Love wins and Charity loses

[stemelbow]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/love-wins-charity-loses

This is interesting.  Almost feels as though it's the exact opposite of what we found from three previous Fair presentations we recently discussed here:  More Effective Apologetics (Grant Hardy), Faith-Centered Dialectics: Talking about Differences Transforms (Ally Isom), and The Courage of Our Convictions: Embracing Mormonism in a Secular Age (Patrick Mason). 

Let's start:

Quote

Progressive liberalism claims the authority of reason and of openness to a “diversity” of views and ways of life. But the Love Wins mantra reveals the sacred dogma that underlies the pose of open-minded rationalism: “love” understood as boundless acceptance and empathy, excluding all moral judgment, is the new, unquestioned standard of moral judgment. And the prestige of this secular love, impatient with all boundaries and standards, is clearly a residue (however distorted and misapplied) of the very Christianity that secularism must overcome. Secularism is the secularized residue of Christianity. And this residue, in the form of the ideology of “love,” wields amazing dogmatic authority in our supposedly free-thinking secular age. Question every authority, progressive liberalism entices us, but do not even think about questioning “love,” meaning absolute acceptance and non-judgmental empathy, as the sole standard of human goodness. Never in the darkest of Christian “Dark Ages” did an ideological authority envision such a total domination over the human mind and heart as that asserted by the post-Christian humanistic religion of “love.”

huh?  say what? and all that.  Where does he get the idea that the Love Wins mantra defines love as "boundless acceptance and empathy, excluding all moral judgment"?   Can he who espouses what he is calling progressive liberalism love someone who rapes his child?  I guess so, but it's unlikely to happen.  It's not boundless.  It's reasonable though. 

Quote

(Mr. Hodges has requested that I note that he “completely disagrees” with my interpretation. I am happy to leave the question to the reader, who may consult Hodges’ original.)

I'm curious if Blair has responded.  Has there been a response?  If so, can he respond here?  I'm curious in what ways he disagrees.  It feels too tedious to me to try and create some dichotomy between love wins and charity.  I need help understanding why he disagrees with Blair exactly.

 

Quote

This definite and demanding virtue is what is obviously missing from the Love Wins mentality, including its LDS versions in Hodges, Harline and Miller.

This is a great topic of discussion.  For that Ralph needs to be thanked.  Let us make room to have discussions on this topic and the differences between say Ralph's views and Blair's views.  I'd love that. 

[Tacenda]

Great topic, loved reading each perspective of love.  

[juliann]

 I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from.  I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

 I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from.  I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

I'm not sure about the other two.

Here's a link to the piece Ralph is alluding to:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/29/unitybeyondunanimity/

I wish he just told us which article of Blair's he was addressing.  I did a search and didn't find one of the quotes as well.  I figured it came from somewhere else, but he doesn't specifically mention Blair's article and he seems to be addressing Blair's position, at least earlier on, as they've discussed it in person. 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from.  I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

He butchered Adam Miller.  He might as well put up Paul on his powerpoint, or go straight to Jesus and decry his denunciation of the Pharisees.    

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/love-wins-charity-loses

This is interesting.  Almost feels as though it's the exact opposite of what we found from three previous Fair presentations we recently discussed here:  More Effective Apologetics (Grant Hardy), Faith-Centered Dialectics: Talking about Differences Transforms (Ally Isom), and The Courage of Our Convictions: Embracing Mormonism in a Secular Age (Patrick Mason). 

 

According to the online conference schedule, Hancock spoke immediately after Mason. Fun times.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me that the kernel of Dr. Hancock's address is illustrated very well with the examples he gave in these paragraphs:
 

Quote

 

The central problem behind the confusing relationship between Christian charity and secular love is the tension between substance and universalism. Recently I was conversing with an earnest and faithful young LDS scholar about the intersection between the Church and the secular world, and I began to make the simple, if you will “orthodox” case for the importance of defending a clear moral standard and family ideal in a relativistic world. His heartfelt reply was “don’t you want the Church to be available to the widest possible group, even to all humanity? Does it not hinder the universal mission of the Church to insist on barriers”? Another faithful young LDS scholar was emphasizing the importance of compassion towards those who struggle with Church teachings on sexual morality. He was asked, would not sharing the principle of repentance be an important expression of love for a struggling neighbor? No, he replied, if anyone needs repentance, it would only be the person who would presume to appeal to a principle higher than the feelings of the person who is struggling.

Both of these thoughtful and faithful young Latter-day Saints were effectively falling in with the “Love Wins” mentality, not out of any particular enthusiasm for sexual liberation or revolution in family structure, but according to the logic of universalism, inclusiveness, which indeed seems to be a defining gesture of the Gospel, and especially of Paul’s letters. Similarly, when an account of Elder Holland’s recent address at BYU Education Week, which included a strong warning against the rising tide of secularism, was published in the Deseret News, the first online comment that appeared chastised the
apostle for erecting “walls” when he should be “building bridges.” It seems to me, though, that there is a pretty simple logical problem with this movement of thought: universalism is by itself empty and meaningless: there must be some content, some substance, to be universalized, something to be shared. A bridge must be from somewhere to somewhere. Every outreach presupposes an affirmation, every extension a center, every movement of compassion some understanding of the good, of what it would mean to heal. The enthusiasm for inclusiveness or the movement of compassion without regard to content is not only religiously suicidal but logically incoherent.

 

Incidentally, the part referencing the on-line comment in the Deseret News following the news story about Elder Holland's BYU Education Week address is obviously a late insertion in the transcript of Dr. Hancock's address, as Education Week did not occur until after the FairMormon conference. But it is, nonetheless, very consistent with the theme, as the knee-jerk reaction that Elder Holland was "putting up walls" seems to be part and parcel of the "love wins" mentality.

All in all, a very good -- and very important -- address. I'm glad the transcription is finally up on the FairMormon website for all to read.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

According to the online conference schedule, Hancock spoke immediately after Mason. Fun times.

Unfortunately, the can't-we-all-just-get-along talks seem to have dominated publicity and discussion about the FairMormon Conference thus far. There were other themes and shades of opinion expressed, but one might not know it without having attended the conference live -- as I did -- or watched the internet streaming.

Dan Peterson gave a good talk as well, one I have been eager to see go up on the FairMormon website.

 

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unfortunately, the can't-we-all-just-get-along talks seem to have dominated publicity and discussion about the FairMormon Conference thus far. There were other themes and shades of opinion expressed, but one might not know it without having attended the conference live -- as I did -- or watched the internet streaming.

Dan Peterson gave a good talk as well, one I have been eager to see go up on the FairMormon website.

 

The can't-we-all-just-get-along speakers seem to have similarly dominated the DN coverage. Below are articles for Ally Isom and Patrick Mason's addresses.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659499/Mormons-should-engage-critics-with-kindness-LDS-public-affairs-leader-says.html?pg=all

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all

 

Oddly, I could not find a write-up for Hancock's address on DN until I looked at the Church News section. You'll never guess who wrote the piece!  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659953/Scholar-discusses-conflict-between-gospel-and-secular-ideas-about-love-and-charity.html?pg=all).  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

The can't-we-all-just-get-along speakers seem to have similarly dominated the DN coverage. Below are articles for Ally Isom and Patrick Mason's addresses.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659499/Mormons-should-engage-critics-with-kindness-LDS-public-affairs-leader-says.html?pg=all

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659562/LDS-scholar-calls-for-a-more-embracing-Mormonism-that-rejects-fear.html?pg=all

 

Oddly, I could not find a write-up for Hancock's address on DN until I looked at the Church News section. You'll never guess who wrote the piece!  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659953/Scholar-discusses-conflict-between-gospel-and-secular-ideas-about-love-and-charity.html?pg=all).  

The Deseret News covered the FairMormon Conference very well this year. We had three writers -- Tad Walch, Trent Toone and I -- covering different presentations.

In addition to the one you cited, I also covered talks by Dan Peterson ("The Logic Tree of Life, or Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve"); Matt Grow, about the Nauvoo Council of Fifty Minutes, soon to be released as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project; and Royal Skousen's and Stan Carmack's address on the Book of Mormon Critical Texts Project.

I think there were other reports by Tad and Trent in addition to the ones you linked to above. I know that in our coordination in advance of the conference, they each chose two to report on and I chose four.

Edited to add:

Here's another one by Trent Toone. It's about Matt Roper's presentation on swords and cimeters in the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

 

According to the online conference schedule, Hancock spoke immediately after Mason. Fun times.

Kind of funny.

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unfortunately, the can't-we-all-just-get-along talks seem to have dominated publicity and discussion about the FairMormon Conference thus far. There were other themes and shades of opinion expressed, but one might not know it without having attended the conference live -- as I did -- or watched the internet streaming.

Dan Peterson gave a good talk as well, one I have been eager to see go up on the FairMormon website.

 

Set your eagerness aside:  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/logic-tree-life

I saw it earlier.  I always enjoy me some Dr Peterson.

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems to me that the kernel of Dr. Hancock's address is illustrated very well with the examples he gave in these paragraphs:
 

Incidentally, the part referencing the on-line comment in the Deseret News following the news story about Elder Holland's BYU Education Week address is obviously a late insertion in the transcript of Dr. Hancock's address, as Education Week did not occur until after the FairMormon conference. But it is, nonetheless, very consistent with the theme, as the knee-jerk reaction that Elder Holland was "putting up walls" seems to be part and parcel of the "love wins" mentality.

All in all, a very good -- and very important -- address. I'm glad the transcription is finally up on the FairMormon website for all to read.

 

If you say so, Scott.

I read those paragraphs and feel more confused when I stick them in the context of the talk.  What does he mean when he contrasts substance and universalism?  I don't know why he's after universalism when Mormonism preaches a near universalism with it's salvation to a tiered heaven.  Sure there are those relatively few who will not be saved, but nearly all will.  And yet there remains plenty of substance to Mormonism, as I see it.

When he says,

Quote

universalism is by itself empty and meaningless: there must be some content, some substance, to be universalized, something to be shared.

I'm not sure why he's presuming universalism to be empty and meaningless.  Of course no one is saying there's nothing of substance and nothing to be shared with each other. 

Quote

The enthusiasm for inclusiveness or the movement of compassion without regard to content is not only religiously suicidal but logically incoherent.

No one has advocated, even in the least degree, that we disregard content.  The point seems to be we be more welcoming and loving, caring thoughtful and helpful.  he seems to take issue with such an approach because doing those things somehow means espousing a loving tolerant position means there is a lack of charity, or something. 

to me, overall, it's pretty weak.  But, I will say, the attitude of it seems prevalent among LDS in general. 

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Deseret News covered the FairMormon Conference very well this year. We had three writers -- Tad Walch, Trent Toone and I -- covering different presentations.

In addition to the one you cited, I also covered talks by Dan Peterson ("The Logic Tree of Life, or Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve"); Matt Grow, about the Nauvoo Council of Fifty Minutes, soon to be released as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project; and Royal Skousen's and Stan Carmack's address on the Book of Mormon Critical Texts Project.

I think there were other reports by Tad and Trent in addition to the ones you linked to above. I know that in our coordination in advance of the conference, they each chose two to report on and I chose four.

 

Stinking over achiever.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unfortunately, the can't-we-all-just-get-along talks seem to have dominated publicity and discussion about the FairMormon Conference thus far. There were other themes and shades of opinion expressed, but one might not know it without having attended the conference live -- as I did -- or watched the internet streaming.

Dan Peterson gave a good talk as well, one I have been eager to see go up on the FairMormon website.

 

Why "Unfortunately?"

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

 I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from.  I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure about the other two.

Here's a link to the piece Ralph is alluding to:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/29/unitybeyondunanimity/

I wish he just told us which article of Blair's he was addressing.  I did a search and didn't find one of the quotes as well.  I figured it came from somewhere else, but he doesn't specifically mention Blair's article and he seems to be addressing Blair's position, at least earlier on, as they've discussed it in person. 

Comparing the published transcription on the FairMormon site with one I personally made of Dr. Hancock's address, I note that it is obvious he and Blair have had subsequent discussion about this since the conference. I think it needs to be made clear that the following portion, which was not part of the original, spoken address, has been added:
 

Quote

 

Mr. Hodges has taken exception to my interpretation, and I am happy to note that he does not think he means to intend to say what I take to be the clear implications of what he writes. He does deserve credit for counseling loving responses to all members, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” who feel painfully besieged by other members for their moral or political positions. He wants to evoke the pain felt on both sides as a common ground apart from the truth of a position. But this is precisely the shift of emphasis I mean to call into question. Without dismissing anyone’s pain, and certainly without wishing to add to it, Elder Anderson clearly means to support the young woman who bravely stands up for the truth of real, natural, divinely ordained marriage. Mr. Hodges shows little interest in this effort (if he does not simply dismiss it), and turns to the equivalence of “pain” on both sides as a kind of trump card. The common ground of “pain,” the equality of grievance, displaces the common ground of truth. If, like Elder Anderson, we take the truth of the Restored Gospel as a common ground, then our loving response to the person feeling pain as a result of separating herself from the truth would include, not only loving sympathy, but some effort to restore her to the truth. But that would not seem to be compatible with Hodges’ urging of equal love for equal pain.

To his credit, Blair Hodges does not dismiss the existence and ultimate accessibility of truth – we “will find out the truth someday.” But it is decisive for him that what “ultimately matters today” is that “we’re all still learning” – that is, we do not know enough to affirm and to act on the truth in the present (the only time we can act, it turns out), at least not in any way that some might experience as “painful,” (my emphases). Thus, even though he acknowledges the existence of some truth accessible to us in some indefinite future, what matters for us today is to acknowledge what we cannot know and therefore to treat each other in a loving way, a way that does not depend on what we cannot now know. Truth always lies in the progressive future, and so only love can guide us now – love which is then, by logical necessity, detached from any claims of a truth which we must admit we do not now possess. Belief in progressive truth turns out to be very hard to distinguish from relativism – in all areas, that is, except for the commandment of love, which has been effectively severed from any previously associated claims of moral truth.

To be clear: I completely agree with Hodges’ urging us all to show love to those with whom we disagree, and not to make our love “contingent upon any agreement with us on any particular point.” This is indeed an imperative of charity with which we all agree, however difficult this disposition is to achieve in practice. I do not know any Latter-day Saint who would disagree, certainly not Elder Anderson. But this whole argument began with Blair Hodges’ trying to add something to, or to put a different spin on, what Elder Anderson had said in support of a girls’ effort to stand up for moral truth (and to do so courteously). The whole thrust of Hodges’ argument, whether or not he likes to hear it repeated back to him, is that we can’t really stand up for truth because we don’t yet confidently possess any, and therefore that “love is the one thing that ultimately matters.” Either you believe, with Elder Anderson, that affirming a definite truth (without thereby claiming to be absolutely in possession of the whole truth) is a key presupposition of showing love; or you believe, with Blair Hodges, that our knowledge is so slight or uncertain that we must love others without respect to the content of any supposed truth.

 

As Blair is now posting again on this board, I would be interested in his response here to the portion I have placed in bold above.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why "Unfortunately?"

Only that there were other presentations in an all-in-all good conference that I didn't think were getting due notice.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Only that there were other presentations in an all-in-all good conference that I didn't think were getting due notice.

Gotcha.

[Rivers]

I'm glad to see a a diversity of perspectives.  Nothing wrong with a little open disagreement and civil discussion among LDS scholars.  Patrick Mason and Ralph Hancock both gave important council and I equally appreciate both presentations.

The difference between Love and Christian Charity is a conflict that I am personally wrestling with at the moment.  I'm grateful to read multiple points of view on the topic.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Rivers

[BHodges]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Comparing the published transcription on the FairMormon site with one I personally made of Dr. Hancock's address, I note that it is obvious he and Blair have had subsequent discussion about this since the conference. I think it needs to be made clear that the following portion, which was not part of the original, spoken address, has been added:
 

As Blair is now posting again on this board, I would be interested in his response here to the portion I have placed in bold above.

Hi Scott, thanks for the question. It's odd to me that Ralph claimed he was continuing our ongoing civil discussions when in reality I stopped discussing any religious, theological, or philosophical things with him about a year ago when he publicly questioned whether certain Mormon scholars were adequately keeping their temple covenants. After his surprise presentation I contacted him directly to point out where he had changed my words and attributed ideas and statements to me that I hadn't made. You can see this when the video is made available. I asked him to include a disclaimer that states I completely disagree with his interpretation of my blog post (it's unusual to see a blog post being addressed in a conference presentation), and that I'd simply invite people to read it for themselves. I'm glad he added that to the transcript, although he also lifted words from my email that he didn't ask about using first. And he didn't include a link to the post or even the name of it. In our email exchange he also noted that my objections didn't matter because he understood the implications of my argument better than I did. The problem with that is be didn't manage to get my argument right to start with, so he understands the implications of things I never argued and don't believe. But it was cathartic to see Ralph openly admit he believes he knows what I believe better than I do. 

As far as I can tell, Ralph is operating with a culture war mentality that would pit fellow saints against each other, present straw man arguments, and employ political labels in an essentializing manner. I'm not interested in discourse with him on these subjects especially because of his approach. I don't trust him as an interlocutor. When it comes to the presentation and our exchange I'd say the second half of Ralph's title was accurate. That's all I have to say about it. Ralph can do better than this. We can do better than this. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by BHodges
Added a detail.

[BHodges]

By the way, the FairMormon organizers themselves were very gracious about it and recognized the problems, and I thank them for understanding. Especially my good friend Juliann.

Edited August 26, 2016 by BHodges

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, BHodges said:

Hi Scott, thanks for the question. It's odd to me that Ralph claimed he was continuing our ongoing civil discussions when in reality I stopped discussing any religious, theological, or philosophical things with him about a year ago when he publicly questioned whether certain Mormon scholars were adequately keeping their temple covenants. After his surprise presentation I contacted him directly to point out where he had changed my words and attributed ideas and statements to me that I hadn't made. You can see this when the video is made available. I asked him to include a disclaimer that states I completely disagree with his interpretation of my blog post (it's unusual to see a blog post being addressed in a conference presentation), and that I'd simply invite people to read it for themselves. I'm glad he added that to the transcript, although he also lifted words from my email that he didn't ask about using first. And he didn't include a link to the post or even the name of it. 

Ralph is operating with a culture war mentality that would pit fellow saints against each other, present straw man arguments, and employ political labels in an essentializing manner. I'm not interested in discourse with him on these subjects because of his approach. I don't trust him as an interlocutor.  That's all I have to say about it.  

Thanks for your response.

 

[BHodges]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for your response.

 

No problem. Appreciate you going to the source to ask.

[Five Solas]

Is there really a "Love Wins" movement within Mormonism?  Or is this merely the presenter's moniker for LDS who wish their church was more inclusive? 

Have to confess when I saw the title, I thought of Rob Bell's controversial work a few years back & thought this could be interesting (Bell's ideas in an LDS context).  Nope.

--Erik    

PS.  And is there really a dichotomy to be had between love and charity (such that one could win while the other loses)?  I ask noting most contemporary English language Bible translations (e.g., NIV, ESV) render the underlying Greek as "love" whereas the KJV translators used the now archaic (in the context) "charity."  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/26/2016 at 0:30 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems to me that the kernel of Dr. Hancock's address is illustrated very well with the examples he gave in these paragraphs: ...
 

Incidentally, the part referencing the on-line comment in the Deseret News following the news story about Elder Holland's BYU Education Week address is obviously a late insertion in the transcript of Dr. Hancock's address, as Education Week did not occur until after the FairMormon conference. But it is, nonetheless, very consistent with the theme, as the knee-jerk reaction that Elder Holland was "putting up walls" seems to be part and parcel of the "love wins" mentality.

All in all, a very good -- and very important -- address. I'm glad the transcription is finally up on the FairMormon website for all to read.

 

 

On 8/26/2016 at 1:29 PM, stemelbow said:

If you say so, Scott.

I read those paragraphs and feel more confused when I stick them in the context of the talk. ...

to me, overall, it's pretty weak.  But, I will say, the attitude of it seems prevalent among LDS in general. 

I don't know why you would be confused. The two examples he gave of conversations with LDS young people (and the one he inserted later of some anonymous commenter criticizing Elder Holland's Education Week address) illustrate very clearly what he is talking about.

Ask yourself how often the General Authorities of the Church have in their authoritative teaching championed the notion that we need to relax our standards of truth and righteousness so as to make our religion more appealing or palatable to potential converts, or so that we can thereby "build bridges" and avoid "putting up walls." Or when have you ever heard any of them say that we mustn't suggest to people that the principle of repentance can be a blessing in their lives and anyone who would make such a suggestion to another is, himself, in need of repentance?

On the contrary, what I hear constantly on this subject is reflected in the first three of the quotes I have included in my signature line below, the ones from President Russell M. Nelson and Elders Neil L. Andersen and Dallin H. Oaks.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd