Love wins and Charity loses

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

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 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 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.

Thanks, Scott.  More proof that what is jarring is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Since it's been expressed in the past by others, I'm curious how that could be considered jarring. 

"Anti-Mormon" is lame in my mind, in that it works better to say anti-Mormonism, if one insist on using it.  I recall running into a gentleman on my mission who was considered "anti-Mormon" by the members and missionaries.  But in talking to him I realized using the term did not work and was hurtful.  In his mind, he loved Mormons and wasn't opposed to them.  He just disagreed with the religion and wanted it to be more untenable to more people. 

[Buckeye]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, Scott.  More proof that what is jarring is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Since it's been expressed in the past by others, I'm curious how that could be considered jarring. 

"Anti-Mormon" is lame in my mind, in that it works better to say anti-Mormonism, if one insist on using it.  I recall running into a gentleman on my mission who was considered "anti-Mormon" by the members and missionaries.  But in talking to him I realized using the term did not work and was hurtful.  In his mind, he loved Mormons and wasn't opposed to them.  He just disagreed with the religion and wanted it to be more untenable to more people. 

 

One of my fondest mission memories was knocking on a door and the person shouting "Don't you boys try to mormon me!"

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

I take it you can document instances in which homosexual behavior was approved of by the Church early on, and that you can identify the occasion when "new doctrines around homosexuality" were inaugurated in the Church.

Otherwise, this strikes me as contrived revisionism.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, Scott.  More proof that what is jarring is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Since it's been expressed in the past by others, I'm curious how that could be considered jarring. 

 

I found it jarring because I've never heard such things enunciated from the speaker's lectern at a FairMormon Conference before. By that, I mean things so potentially controversial among believing Latter-day Saints. I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one in that category who would take exception to such pronouncements.

Perhaps we all need to bear in mind that FairMormon does not pre-approve the speeches and therefore, they should not be regarded as necessarily expressing the position or endorsement of FairMormon.

Quote

"Anti-Mormon" is lame in my mind, in that it works better to say anti-Mormonism, if one insist on using it. 

Neither is lame. The one is simply the nominative form; the other the adjectival form. Thus anti-Mormonism is the character, state or quality of being anti-Mormon.

Quote

I recall running into a gentleman on my mission who was considered "anti-Mormon" by the members and missionaries.  But in talking to him I realized using the term did not work and was hurtful.  In his mind, he loved Mormons and wasn't opposed to them.  He just disagreed with the religion and wanted it to be more untenable to more people. 

I acknowledged that the word can be misapplied, but if he was behaving in strident opposition to Mormonism, he was, by definition, anti-Mormon.

And the term needn't refer to Mormons as people. The opposition can be directed toward the Church as an institution or a faith. Or it could be directed to both.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

Would you please be more specific?  Why not simply tell us explicitly just what these doctrinal changes were?  At least, identify one or two of the most significant changes.   
 

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found it jarring because I've never heard it enunciated from the speaker's lectern at a FairMormon Conference before.

Perhaps we all need to bear in mind that FairMormon does not pre-approve the speeches and therefore, they should not be regarded as necessarily expressing the position or endorsement of FairMormon.

Neither is lame. The one is simply the nominative form; the other the adjectival form. Thus anti-Mormonism is the character, state or quality of being anti-Mormon.

I acknowledged that the word can be misapplied, but if he was behaving in strident opposition to Mormonism, he was, by definition, anti-Mormon.

And the term needn't refer to Mormons as people. The opposition can be directed toward the Church as an institution or a faith. Or it could be directed to both.

I know.  I'm just telling you why I don't use it.  I just don't see the need.

[European Saint]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found it jarring because I've never heard such things enunciated from the speaker's lectern at a FairMormon Conference before. By that, I mean things so potentially controversial among believing Latter-day Saints. I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one in that category who would take exception to such pronouncements.

Perhaps we all need to bear in mind that FairMormon does not pre-approve the speeches and therefore, they should not be regarded as necessarily expressing the position or endorsement of FairMormon.

Neither is lame. The one is simply the nominative form; the other the adjectival form. Thus anti-Mormonism is the character, state or quality of being anti-Mormon.

I acknowledged that the word can be misapplied, but if he was behaving in strident opposition to Mormonism, he was, by definition, anti-Mormon.

And the term needn't refer to Mormons as people. The opposition can be directed toward the Church as an institution or a faith. Or it could be directed to both.

"I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one in that category who would take exception to such pronouncements."

Which is more jarring -- that a member in a position of influence would adopt and promote teachings that are diametrically opposed to church doctrines, or that another member would take exception to such pronouncements and state as much? While you may not like Hancock's decision to name names, I don't see how you could claim his was a preemptive strike (versus a response to dangerous incursions that have and are influencing malleable minds -- young and otherwise). I am as anti-Pharisee as you are, I bet, but I don't see it as only the apostles' duty to speak up when something is deeply amiss. I actually believe we are to "stand for something"... even when doing do is unpopular.

One need look no further than Hancock's critique of Joanna Brooks' progressive Mormonism -- and Hodges' glowing review of it -- to see where folks stand. If, like Sister Brooks, I take "all are alike unto God" to essentially mean that men and women have no distinct, complementary traits or roles, and that, regardless of my non-respect of the law of chastity, God will save me in my sins, then yes, I have advanced principles that are antithetical to the Gospel. And I would merit loving correction, in my view. But let's face it, the folks who get bent out of shape over such critiques and corrections just happen to be the very people who espouse the aforementioned notions of equality and love and compassion and fairness. And I am certainly not going to be able to convince them of the folly of their ways (which, I concede, they feel regarding me and my views -- that I fail to be sufficiently "nuanced" and "thoughtful" and "compassionate" and, wait for it... "progressive"). And I am at peace with their assessment of my views; I'm not yearning for a God who mirrors and incorporates all of my natural desires into His commandments -- no, I actually believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and will be unless..." And so I study, and pray, and try to obey. I'm not interested in judging other saints, but you better believe it be hooves me (and you!) to judge the merits of their arguments and positions.

[European Saint]

1 minute ago, European Saint said:

"I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one in that category who would take exception to such pronouncements."

Which is more jarring -- that a member in a position of influence would adopt and promote teachings that are diametrically opposed to church doctrines, or that another member would take exception to such pronouncements and state as much? While you may not like Hancock's decision to name names, I don't see how you could claim his was a preemptive strike (versus a response to dangerous incursions that have and are influencing malleable minds -- young and otherwise). I am as anti-Pharisee as you are, I bet, but I don't see it as only the apostles' duty to speak up when something is deeply amiss. I actually believe we are to "stand for something"... even when doing do is unpopular.

One need look no further than Hancock's critique of Joanna Brooks' progressive Mormonism -- and Hodges' glowing review of it -- to see where folks stand. If, like Sister Brooks, I take "all are alike unto God" to essentially mean that men and women have no distinct, complementary traits or roles, and that, regardless of my non-respect of the law of chastity, God will save me in my sins, then yes, I have advanced principles that are antithetical to the Gospel. And I would merit loving correction, in my view. But let's face it, the folks who get bent out of shape over such critiques and corrections just happen to be the very people who espouse the aforementioned notions of equality and love and compassion and fairness. And I am certainly not going to be able to convince them of the folly of their ways (which, I concede, they feel regarding me and my views -- that I fail to be sufficiently "nuanced" and "thoughtful" and "compassionate" and, wait for it... "progressive"). And I am at peace with their assessment of my views; I'm not yearning for a God who mirrors and incorporates all of my natural desires into His commandments -- no, I actually believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and will be unless..." And so I study, and pray, and try to obey. I'm not interested in judging other saints, but you better believe it be hooves me (and you!) to judge the merits of their arguments and positions.

Scott Lloyd -- I think I thought I was replying to the first poster who called Hancock's remarks "jarring." Oops! Time to put the kids to bed and stop multi-tasking, I guess!

BTW, great write-up in the Church News on my father's address. Thank you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Scott Lloyd -- I think I thought I was replying to the first poster who called Hancock's remarks "jarring." Oops! Time to put the kids to bed and stop multi-tasking, I guess!

 

I'll be like Pahoran replying to Moroni and applaud your post, even though you appeared (at first) to be censuring me.

To clarify, what I found jarring were assertions by prior speakers that the Church needs to apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre and that we all need to "retire" the term anti-Mormon.

Quote

BTW, great write-up in the Church News on my father's address. Thank you.

Thanks. I enjoyed conversing with him via email and, the next evening, meeting him at the Interpreter Foundation barbecue. He's a courageous man.

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, European Saint said:

 

Which is more jarring -- that a member in a position of influence would adopt and promote teachings that are diametrically opposed to church doctrines, or that another member would take exception to such pronouncements and state as much? While you may not like Hancock's decision to name names, I don't see how you could claim his was a preemptive strike (versus a response to dangerous incursions that have and are influencing malleable minds -- young and otherwise).  

 

CFR that the Common Consent blog under discussion did any of this. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, European Saint said:

"I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one in that category who would take exception to such pronouncements."

Which is more jarring -- that a member in a position of influence would adopt and promote teachings that are diametrically opposed to church doctrines, or that another member would take exception to such pronouncements and state as much? While you may not like Hancock's decision to name names, I don't see how you could claim his was a preemptive strike (versus a response to dangerous incursions that have and are influencing malleable minds -- young and otherwise). I am as anti-Pharisee as you are, I bet, but I don't see it as only the apostles' duty to speak up when something is deeply amiss. I actually believe we are to "stand for something"... even when doing do is unpopular.

One need look no further than Hancock's critique of Joanna Brooks' progressive Mormonism -- and Hodges' glowing review of it -- to see where folks stand. If, like Sister Brooks, I take "all are alike unto God" to essentially mean that men and women have no distinct, complementary traits or roles, and that, regardless of my non-respect of the law of chastity, God will save me in my sins, then yes, I have advanced principles that are antithetical to the Gospel. And I would merit loving correction, in my view. But let's face it, the folks who get bent out of shape over such critiques and corrections just happen to be the very people who espouse the aforementioned notions of equality and love and compassion and fairness. And I am certainly not going to be able to convince them of the folly of their ways (which, I concede, they feel regarding me and my views -- that I fail to be sufficiently "nuanced" and "thoughtful" and "compassionate" and, wait for it... "progressive"). And I am at peace with their assessment of my views; I'm not yearning for a God who mirrors and incorporates all of my natural desires into His commandments -- no, I actually believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and will be unless..." And so I study, and pray, and try to obey. I'm not interested in judging other saints, but you better believe it be hooves me (and you!) to judge the merits of their arguments and positions.

When you said:

Quote

But let's face it, the folks who get bent out of shape over such critiques and corrections just happen to be the very people who espouse the aforementioned notions of equality and love and compassion and fairness.

do you really want to be the one who fights against equality, love, compassion and fairness?  eh....I don't know, your perspective would make more sense if you didn't proclaim to be anti-Pharisee.  It's as if good qualities are bad, on this view, because people aren't strictly obeying the law.  They aren't really compassionate because they argue for spaces in the Church wherein someone can think SSM is ok.  That captures the essence of pharisaism to me. 

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take it you can document instances in which homosexual behavior was approved of by the Church early on, and that you can identify the occasion when "new doctrines around homosexuality" were inaugurated in the Church.

Otherwise, this strikes me as contrived revisionism.

 

There didn't seem to any doctrine at all early on. We don't seem to have any kind of coalescing doctrines around the subject until the mid-20th century, which echo the doctrines of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints 

 

[European Saint]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

When you said:

do you really want to be the one who fights against equality, love, compassion and fairness?  eh....I don't know, your perspective would make more sense if you didn't proclaim to be anti-Pharisee.  It's as if good qualities are bad, on this view, because people aren't strictly obeying the law.  They aren't really compassionate because they argue for spaces in the Church wherein someone can think SSM is ok.  That captures the essence of pharisaism to me. 

 Stemelbow,

I can state unequivocally that I support equality, love, compassion, and fairness -- but the versions espoused by the likes of Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, Elder Rasband, and Brother Hancock. As Hancock has clearly laid out (you will contest this, I am sure), these terms do not mean the same things to the social justice warriors of 2016 that they do to others. 

I believe all people should be welcome in the Church; however, this doesn't mean that all ideas should be. Don't take this to mean there shouldn't be space for all of us with our foibles and erroneous ideas -- I'm sure I have them, too! But it's one thing to privately and humbly struggle through one's viewpoints that are in contradiction with Church teachings; it's another thing entirely to present oneself -- however implicitly -- to know better than the Prophet (and to try to rally the troops). 

You appear to see no need for theological borders -- which means Hancock's warning against universalism might just hold water. 

[European Saint]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

CFR that the Common Consent blog under discussion did any of this. 

If you believe that the central thrust of blogs like BCC on the doctrines of the law of chastity and the eternal family are in harmony with the celestial realm, then I'm afraid nothing I could say to you would likely change your mind. And that's ok. You keep defending what you believe, and I shall do likewise. Call me a classical liberal.

Anyone who truly believes -- despite all the recent warnings of a wide range of general authorities -- that modern secularism is nothing but a boon to society (and the church!) will obviously not take kindly to Hancockian arguments on the matter. And that's ok, too.

[juliann]

You have made accusations, ES. You don't get to avoid a CFR. It isn't about what I believe. It is a straight forward call for documentation to support your claim that the Common Consent blog is " diametrically opposed to church doctrines ."  

You are required to respond, you can't continue to post attacks without substantiation, it is a board rule.

CFR

Edited September 1, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, European Saint said:

 Stemelbow,

I can state unequivocally that I support equality, love, compassion, and fairness -- but the versions espoused by the likes of Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, Elder Rasband, and Brother Hancock.  

Another CFR. Where have Oaks and Rasband ever, ever attacked "young BYU scholars?" Please produce any such accusation from them.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, European Saint said:

 Stemelbow,

I can state unequivocally that I support equality, love, compassion, and fairness -- but the versions espoused by the likes of Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, Elder Rasband, and Brother Hancock. As Hancock has clearly laid out (you will contest this, I am sure), these terms do not mean the same things to the social justice warriors of 2016 that they do to others. 

I think they mean the same things to all.  This argument continues to confuse me because of that, I suppose.

1 hour ago, European Saint said:

I believe all people should be welcome in the Church; however, this doesn't mean that all ideas should be. Don't take this to mean there shouldn't be space for all of us with our foibles and erroneous ideas -- I'm sure I have them, too! But it's one thing to privately and humbly struggle through one's viewpoints that are in contradiction with Church teachings; it's another thing entirely to present oneself -- however implicitly -- to know better than the Prophet (and to try to rally the troops). 

I can't agree with much of this.  Church should be a place where each of us are welcome to come and share that which is troubling our souls, without judgment and without feeling unwelcome.  It should be less about getting the lesson completed, or sticking to the material, in my view.  If that puts me at odds with the Church so be it.  I'm also happy to assume that many people know better than the prophet on many things.  We need to acknowledge that, and be happy to accept truth no matter from whence it comes.  It need not all come filtered through our leaders. 

1 hour ago, European Saint said:

You appear to see no need for theological borders -- which means Hancock's warning against universalism might just hold water. 

I'm sure I'm way farther afield in Hancock's and your view, than Blair if that's what you mean. 

[juliann]

A simple exercise. The winner will get a link to Hancock's full take down!

Did Elder Oaks say this or did Bro. Hancock? 

Quote

I need to share some specific, named examples of the Love Wins tendency in our midst. In fact my three examples are either employees of or have a significant connection with BYU. 

Quote

[Insert full name of a "young BYU scholar"]  plain debunking of knowledge in favor of “love,” his severing of love, effectively in practice, from knowledge of right and wrong, good and bad, is a clear example of the appeal for Mormons of the secular “Love Wins” idea.

 

Quote

 the specious rhetoric

 

Quote

One could say that in this key respect the “Love Wins” movement is a 21st century revival of Marcionism.

 

 

 

Quote

The core teaching of this “great and abominable church,” which “must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church,” as we understand that term today” is linked with assertions of Korihor in the Book of Mormon and with “moral relativism.”

 

Quote

Particularly poignant for teenagers is the feeling of rejection when peers seem to join in happy relationships and activities and deliberately leave them out. Racial and ethnic prejudices produce other painful rejections, for youth and adults.

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

A simple exercise. The winner will get a link to the Ensign!

Did Pres. Uctdorf say this or did Bro. Hodges? 

Quote

  The answer to the question “After love, then what?” can be simple and straightforward. If we truly love the Savior, we incline our hearts to Him and then we walk in the path of discipleship. When we love God, we will strive to keep His commandments.⁸

 

 

Quote

I believe that how we treat each other—especially when it comes to the things we disagree most about—is a generally reliable indicator of the level of our Christian discipleship. As John 13.35 has it, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 

Quote

I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t talk about our disagreements, either. I’m suggesting that our love for each other should be manifest in so many other ways that such conversations will be saturated with it already. I’m suggesting that our love shouldn’t be made conditional upon their agreement with us on any particular point.

 

Quote

 

If we truly love our fellowmen, we extend ourselves to help “the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.”⁹ For they who do these selfless acts of compassion and service,¹⁰ the same are disciples of Jesus Christ.

This is what comes after love.

This is the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

[European Saint]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You have made accusations, ES. You don't get to avoid a CFR. It isn't about what I believe. It is a straight forward call for documentation to support your claim that the Common Consent blog is " diametrically opposed to church doctrines ."  

You are required to respond, you can't continue to post attacks without substantiation, it is a board rule.

CFR

Attacks appear to be in the eye of the beholder; all I have seen you do on this board is attack my father, but I haven't said "CFR!" To you.

Here's one of literally hundreds of BCC examples of otherwise awesome and righteous members who are (1) literally longing for the normalization of homosexual behavior within the faith and (2) more than strongly implying that the earthly leaders of our faith so don't get it in terms of social issues (although I'm sure this won't satisfy you, if you had to ask me for examples in the first place):

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/24/were-i-ever-to-leave-the-church/

[juliann]

I'm going to ask one more time before reporting. Changing the topic isn't considered a response, it is considered dodging. This is about the calling out of Maxwell Institute scholars by name.  This isn't funny, EU.  This is an attempt to do real life harm to scholars by defaming their allegiance to the church when that church employs them.  Too many of us have had hostile critics come after us personally. I never expected to have to watch faithful members doing the same thing the critics do.  

 Please support your accusation that Hodges' Common Consent blog is " diametrically opposed to church doctrines ."  

CFR

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Attacks appear to be in the eye of the beholder; all I have seen you do on this board is attack my father, but I haven't said "CFR!" To you.

Here's one of literally hundreds of BCC examples of otherwise awesome and righteous members who are (1) literally longing for the normalization of homosexual behavior within the faith and (2) more than strongly implying that the earthly leaders of our faith so don't get it in terms of social issues (although I'm sure this won't satisfy you, if you had to ask me for examples in the first place):

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/24/were-i-ever-to-leave-the-church/

Good grief. Kevin had been a board member of FM for decade or two when he wrote that. Why are you not cutting ties with FM?

Edited September 1, 2016 by juliann

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

There didn't seem to any doctrine at all early on. We don't seem to have any kind of coalescing doctrines around the subject until the mid-20th century, which echo the doctrines of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints 

 

OK. 

I gather from this, then, that you can't identify or document any point or instance in history when the Church of Jesus Christ embraced or approved of homosexual behavior and, correspondingly, any indication of it reversing course on such an alleged policy of approval. 

I suspected as much. 

Furthermore, it would seem that Church leaders began to issue guidance on this subject about the time it began to be a public issue in America. No real surprise there. 

But to assume this was engendered by sectarian Christendom is to engage in both circular reasoning and the post hoc fallacy. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Good grief. Kevin had been a board member of FM for decade or two when he wrote that. Why are you not cutting ties with FM?

For my part, I think I'll continue to give FairMormon my monetary and moral support despite my earnest disagreement with Kevin's blog post, because, frankly, I don't see Kevin as speaking here for FairMormon, and I don't view FairMormon as endorsing his post. 

[European Saint]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For my part, I think I'll continue to give FairMormon my monetary and moral support despite my earnest disagreement with Kevin's blog post, because, frankly, I don't see Kevin as speaking here for FairMormon, and I don't view FairMormon as endorsing his post. 

Thank you, Scott, for making me feel welcome in an otherwise "unsafe space." 😀 I totally agree with you re FM and Barney's post.