S. don't particularly care about some issues that have become talking points by members in the U.S. The Bloggernacle is a worldwide endeavour to discuss and promote the church. It is going to have differences of opinions that look through the same lens as others.

[The Nehor]

I am worried that LDS political science professors are hung up on who other people are following.

[boblloyd91]

Well, I think I may stir the pot and point to the change in direction of the Maxwell Institute as possible evidence of this, especially when compared to the Mormon Interpreter's work since their founding.

[rongo]

I had Ralph Hancock for American Heritage at BYU back in 1993, and loved him and the class. I am very conservative, so there is an affinity there.

[tonie]

Another BYU Professor creating and promoting his own standard by which to judge members of the Church.

[tonie]

To discuss a point brought in the article:

 

Are Christians moral relativist?  

 

Does the following represent "Moral relativism?"

 

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is,..."

Edited November 28, 2014 by tonie

[ERayR]

Another BYU Professor creating and promoting his own standard by which to judge members of the Church.

 

Or more likely a genuinely concerned brother in the gospel.

[Pinecone]

I know of a BYU professor who directly told me that legalized child abortion is ok because it allows people to exercise their free agency.

This to justify his association with a political cause.

Goodbye Mr. Chips! The looney van has caught up with you.

[ERayR]

I know of a BYU professor who directly told me that legalized child abortion is ok because it allows people to exercise their free agency.

This to justify his association with a political cause.

Goodbye Mr. Chips! The looney van has caught up with you.

 

And this is relevant to the discussion of Mr. Hancock how?

[JAHS]

Or more likely a genuinely concerned brother in the gospel.

The problem is that some of these people are in direct conflict with current church leadership direction and they voice those concerns openly in public blogs and forums. Many faithful members might have similar concerns, but they keep it to themselves and faithfully wait on the Lord to make any needed corrections through the prophets. 

Edited November 28, 2014 by JAHS

[ERayR]

The problem is that some of these people are in direct conflict with current church leadership direction and they voice those concerns openly in public blogs and forums. Many faithful members might have similar concerns, but they keep it to themselves and faithfully wait on the Lord to make any needed corrections through the prophets. 

 

Yes there is plenty of that on this board.

[Pinecone]

And this is relevant to the discussion of Mr. Hancock how?

Moral relativism, which was discussed in the first sentence.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you want three different answers just ask two different Mormon's.

I disagree.

[Robert F. Smith]

The problem is that some of these people are in direct conflict with current church leadership direction and they voice those concerns openly in public blogs and forums. Many faithful members might have similar concerns, but they keep it to themselves and faithfully wait on the Lord to make any needed corrections through the prophets. 

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and a host of other prophets, since time immemorial, did not wait to hear from the Lord, but went to Him in humility (and much fasting & prayer) with their questions and concerns.  Every revelation came in answer to legitimate questions and concerns by the faithful.

 

Had fourteen year old Joseph Smith Jr not gone to that grove in humble prayer, the Restoration could have died aborning.  Had Jesus not gone to the Garden of Gethsemane to voice His concerns in humble prayer, but in willingness to accept the will of his Father, there could have been no Atonement.  Both could have refused to be in direct conflict with their respective religious leaders.  Both could have kept it to themselves and faithfully waited on the Lord to send someone else.

 

When the humble, but obedient Abraham objected to the Lord's plan to destroy Sodom, and tried to make a deal, the Lord actually heard him out and they reached a bargain.  No father is more proud of a child than when that child begins to accept responsibility and to behave as an adult -- to begin to distinguish himself from the common herd, and to exercise real moral agency, and to make independent decisions.

 

The path to exaltation can be very difficult, and the way lined with all manner of moral obstacles, but we learn nothing of value if we do not take the risk of failure.  Without the real risk of failure, there can be no achievement or success.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with his last sentence.  I read some blogs from time to time, and the ones that are educated often come across as "I have a PhD, so I'm smarter than the General Authorities".  

The Brethren are not necessarily smarter, though there are some pretty smart men among them, but they are called to lead us.  If you don't want to be led, you might be in the wrong religion. 

You might be right.

[Yirgacheffe]

I know of a BYU professor who directly told me that legalized child abortion is ok because it allows people to exercise their free agency.

This to justify his association with a political cause.

Goodbye Mr. Chips! The looney van has caught up with you.

That's not really very far from the idea that abortion is allowed in cases of rape because the rapist didn't allow for the woman's right to free agency in the choice to become pregnant.

[Pinecone]

That's not really very far from the idea that abortion is allowed in cases of rape because the rapist didn't allow for the woman's right to free agency in the choice to become pregnant.

I agree. But this BYU Professor was referring to all types of legalized abortions, not just in situations you described.

[mfbukowski]

I have no problem with this professor.

 

Face the facts- BYU exists to protect the church and the tender minds it trains.  That is a fact of life and if you think otherwise, you are naive.  It is not in the business of teaching controversial issues.

 

There has to exist at least one intellectual voice which supports the Brethren in all things consistently and that voice is BYU.  That is the reason for its existence.

 

If you want the secular point of view, you attend a secular university. 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

"In recent years, Ralph Hancock has witnessed what he considers a troubling trend among Mormon intellectuals — the temptation to hide their faith under the bushel of moral relativism.

The Brigham Young University political science professor believes that many LDS bloggers and scholars — even at Mormonism’s flagship school — have fallen sway to secularism, which views equality as sameness, freedom as being without limits, and tolerance as more important than established morality, especially in sexual matters.

Such LDS progressives, he says, feel free to disagree with Mormon officials on issues such as same-sex marriage, the central role of the family in LDS theology and women’s ordination to the faith’s all-male priesthood.

And here is Hancock’s deepest concern: The "dominant orientation" of the so-called bloggernacle — the universe of Mormon blogs — "assumes the moral superiority of intellectuals to church authorities."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1872447-155/byu-prof-fears-mormon-scholars-are

 

I tend to agree with this trend to some degree. There seems to be a lot of bloggers out there who claim they are faithful members of the church but who sometimes surprise me with some of the stances they take on certain issues.

Thank you for bring this issue to our attention, although our very presence on this Mormon blog tends to suggest that we are setting ourselves and our opinions up as superior to someone else's (including those of church leaders, who by the way also have disagreements with each other, and carry on vigorous debate in council, until the final decision is made).

 

Peggy's article was balanced and fair to both sides, which is more like a spectrum of opinion about how to react to cultural and moral diversity, not only here in America, but worldwide.  The response by faithful Mormons to such issues may range in diversity, whether we are considering the opinions of general authorities named Nibley & McConkie, or BYU professors named McConkie and Nibley, all now happily together on the other side of the veil.

 

One faithful intellectual may wonder whether we spend an inordinate amount of effort on ensuring outward appearance (instead of the heart), while another may worry that youth are intentionally cast adrift in a sea of moral relativism in the guise of grace & mercy.  Both may be right, and there may be a need for deliberate preparation and balance in a world fraught with dangers of all kinds.

 

I tend to think that Prof. Hancock goes too far in his expression of concern, but I consider him sincere.  The issue is certainly on the  minds of the Brethren, and they will consider his views, along with a host of other sincere but competing views -- which the Lord will take under consideration in His own due time, urged on by His prophets.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Robert F. Smith