Byu Prof Fears Mormon Scholars Are Giving In To Secularism

[mfbukowski]

The Brethren are qualified to academically comment in areas in which they are academically trained.   You don't ask an accountant about brain surgery.

 

The are ordained by the Lord to lead us and guide us by the Spirit.  That doesn't mean that they give legal advice or know how to build a skyscraper, unless they are lawyers or engineers as well.

 

But everyone has an opinion on philosophy, trained or not.  Go figure.

[why me]

It is no surprise that this is happening because of the spread of information. It can be overwhelming when it comes to independent thought. Members can get sucked into the secular machine since that maching is very powerful. Then we are no longer the light of the world but just part of the world and our light is just as deem.

 

In the past, the threat was from mobs. Now it is from within by the members themselves. We have seen this even on this forum. Members need to "read the word and the world", so they do not become part of the world by going with the flow. But it may be a lost cause as long as members are reading blogs and engaging in discussion forums.

 

When I think about it, all the time spent reading blogs and participating on discussion forums could be better spent by just reading the scriptures and reflecting on the words.

 

But on the other hand, someone has to defend the church against critics and secular members.

Edited November 28, 2014 by why me

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

 

I agree.

[mormonnewb]

 

"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.

 

 

If I understand correctly, Professor Hancock's point is that Mormon intellectuals are too "thinky."  In other words, they are exercising too much independent thought and not enough blind obedience to the Brethren.  Well, I truly hope that my dear brother is 100% correct because that is precisely the job of an intellectual -- to use her INTELLECT ... not her OBEDIELECT.

 

And let's be clear.  I'm not knocking the concept of blindly following the Prophet (well, not in this thread, at least).  I'm simply saying that this is not the job of an intellectual or scholar.  It might be the job of a bishop, SP or even a BYU professor -- to follow the lead of those higher in the "chain of command."  But certainly, a Mormon intellectual employed at, say, Harvard University, has every right to use her intellect to draw the most supportable conclusion from the available data.  In fact, let's be clear.  Such a person has a DUTY to her institution to do just that -- be a scholar.

 

Now, if Professor Hancock would like to use his intellect to persuade scholars that the Brethren are actual right about a certain issue, then by all means, he should do so.  However, to lament the fact that too many people are using their brains is quite comical coming from a "university" professor and bolsters my growing suspicion that the term "university" is a misnomer for the Academy in Provo.

[The Nehor]

If I understand correctly, Professor Hancock's point is that Mormon intellectuals are too "thinky."  In other words, they are exercising too much independent thought and not enough blind obedience to the Brethren.  Well, I truly hope that my dear brother is 100% correct because that is precisely the job of an intellectual -- to use her INTELLECT ... not her OBEDIELECT.

 

And let's be clear.  I'm not knocking the concept of blindly following the Prophet (well, not in this thread, at least).  I'm simply saying that this is not the job of an intellectual or scholar.  It might be the job of a bishop, SP or even a BYU professor -- to follow the lead of those higher in the "chain of command."  But certainly, a Mormon intellectual employed at, say, Harvard University, has every right to use her intellect to draw the most supportable conclusion from the available data.  In fact, let's be clear.  Such a person has a DUTY to her institution to do just that -- be a scholar.

 

Now, if Professor Hancock would like to use his intellect to persuade scholars that the Brethren are actual right about a certain issue, then by all means, he should do so.  However, to lament the fact that too many people are using their brains is quite comical coming from a "university" professor and bolsters my growing suspicion that the term "university" is a misnomer for the Academy in Provo.

I can never find out who these supposed intellectuals are that are qualified to speak on every subject. I have only heard a few people claim the title and they were all self-satisfied douchebags. In their own sphere those educated on matters should speak but pitting your wisdom against that of the oracles of God is saying that either the oracles are off by a vast margin or that you know better then God. If you believe either you are unlikely to honestly stay LDS for long.

[LinuxGal]

I can never find out who these supposed intellectuals are that are qualified to speak on every subject. I have only heard a few people claim the title and they were all self-satisfied douchebags.

 

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."  --Jesus Christ

[Senator]

 

"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.

 

 

Hear, hear!!

 

I am sick and tired of these Babylon and Zion straddling "saints".  The time has come for a massive church-wide "call out" for all these "faithful" members of the church, to choose whose side they are one. The final cut for Team Church has come.

 

What say ye??

[Bobbieaware]

If I understand correctly, Professor Hancock's point is that Mormon intellectuals are too "thinky."  In other words, they are exercising too much independent thought and not enough blind obedience to the Brethren.  Well, I truly hope that my dear brother is 100% correct because that is precisely the job of an intellectual -- to use her INTELLECT ... not her OBEDIELECT.

 

And let's be clear.  I'm not knocking the concept of blindly following the Prophet (well, not in this thread, at least).  I'm simply saying that this is not the job of an intellectual or scholar.  It might be the job of a bishop, SP or even a BYU professor -- to follow the lead of those higher in the "chain of command."  But certainly, a Mormon intellectual employed at, say, Harvard University, has every right to use her intellect to draw the most supportable conclusion from the available data.  In fact, let's be clear.  Such a person has a DUTY to her institution to do just that -- be a scholar.

 

Now, if Professor Hancock would like to use his intellect to persuade scholars that the Brethren are actual right about a certain issue, then by all means, he should do so.  However, to lament the fact that too many people are using their brains is quite comical coming from a "university" professor and bolsters my growing suspicion that the term "university" is a misnomer for the Academy in Provo.

I would put it this way: "To much independent thought and not enough listening to the voice of the Spirit." Can you show us any verse of scripture in the standard works that indicates intellectualism is superior to inspiration by the Holy Ghost when it comes to obtaining a true knowledge of the things of God. Powerful intellects are rendered doubly so when amplified by God's clarifying Spirit.

[thesometimesaint]

The Brethren are qualified to academically comment in areas in which they are academically trained.   You don't ask an accountant about brain surgery.

 

The are ordained by the Lord to lead us and guide us by the Spirit.  That doesn't mean that they give legal advice or know how to build a skyscraper, unless they are lawyers or engineers as well.

 

But everyone has an opinion on philosophy, trained or not.  Go figure.

 

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

[LinuxGal]

Can you show us any verse of scripture in the standard works that indicates intellectualism is superior to inspiration by the Holy Ghost when it comes to obtaining a true knowledge of the things of God. 

 

Superior?  No.  In conjunction with faith, yes.

 

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD...

 

Proverbs 4:5-6 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

[tonie]

Hear, hear!!

 

I am sick and tired of these Babylon and Zion straddling "saints".  The time has come for a massive church-wide "call out" for all these "faithful" members of the church, to choose whose side they are one. The final cut for Team Church has come.

 

What say ye??

 

I say you should read and apply Alma 31, your life.  You should also read and apply to your life, James 4:10 - "Humble yourselves before the Lord".  You should also read and apply Mosiah 4:26 to your life. 

 

Thankfully, the Lord is incharge. And not you and your cohorts - having supposed within yourselves are the only ones to be found faithfull. 

Edited November 28, 2014 by tonie

[tonie]

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.

 

 

Then you are learning that the general membership of the Church learns and lives "line upon line".  And you might also come to realize that the general membership of the Church feast at the what they see as the buffet of the Gospel, picking and choosing what to put on their plate.

[JAHS]

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.

I consider this part of waiting on the Lord with regards to how the membership sees it.. Waiting on the Lord does not mean the prophet sits around and is suddenly struck with a revelation out of the blue. Occasionally it might happen that way. But he will normally go to the Lord with questions or concerns and get the needed inspiration and revelation or doctrine. Questions from members should go through the proper channels.   It is not the job of the "intellectuals" and many bloggers to tell the world what they think the prophet should be seeking revelation about in open public blogs or to the news media (and what answer he should get) and saying how wrong the prophet or church is for not making corrections that they think are needed. 

[mormonnewb]

I consider this part of waiting on the Lord with regards to how the membership sees it.. Waiting on the Lord does not mean the prophet sits around and is suddenly struck with a revelation out of the blue. Occasionally it might happen that way. But he will normally go to the Lord with questions or concerns and get the needed inspiration and revelation or doctrine. Questions from members should go through the proper channels.   It is not the job of the "intellectuals" and many bloggers to tell the world what they think the prophet should be seeking revelation about in open public blogs or to the news media (and what answer he should get) and saying how wrong the prophet or church is for not making corrections that they think are needed. 

 

Then who's job is it to do such things -- the ignorant and stupid?

 

Why do we spend so much time training our children in academic pursuits if they are NOT to use their intellects in assessing the most important questions in life?

[thesometimesaint]

Then who's job is it to do such things -- the ignorant and stupid?

 

Why do we spend so much time training our children in academic pursuits if they are NOT to use their intellects in assessing the most important questions in life?

 

Academia can't answer those questions.

[strappinglad]

I dislike the use of the phrase " Blind Obedience ". I have been in this church over 60 years and have never been told to ' just do it and shut up ' . I always had a choice to follow or not. Besides, just what earthshattering decisions must I make when asked to follow. Love my neighbor ? don't gossip? be wise with finances? be prepared? pray? read the scriptures? avoid addictions? serve? Yes, those decisions are right up there with " We want you to strap explosives on your chest and destroy a kindergarten " .

[JAHS]

Academia can't answer those questions.

 

Exactly.  And even for things of a more secular nature, the church leadership are very aware of what is going on in the world and how it might affect the members. They can see a much bigger picture than the individual member with their own agenda can, and make inspired decisions that will benefit the entire church in the best way possible.

[mormonnewb]

Exactly.  And even for things of a more secular nature, the church leadership are very aware of what is going on in the world and how it might affect the members. They can see a much bigger picture than the individual member with their own agenda can, and make inspired decisions that will benefit the entire church in the best way possible.

 

CFR.  Please point me to an example of church leadership "seeing the big picture" and "making inspired decision that benefit the entire church in the best way possible" in dealing with a secular issue.  And yes, I'll wait.

 

Or are you suggesting that the Church's neutral stance during the Civil Rights Movement and its subsequent slowness in revealing the "will of the Lord" to finally lift the priesthood ban were in the best interest of the Church and its membership?

 

Or perhaps, you are suggesting that the Church's intervention into the political process in Prop 8 helped stem the tide of same-sex marriage?  Or that these actions helped poise the Church as a voice of compassion and love for our brothers and sisters "suffering from same-sex attraction"?

 

Of course, no one (not even prophets) are going to bat 1,000.  That being said, perhaps we would occasionally luck up unto the right side of history if those dreaded "scholars" and "intellectuals" were consulted (or at least, felt free to speak up without fear of being labeled "apostates").

 

And don't get me wrong.  I think that Church leaders often make inspired decisions with regards to Church policies and programs.  I've belonged to quite a few churches and I have yet to encounter one that was run remotely as well as this church.  However, with regards to secular matters, we might want to leave that sphere to the "proud and arrogant," because not all of us would fare so well living in the "good old days" (circa 1845).

[The Nehor]

Then who's job is it to do such things -- the ignorant and stupid?

 

Why do we spend so much time training our children in academic pursuits if they are NOT to use their intellects in assessing the most important questions in life?

Because the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Without divine guidance we are certain to get it wrong......even if we have degrees.

[The Nehor]

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."  --Jesus Christ

I am not angry. I am just saying they are stupid like everyone else.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................. Questions from members should go through the proper channels. ...................................

..........................................................................

And just what might those "proper channels" be?  Can you give me some examples?

 

Intellectuals such as Hugh Nibley participated in open debate on the issue of race and the priesthood in the Spring 1973 issue of Dialogue and probably rendered a service to the Brethren in doing so.  They did not even consider going through "proper channels."  Why would they?

[why me]

CFR.  Please point me to an example of church leadership "seeing the big picture" and "making inspired decision that benefit the entire church in the best way possible" in dealing with a secular issue.  And yes, I'll wait.

 

1. the church has counseled members not to overspend and be thrifty with money. And to try to stay out of useless debt.

 

2. The church's view on pornography was years ahead of secular society.

 

3.  the word of wisdom has saved many lives.

 

4. the proclamation of the family seems the  correct way to go.

 

5.  the counsel to youth seems light years ahead of secular society.

 

6, stressing chasity saved some from hiv in the 80s.

 

7, modesty is dress seems correct too when we consider the pornofication of society today.

 

Should I go on?

Edited November 28, 2014 by why me

[Senator]

I say you should read and apply Alma 31, your life.  You should also read and apply to your life, James 4:10 - "Humble yourselves before the Lord".  You should also read and apply Mosiah 4:26 to your life. 

 

Thankfully, the Lord is incharge. And not you and your cohorts - having supposed within yourselves are the only ones to be found faithfull. 

 

I love the reaction to undeciphered sarcasm!!!

 

It's choice.

[mormonnewb]

1. the church has counseled members not to overspend and be thrifty with money. And to try to stay out of useless debt.

 

2. The church's view on pornography was years ahead of secular society.

 

3.  the word of wisdom has saved many lives.

 

4. the proclamation of the family seems the  correct way to go.

 

5.  the counsel to youth seems light years ahead of secular society.

 

6, stressing chasity saved some from hiv in the 80s.

 

7, modesty is dress seems correct too when we consider the pornofication of society today.

 

Should I go on?

 

Are these views on SECULAR matters?  In fairness, I'll give you #1 and #3, but the others seem to deal with matters of "spirituality," in which we both agree that members should generally follow the lead of the Brethren in that regard.

 

And even with regards to these secular matters, I'm not sure that I'm willing to give them the Nostradamus pendant for the counsel to stay out of debt.  I think that Ben Franklin beat Church leaders to that sentiment by about a century.  And if I'm not mistaken, Uncle Ben can't really even take credit for that piece of common sense wisdom himself.

 

As for #3, I will concede that this advice was ahead of its time.  That being said, we should be clear that, even in the 19th century, there was a suspicion that cigarettes might not be good for you.  In fact, at some point during this time  a few people began to refer to cigarettes as "coffin nails."  That being said, this certainly wasn't the majority opinion and so the Church was ahead of the curve on this one.

 

And while you're at it, perhaps an example from the last 100 years or so might be more convincing, but no pressure.

[The Nehor]

Intellectuals such as Hugh Nibley participated in open debate on the issue of race and the priesthood in the Spring 1973 issue of Dialogue and probably rendered a service to the Brethren in doing so.  They did not even consider going through "proper channels."  Why would they?

Hugh Nibley got away with a lot because he was fiercely loyal. Most dissidents fail on that count when they try to insist on similar treatment.