BYU's Maxwell Institute has gone to far in trying to reach acceptability in secular scholarly circles

BYU's Maxwell Institute has gone too far in trying to reach acceptability in secular scholarly circles. That is my take away from this http://www.patheos.com/blogs/soulandcity/2014/12/intellect-and-affection-how-to-be-a-faithful-mormon-intellectual/ article by Ralph C. Hancock.

I have to agree with this assessment. I also will agree that some level of breadth is good, but the current turn has made for a situation where most believing Latter-day Saints would not feel this scholarship is at all addressed to them.

In the over two years since Hardy wrote the article in question things have not improved. Hardy has become a caustic voice attacking the LDS Church on its position that entering into same sex marriage is an act of apostasy. Hardy's criticism of these people for making peace with the sexual revolution is becoming even more true.

Park on the other hand has taken to attacking the LDS Church for not standing against President Trumps travel bans. Besides the fact that Park showed a rash rush to attack when the Church did make a statement on the issue, he misunderstands religious freedom, most likely intentionally to mock its true believers.

The travel ban is based on assesments connected with government dysfunction and violence in the listed countries. I would actually question either Iran or Sudan being on the list, however since the vast majority of Muslim countries are not on the list, saying it is religiously motivated would require more analysis than its attackers have given it.

Beyond this, an order that prioritices the protection of persecuted religious minorities is exactly the type of order those who favor religious freedom would want. At least viewed on that specific issue. The order has enough other flaws that I doubt anyone can defend it.

Beyond this, the comparison to the issue of attempts to stop Mormon immigration to the US in 1879 show a major lack of historic understanding, specifically a failure to grasp what was at stake for emigrating British, Danish, Swiss and other Mormons in 1879. If the US controlled Mecca nad Medina and then sought to ban Muslim immigration there would be an analoguy. In 1879 Mormon theology called on Mormons to gather to a literal, physical Zion found in Utah. The purpose of this was to build the temples, and once that was accomplished there was a shift to building Zion everywhere. The shift took 70 years to fully implement, and in some ways LDS Church still seeks to counteract the gathering mentality.

Back to the issue at hand, I think Handcock is right that we need to stop assuming that bracketing all truth claims is a broad approach to issues, and need to start focusing on how to develop dialogue with believers who are academics. This probably means focusing more on shared dialogue with Catholic universities. On the other hand considering how many American Catholic universities have abandoned any distinctions from general secular culture this may be a hard endevor.

I however think that BYU needs to make sure that we do not in seeking to be liked and popular to other people sell  our basic doctrines. As President Kimball counseled we should not seek to have a king like all other people.

I think there was a need for a broader, more scholarly, less apologetic approach to the isues. However the Maxwell Institute has gone too far the other way.