Love wins and Charity loses

[juliann]

I think it ironic that the Sept. Ensign headlines Love:The Essence of Pure Religion immediately after Hancock's screed against misquoted "young LDS scholars." Elder Uchtdorf asks "After Love, Then What?" He talks of the Savior's final lessons. The wicked and righteous are to be separated in the Final Judgment, differentiated by those who demonstrated their love through action, i.e., the righteous. From what I can see, those Hancock ridicules were expressing something much closer to what is in the Ensign than what is in his talk. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 3:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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?

We've heard the messages soften and change over the years.  There used to be much stronger words for homosexuals in the Church.  It used to be that they will change.  That is not the case now.  Of course, we also have the priesthood ban as an example as well.  It used to be a certainty even by revelation that the priesthood ban was in place because of a curse and because of less valiant behavior in the pre-mortal realm.  Of course bridges were built and are being built on those two issues, even if in some ways walls remain--and digging in of heels continues.  Some may say "well the Church is getting soft and relaxing standards of truth and righteousness" or some may say "the Church is learning and in some sense evolving as it/we learn from the world in general".  I prefer to view the principle of love, love for God and others, to be the principle that supersedes all others.  Creating enmity should be eschewed.  One may well argue that superseding love with creating enmity among the people is relaxing our standard of truth and righteousness. 

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 3:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Alright...if that's how you see it.  to me the presentation by Ralph seems to be a poor way of trying to drive a wedge where it need not be.  That's a confusing tactic to me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

We've heard the messages soften and change over the years.  There used to be much stronger words for homosexuals in the Church.  It used to be that they will change.  That is not the case now.  Of course, we also have the priesthood ban as an example as well.  It used to be a certainty even by revelation that the priesthood ban was in place because of a curse and because of less valiant behavior in the pre-mortal realm.  Of course bridges were built and are being built on those two issues, even if in some ways walls remain--and digging in of heels continues.  Some may say "well the Church is getting soft and relaxing standards of truth and righteousness" or some may say "the Church is learning and in some sense evolving as it/we learn from the world in general". 

The teaching that sexual behavior outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman is a grave sin has never changed. If it is being expressed more patiently and kindly today than in times past, it nevertheless remains in place.

The priesthood ban was a temporary measure that never had anything to do with a choice between right and wrong, except in the sense that the leaders of the Church chose not to move forward with lifting the ban without clear direction from the Lord. This eventually came. I continue to believe they made the right choice.

Quote

I prefer to view the principle of love, love for God and others, to be the principle that supersedes all others.  Creating enmity should be eschewed.  One may well argue that superseding love with creating enmity among the people is relaxing our standard of truth and righteousness.

It's not a matter of one thing superseding the other. Both love and law are essential and indispensible, and anytime we emphasize the one while neglecting the other, we run into problems. Elder Dallin H. Oaks expressed it well in this general conference address. The whole talk is good and worthy of careful consideration, but here is an excerpt from it (the portion I have put in bold has direct bearing on your assertion about one thing superseding the other):

 

Quote

 

I begin with four examples which illustrate some mortal confusion between love and law.

• A young adult in a cohabitation relationship tells grieving parents, “If you really loved me, you would accept me and my partner just like you accept your married children.”

• A youth reacts to parental commands or pressure by declaring, “If you really loved me, you wouldn’t force me.”

In these examples a person violating commandments asserts that parental love should override the commandments of divine law and the teachings of parents.

The next two examples show mortal confusion about the effect of God’s love.

• A person rejects the doctrine that a couple must be married for eternity to enjoy family relationships in the next life, declaring, “If God really loved us, I can’t believe He would separate husbands and wives in this way.”

• Another person says his faith has been destroyed by the suffering God allows to be inflicted on a person or a race, concluding, “If there was a God who loved us, He wouldn’t let this happen.”

These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments. The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love. The same should be true of parental love and rules.

 

Back to you:

Quote

 

Alright...if that's how you see it.  to me the presentation by Ralph seems to be a poor way of trying to drive a wedge where it need not be.  That's a confusing tactic to me. 

 

I see the central message of his presentation as being identical to that expressed by Elder Oaks in the talk I linked to above. I'm fairly confident Professor Hancock would agree with me in this.

In fact, in an email conversation he and I had just after the FairMormon Conference, I cited the Oaks talk. He replied half-jokingly that he could have expressed his message by standing at the FairMormon podium and reading the Oaks talk.

Elder Oaks expressed it so pithily in a single sentence that I have chosen to make part of my posting signature:

 

Quote

Loving kindness is required, but a follower of Christ – just like the Master – will be firm in the truth.

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The teaching that sexual behavior outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman is a grave sin has never changed. If it is being expressed more patiently and kindly today than in times past, it nevertheless remains in place.

And that's fine but putting it more nicely, being more inclusive in language seems to be exactly that which the author of this piece and you would complain about.  But maybe this isn't the best example anyway. 

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The priesthood ban was a temporary measure that never had anything to do with a choice between right and wrong, except in the sense that the leaders of the Church chose not to move forward with lifting the ban without clear direction from the Lord. This eventually came. I continue to believe they made the right choice.

Except as stated the doctrine changed from what we probably consider offensive today to more inclusive.  If say the past doctrine (as in that blacks were less valiant in pre-mortal, or they were cursed because of lineage or race) was true principle as they once claimed, then currently saying it was not and is not a true principle does exactly what you say they should not do--change the or relax the principle to accommodate more people, like in Brazil.  If they stood on the doctrine as previously expressed as true even after the relaxing of the ban, then you'd have more of a point.  But not only did they stop the ban, but they changed the doctrine (and granted some of that changing or evolving of doctrine started before the ban was lifted). 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

And that's fine but putting it more nicely, being more inclusive in language seems to be exactly that which the author of this piece and you would complain about.  But maybe this isn't the best example anyway. 

 

If you think I would complain about "putting it more nicely," you have altogether misread me. Did you miss what I quoted from Elder Oaks about loving kindness being required? I would not have linked to his general conference address if I disapproved of loving kindness, for he speaks at length in that talk about God's infinite love.

I admit I am suspicious, though, about what you mean by "being more inclusive in language." If, by that, you mean implying or allowing someone to think that his misbehavior doesn't matter, then, yes, I would be uncomfortable with that. For example the person Ralph Hancock spoke of who asserted that someone ought to repent for having the temerity to mention the principle of repentance to someone else strikes me as being rather badly misguided.

As for "the author of this piece" ( I presume by that you mean Ralph Hancock), I don't get from his FairMormon address that he objects to being loving, patient and kind, per se, in dealing with others. But you would have to take that up with him. Fortunately for all of us, the transcript of his talk is now up for all to read and come to their own individual conclusions based on a reading of his own words, not what someone else has to say about them.

Quote

Except as stated the doctrine changed from what we probably consider offensive today to more inclusive.  If say the past doctrine (as in that blacks were less valiant in pre-mortal, or they were cursed because of lineage or race) was true principle as they once claimed, then currently saying it was not and is not a true principle does exactly what you say they should not do--change the or relax the principle to accommodate more people, like in Brazil.  If they stood on the doctrine as previously expressed as true even after the relaxing of the ban, then you'd have more of a point.  But not only did they stop the ban, but they changed the doctrine (and granted some of that changing or evolving of doctrine started before the ban was lifted). 

I know there was some unfortunate conjecture that occurred in the past -- all of which has now been disavowed in one of the "Gospel Topics" essays -- but I don't concede that any of it was ever a solid teaching in the Church. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

But I reiterate: The blacks and the priesthood issue never had anything to do with morality or choosing between right and wrong, except in the matter of the leaders of the Church making the proper choice not to move forward on lifting the ban without receiving clear direction from God via revelation. So your raising this issue in the context of commandments and teachings about morality and righteous behavior strikes me as a non sequitur.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think I would complain about "putting it more nicely," you have altogether misread me. Did you miss what I quoted from Elder Oaks about loving kindness being required?

I admit I am suspicious, though, about what you mean by "being more inclusive in language." If, by that, you mean implying or allowing someone to think that his misbehavior doesn't matter, then, yes, I would be uncomfortable with that. For example the person Ralph Hancock spoke of who asserted that someone ought to repent for having the temerity to mention the principle of repentance to someone else strikes me as being rather badly misguided.

As for "the author of this piece" ( I presume by that you mean Ralph Hancock), I don't get from his FairMormon address that he objects to being loving, patient and kind, per se, in dealing with others. But you would have to take that up with him. Fortunately for all of us, the transcript of his talk is now up for all to read and come to their own individual conclusions based on a reading of his own words, not what someone else has to say about them.

I know there was some unfortunate conjecture that occurred in the past -- all of which has now been disavowed in one of the "Gospel Topics" essay -- but I don't concede that any of it was ever a solid teaching in the Church. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

But I reiterate: The blacks and the priesthood issue never had anything to do with morality or choosing between right and wrong, except in the matter of the leaders of the Church making the proper choice not to move forward on lifting the ban without receiving clear direction from God via revelation. So your raising this issue in the context of commandments and teachings about morality and righteous behavior strikes me as a non sequitur.

Ok thanks, Scott.  It's been a week or so now since I read Ralph's piece, so I'm sure I'm missing too much at this point.  I'm happy to leave it with your words above. 

[Guest]

Sadly, shifting morals or no morals are becoming the norm amoung the young and a large part of what should be the mature. Progressive thought (and I am not talking politics) has "progressed" (no pun intended) to the point that "anything goes". The idea that any judgement is sinful and unchristian. "No boundaries" means not lawful behavior and the road to anarchy. Even stating that "all life matters" is the establishment of unethical boundaries. "Love" or God's love, or even parents love is indeed (or should be) unconditional. But, "unconditional love" does not mean "no boundaries". It requires boundaries on the part of the parent, the child, our God and those who believe in him. The idea of "no boundaries" would leave our posterity in a lawless world, and the most harsh judgements of God and his love that requires both boundaries and punishment. It would also leave those we love in a world where they would hate us for leaving them in. My unconditional love for my children, grandchildren and posterity requires that I set and make clear where the boundaries are and what serious sins are...that is the "Charity" and the "pure love of Christ" is and what will keep myself and all who come after me out of Hell and "other darkness". As to those who may harm a child under the guise of unconditional love, will (as Christ taught) cause a situation "that they had never been born, and have them with a milestone around their neck and be cast into the sea"...and those who lead them to believe that pure love, with no judgement suffer the same. As Paul taught, "heaven forbid". 

[juliann]

I think there are two issues here. One is the principles involved. We all think we should "stand for the truth."  However, as in this case, I too often see that used as an excuse to dispense with acceptable behavior. I often visualize "stand up for what you believe!" as a flag surrounded by angry people with hands on their hips and chins defiantly jutting out. That is the equivalent of what Hancock did. That is what this is about, IMO. 

I have no more reason to trust his convenient "quotes" from unnamed LDS scholars (or anyone else) than I do the quotes he obviously doctored and even made up. So the problem isn't that we need to stand up for truth, whatever that means, it is that he had no excuse to do it in a hurtful way that defamed and belittled other faithful Mormons (who just happened to be associated with MI....)  Especially when he was standing under the FM banner.

Edited August 30, 2016 by juliann

[European Saint]

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

Thanks for weighing in, European Saint. And welcome to the board.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

I have to rep you for your direct points and honesty of your post. 

Best to you!

Jeanne

 

[European Saint]

23 hours ago, juliann said:

I think it ironic that the Sept. Ensign headlines Love:The Essence of Pure Religion immediately after Hancock's screed against misquoted "young LDS scholars." Elder Uchtdorf asks "After Love, Then What?" He talks of the Savior's final lessons. The wicked and righteous are to be separated in the Final Judgment, differentiated by those who demonstrated their love through action, i.e., the righteous. From what I can see, those Hancock ridicules were expressing something much closer to what is in the Ensign than what is in his talk. 

Hancock greatly appreciated the latest Ensign; here is his take:

http://ldsmag.com/balancing-freedom-fairness-and-love-in-the-public-square/

[Guest]

1 hour ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

This is a website for discussion and debate, it is not personal. We are just using the website for what it is designed for. 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

This statement is even more explicit than what your father was saying. Are you suggesting this is what your father is charging?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, European Saint said:

Hancock greatly appreciated the latest Ensign; here is his take:

http://ldsmag.com/balancing-freedom-fairness-and-love-in-the-public-square/

When I read President Uchtdorf's article today, I noticed he answered the question in the title, "After love, then what?" with the Savior's well known admonition, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." 

No inconsistency here with the idea that love and law/obedience are both indispensible. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

It is a little jarring to see three LDS scholars called out and argued against in a FAIR presentation. 

[Gray]

11 hours ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

There are indeed activist liberal Mormons seeking to reverse changes made to the law of chastity last century by activist conservative Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are indeed activist liberal Mormons seeking to reverse changes made to the law of chastity last century by activist conservative Mormons.

I'm trying to figure out what you might have reference to here, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. 

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm trying to figure out what you might have reference to here, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. 

Perhaps John C Bennett's "free love?"

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

It is a little jarring to see three LDS scholars called out and argued against in a FAIR presentation. 

I found other things jarring at this year's conference that have pretty much gotten a pass so far. 

But I chalk it up to diversity of thought among a variety of speakers. Nobody guaranteed I would agree with everything said there. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm trying to figure out what you might have reference to here, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. 

The developing narrative in the 20th century, borrowed from our conservative Christian neighbors, about gays. Obviously a few church leaders felt strongly about the subject and were successful at lobbying for new doctrines around homosexuality, based on the traditions of other religious groups. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, European Saint said:

Juliann,

Whether or not you choose to trust Hancock (my father) is your business. But I can assure you that "standing for truth" when it comes to the doctrines of the eternal family, chastity, and gender is not the given among saints -- yes, even at BYU -- that you suggest it is. How often have you heard Hodges, Harline, or other like-minded saints defend the Proclamation and the doctrines contained therein? How often have you seen them in print state, like the apostles, that the flip side of the "judge not" coin is to "go, and sin no more"? No, this would offend the supreme thrust of inclusion at all costs (read: universalism) and a deformed version of compassion (you hurt, therefore you're right). I know for a fact that Hancock has zero interest in belittling or defaming (really??) his fellow saints; however, he obviously has no qualms with critiquing harmful (yes, harmful) arguments that others advance in the public domain -- whether these arguments be made by members or not. Are we really so sensitive that we view our ideas as infallible? Is it so hard to read Hancock in the charitable light that Lloyd and others have?

You may choose to paint my father as angry/chin out/belittling all you like, but please, for the love  of all that's holy, at least attempt to take on his very important argument, namely that even otherwise awesome and righteous saints are at this very moment striving to change the church from within by quietly advocating for progressive changes to the law of chastity and eternal marriage. Or do you deny that this is the case? (If you do, I have a blog list for you to read...)

He could have made his point without trying to call out certain LDS members and from at least one such member's perspective, he misrepresented.  Juliann's point should be noted because of that alone.  This is why his address confused me, more than anything.   It feels like fighting windmills, in the end.  I think I get his concern, but he's barking up the wrong tree. 

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found other things jarring at this year's conference that have pretty much gotten a pass so far. 

 

What was jarring and have gotten passes? 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

It is a little jarring to see three LDS scholars called out and argued against in a FAIR presentation. 

Sure.  And if there was good reasoning for it, I'd be behind it.  But this just seemed personal and we've already heard from one who claims misrepresentation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

It is a little jarring to see three LDS scholars called out and argued against in a FAIR presentation. 

 

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found other things jarring at this year's conference that have pretty much gotten a pass so far. 

But I chalk it up to diversity of thought among a variety of speakers. Nobody guaranteed I would agree with everything said there. 

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What was jarring and have gotten passes? 

In threads elsewhere on this board, I've already highlighted a couple of things.

One was the assertion that the Church should apologize for Mountain Meadows.

I know you and I have argued at length about this before, so you likely remember my position: The First Presidency, in a public statement read during a gathering at the site acknowledging the facts as they are now known, has already expressed "deep regret" over the behavior of the massacre perpetrators. This is as much as can reasonably be expected, as an apology implies the acceptance of blame, and no one alive today can do that and the Church as an institution is not culpable for offenses committed by errant members acting in violation of the Church's principles and without its approval.

I compare it to the expression of regret given the Church several years ago by the state government of Illinois regarding atrocities committed against the Mormons in the 1840s. In passing the resolution, the Illinois State Assembly substituted the phrase "expression of regret" for "apology." This was as it should be, as no one alive today is responsible for the 1840s atrocities, and the Illinois state government existing at the time the expression was made is not the same government that was in place in the 1840s.

The other thing was the "recommendation" that we "retire" the term anti-Mormon. I can see cautioning against and avoiding the misuse and overuse of this term, as that can indeed be an impediment to communication and good dialogue. But saying it should be "retired" altogether is going overboard. I value language for its power to convey precise meaning and hate to see it dumbed down or diluted by political correctness. There are some instances where no other term fits as well as anti-Mormon, such as the compiling of the Hurlbut affidavits in the 19th century and Ed Decker's nefarious activities in the 20th century.

So these are two ideas expressed by two of the more popular speakers at the conference to which I take strong exception. I have argued against them in the past and will likely continue to do so.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd