Love wins and Charity loses

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, European Saint said:

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

Again, I appreciate your presence and contributions here. 

[Calm]

 

Quote

I don't see Kevin as speaking here for FairMormon, and I don't view FairMormon as endorsing his post

Nor does he speak for Blair Hodges.  Perhaps he is supposed to be one of the "young LDS scholars"?  Unfortunately, knowing Kevin I don't think he qualifies physically even if others see him as young at heart (I am afraid I don't know him that well to be able to tell).

This is all to say I am rather mystified why he was chosen as an example of documentation that Blair promotes anything.  

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Nor does he speak for Blair Hodges.  Perhaps he is supposed to be one of the "young LDS scholars"?  Unfortunately, knowing Kevin I don't think he qualifies physically even if others see him as young at heart (I am afraid I don't know him that well to be able to tell).

This is all to say I am rather mystified why he was chosen as an example of documentation that Blair promotes anything.  

 

I get the feeling ES has no intention of backing up his defamatory statements so Kevin will have to do. Every time I see "young BYU scholars" I want to ask if that means we should refer to Dr. Hancock is an "old BYU scholar."  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

I get the feeling ES has no intention of backing up his defamatory statements so Kevin will have to do. Every time I see "young BYU scholars" I want to ask if that means we should refer to Dr. Hancock is an "old BYU scholar."  

I could be wrong, but I have gotten the impression European Saint is female. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Nor does he speak for Blair Hodges.  Perhaps he is supposed to be one of the "young LDS scholars"?  Unfortunately, knowing Kevin I don't think he qualifies physically even if others see him as young at heart (I am afraid I don't know him that well to be able to tell).

This is all to say I am rather mystified why he was chosen as an example of documentation that Blair promotes anything.  

 

 

6 hours ago, juliann said:

I get the feeling ES has no intention of backing up his defamatory statements so Kevin will have to do. Every time I see "young BYU scholars" I want to ask if that means we should refer to Dr. Hancock is an "old BYU scholar."  

What term would you have preferred he use instead of scholar?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, European Saint said:

Glitch...ignore

 

[juliann]

"Scholar" isn't the problem, Scott. It is the disdain it is buried in. Do you think it appropriate to refer to Hancock as an old scholar? Would that further any discussion or simply display a lack of respect or attempt to diminish him? 

On 8/31/2016 at 5:26 PM, European Saint said:

 

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. 

Are you sure about that?      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/crossing-the-plains-and-kicking-up-dirt-a-new-mormon-pioneer/

Quote

 

But not all conservatives are bothered by her [Brook's] work.

At the helm of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), an organization that defends the LDS Church from detractors, is president Scott Gordon. He may not agree with many of her positions, but he’s glad she’s out there.

She shows the “plurality of thought within Mormonism,” he says, and has taken on characterizations of Mormons in the press in a way that’s made him want to cheer.

 

See how that works? You can still speak respectfully about someone while not always agreeing with them. Pres. Uchtdorf probably explains this better than anyone and we all know where he stands.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

"Scholar" isn't the problem, Scott. It is the disdain it is buried in. Do you think it appropriate to refer to Hancock as an old scholar? Would that further any discussion or simply display a lack of respect or attempt to diminish him? 

Are you sure about that?      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/crossing-the-plains-and-kicking-up-dirt-a-new-mormon-pioneer/

See how that works? You can still speak respectfully about someone while not always agreeing with them. Pres. Uchtdorf probably explains this better than anyone and we all know where he stands.

"Scholar" didn't strike me as being used here in a disdainful way. On the contrary, to me it reflected a careful effort to be civil, even respectful. If I want to pay a compliment to a student, I might refer to her/him as a scholar, even if it is meant in only a broad sense. 

I can think of far more disdainful terms than "scholar" -- such as "idiot," which was an epithet applied to Hancock by a poster in one of these threads the day the FairMormon Conference ended. To his credit, the only one who objected, even mildly, was Blair Hodges. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

I get the feeling ES has no intention of backing up his defamatory statements so Kevin will have to do. Every time I see "young BYU scholars" I want to ask if that means we should refer to Dr. Hancock is an "old BYU scholar."  

Yeah...I was really stuck on this constant use of young in describing them, as I read it the first couple of times.  I don't know if he was trying to establish himself some level of authority, as if because they are young they have much to learn, or something.  But I found it off putting. 

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Scholar" didn't strike me as being used here in a disdainful way. On the contrary, to me it reflected a careful effort to be civil, even respectful. If I want to pay a compliment to a student, I might refer to her/him as a scholar, even if it is meant in only a broad sense. 

I can think of far more disdainful terms than "scholar" -- such as "idiot," which was an epithet applied to Hancock by a poster in one of these threads the day the FairMormon Conference ended. To his credit, the only one who objected, even mildly, was Blair Hodges. 

She already clarified the issue wasn't that he referred to them as scholars, Scott. 

Who called him an idiot?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

She already clarified the issue wasn't that he referred to them as scholars, Scott. 

Who called him an idiot?

If you must know, it was Valentinus. It was in one of the earlier threads about the conference.

I think the issue is what might have been connoted by "scholars." As I said, I didn't perceive it as being used in disparagement or disdain. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you must know, it was Valentinus. It was in one of the earlier threads about the conference.

I'm surprised. 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the issue is what might have been connoted by "scholars." As I said, I didn't perceive it as being used in disparagement or disdain. 

I don't think Juliann indicated it was the term scholars that was at issue.  That he repeatedly spoke of them as "young" scholars, was her beef.  At least for me, that's what was off-putting. I thought that's what Juliann took issue with as well.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm surprised. 

I don't think Juliann indicated it was the term scholars that was at issue.  That he repeatedly spoke of them as "young" scholars, was her beef.  At least for me, that's what was off-putting. I thought that's what Juliann took issue with as well.  

I still don't see the problem. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm surprised. 

I don't think Juliann indicated it was the term scholars that was at issue.  That he repeatedly spoke of them as "young" scholars, was her beef.  At least for me, that's what was off-putting. I thought that's what Juliann took issue with as well.  

ME: (I can't seem to get my cursor out of the quote box)

That is what the problem is, Stemelbow. I think it has been well explained.   Scott, of course there is nothing out of place with the word "scholar." 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm surprised. 

I don't think Juliann indicated it was the term scholars that was at issue.  That he repeatedly spoke of them as "young" scholars, was her beef.  At least for me, that's what was off-putting. I thought that's what Juliann took issue with as well.  

ME: (I can't seem to get my cursor out of the quote box)

That is what the problem is, Stemelbow. I think it has been well explained.   Scott, of course there is nothing out of place with the word "scholar." 

I felt a little bit of "well they're young guys.  They're not experienced like me and thus don't quite understand the implications of their own views." when I read his repeated appeals to them being young.  Their age has nothing to do with it.  Are they really that young? 

Anyway, glad to know I wasn't alone in finding it off-putting. 

[JulieM]

On August 26, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for your response.

 

Why aren't you expressing outrage like you do when others are misquoted or misrepresented?  Is it because it was Hodges that this happened to or do you doubt his word? 

[European Saint]

Juliann, other online friends,

What our disagreements boil down to is really quite simple: how do we view the following statements (thank you for highlighting them, Scott Lloyd)?

Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God. – Elder Russell M. Nelson

As the world slips away from the Lord’s law of chastity, we do not. – Elder Neil L. Andersen

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

When I read Hodges (or Harline, or Joanna Brooks, or Greg Prince, or John Dehlin, or anyone at FMH, or countless others whose views have not -- to my limited knowledge -- been contested by Juliann) on questions tied to the doctrines found in the Proclamation, I may see different wording or different degrees of transparency or directness, but I still get the same underlying message: society is ahead, and we (the Lord's church) are behind, when it comes to gender and LGBT and family issues ("It's just like 1978!," they say).

On the one hand we have, for example, Elder Nelson calling the handbook policy a revelation (http://www.sltrib.com/home/3391057-155/lds-gay-policy-came-from-god); on the other, we have members such as Prince, who believe "The Church largely lost moral authority on LGBT issues with the announcement of The Policy last November" (http://rationalfaiths.com/biology-vs-behavior/).

For obvious reasons, folks not affiliated with BYU will be more frank with their expression on such sensitive matters, but if you believe that your friend Brother Hodges -- whom you claim ever so charitably that I have "defamed" (in addition to threatening to "report" me, I might add) -- did not downright celebrate on June 26, 2015, then I invite you to ask him about it (if you even need to). Please feel free to keep his response private; it makes no difference to me. I understand that, even for someone as inconsequential as me, calling into question one's BYU/Maxwell Institute bona fides might be received as both annoying and unwelcome, but here's something to consider: not everyone felt that the tent stakes were widened during the Maxwell Institute "purge" of 2012; some (myself included) felt instead that they simply... moved to the left. Which, by the way, is what also appears to have happened in recent years at Fair Mormon (you might ask yourself why certain conservative members within FAIR are no longer with the organization, but then again, their departure likely pleases you). All this to say that you, Juliann, have you own agenda, which is to embrace what you claim is Uchtdorfian logic and doctrine, but what is actually Brooksian (or Hodgian, or...). As noted above, you do not see a difference in substance when you read President Uchtdorf and Brother Hodges; I do. I do not see a difference in substance when I read Brother Hancock and, frankly, any General Authority in 2016; you do. 

Before I get accused of having my political tail wag my religious dog, let me state unequivocally that I -- like my father -- agree with my friend on this point: "it actually behooves us to avoid holding the restored gospel hostage to these ["conservative" and "liberal"] or any other transient ideological constructs" (http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/02/sounding-the-secularist-alarm-at-byu/). I believe there are beautiful elements of what we consider "liberal" and "conservative" bound up in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- BOTH. But it just so happens that many of the battles our inspired leaders would have us wage, today, happen to be against what we now consider "the Left" (and, mind you, I'm not talking generally about immigration or health care or defense or economics; I'm talking about questions of morality as they pertain to family relationships and sexual mores).

If, like Greg Prince or Kevin Barney or (the list goes on and on; hence the apostles' and Hancock's warnings) you feel that, "In ten years, maybe 20, we’ll be the Westboro Baptist Church of Latter-day Saints, and our future leaders will have very little room to try to maneuver their way out of it" (https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/24/were-i-ever-to-leave-the-church/), then you and I have very different levels of appreciation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(Final point: Like Scott, I noticed no offense taken when Hancock was called an "idiot" on this very website, yet the same moral-high-ground folks were taken aback by the fact that a 64-year-old dared to refer to scholars from a younger generation as... shield your children's ears.. "young.")

I hope this helps. Have a great weekend, everyone!

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Juliann, other online friends,

What our disagreements boil down to is really quite simple: how do we view the following statements (thank you for highlighting them, Scott Lloyd)?

Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God. – Elder Russell M. Nelson

As the world slips away from the Lord’s law of chastity, we do not. – Elder Neil L. Andersen

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

When I read Hodges (or Harline, or Joanna Brooks, or Greg Prince, or John Dehlin, or anyone at FMH, or countless others whose views have not -- to my limited knowledge -- been contested by Juliann) on questions tied to the doctrines found in the Proclamation, I may see different wording or different degrees of transparency or directness, but I still get the same underlying message: society is ahead, and we (the Lord's church) are behind, when it comes to gender and LGBT and family issues ("It's just like 1978!," they say).

I find that a little ambiguous.  What from Hodges are you thinking disagrees with the quotes?  Even if one thinks the Church is behind on something why is that a problem?  the quoted don't seem to address that notion.   

2 minutes ago, European Saint said:

On the one hand we have, for example, Elder Nelson calling the handbook policy a revelation (http://www.sltrib.com/home/3391057-155/lds-gay-policy-came-from-god); on the other, we have members such as Prince, who believe "The Church largely lost moral authority on LGBT issues with the announcement of The Policy last November" (http://rationalfaiths.com/biology-vs-behavior/).

 

Prince?  now we're outside the realm of young scholars, at least.  No need to group 'em by age ranges.  This is going to get tough to discuss though if we group people into groupings that may not fit.  Does Hodges agree with the quote?  I mean it's probably true.  But even if true, does it really challenge President Nelson's claim of revelation?  It's possible revelation could be mistaken. 

2 minutes ago, European Saint said:

 

For obvious reasons, folks not affiliated with BYU will be more frank with their expression on such sensitive matters, but if you believe that your friend Brother Hodges -- whom you claim ever so charitably that I have "defamed" (in addition to threatening to "report" me, I might add) -- did not downright celebrate on June 26, 2015, then I invite you to ask him about it (if you even need to). Please feel free to keep his response private; it makes no difference to me. I understand that, even for someone as inconsequential as me, calling into question one's BYU/Maxwell Institute bona fides might be received as both annoying and unwelcome, but here's something to consider: not everyone felt that the tent stakes were widened during the Maxwell Institute "purge" of 2012; some (myself included) felt instead that they simply... moved to the left. Which, by the way, is what also appears to have happened in recent years at Fair Mormon (you might ask yourself why certain conservative members within FAIR are no longer with the organization, but then again, their departure likely pleases you). All this to say that you, Juliann, have you own agenda, which is to embrace what you claim is Uchtdorfian logic and doctrine, but what is actually Brooksian (or Hodgian, or...). As noted above, you do not see a difference in substance when you read President Uchtdorf and Brother Hodges; I do. I do not see a difference in substance when I read Brother Hancock and, frankly, any General Authority in 2016; you do. 

 

 

This part sounds way too personal between you and Juliann now.  So I won't comment other than to say, creating sides like this seems unhelpful. 

2 minutes ago, European Saint said:

Before I get accused of having my political tail wag my religious dog, let me state unequivocally that I -- like my father -- agree with my friend on this point: "it actually behooves us to avoid holding the restored gospel hostage to these ["conservative" and "liberal"] or any other transient ideological constructs" (http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2014/02/sounding-the-secularist-alarm-at-byu/). I believe there are beautiful elements of what we consider "liberal" and "conservative" bound up in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- BOTH. But it just so happens that many of the battles our inspired leaders would have us wage, today, happen to be against what we now consider "the Left" (and, mind you, I'm not talking generally about immigration or health care or defense or economics; I'm talking about questions of morality as they pertain to family relationships and sexual mores).

If, like Greg Prince or Kevin Barney or (the list goes on and on; hence the apostles' and Hancock's warnings) you feel that, "In ten years, maybe 20, we’ll be the Westboro Baptist Church of Latter-day Saints, and our future leaders will have very little room to try to maneuver their way out of it" (https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/24/were-i-ever-to-leave-the-church/), then you and I have very different levels of appreciation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(Final point: Like Scott, I noticed no offense taken when Hancock was called an "idiot" on this very website, yet the same moral-high-ground folks were taken aback by the fact that a 64-year-old dared to refer to scholars from a younger generation as... shield your children's ears.. "young.")

I hope this helps. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Again, this feels like it's barking up the wrong tree.  It's like Hodges agrees with the little quotes you started this post with.  It's like he still stands by his article about the Proclamation.  It's likely you and perhaps Hancock driving wedges or attempting to, where they need not be driven.   

As per the term idiot.  I didn't see it.  I saw Scott reference it today and I'm saddened at it's use.  As for young.  I found the continued use of it to be off-putting, nothing more.  I only commented as it was mentioned by Juliann.  To be clear. 

 

[juliann]

54 minutes ago, European Saint said:

   (in addition to threatening to "report" me, I might add)

 

I will come back to this astonishing post and the ongoing personal attacks but I do want to clarify this. There is a post report button on each post. When someone refuses to abide by this message board rules, as you continue to do, we are to report the poster. To the moderators. 

It would appear to me that ES is Ralph Hancock or is now channeling him. Can we stop the pretense?

You are still subject to the CFR request. You continue to change the topic instead. That doesn't play well on message boards and I'm not biting. This is not about anybody or anything other than you calling out scholars in a public forum for something as trivial as a blog, while you changed what they said or actually made up quotes from them to then attack.

Later.....

[juliann]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I can think of far more disdainful terms than "scholar" -- such as "idiot," which was an epithet applied to Hancock by a poster in one of these threads the day the FairMormon Conference ended. To his credit, the only one who objected, even mildly, was Blair Hodges. 

Rich irony.

[rongo]

On 9/1/2016 at 10:45 AM, juliann said:

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

I see you as using "CFR" as a bullying and browbeating tactic, juliann. In this particular case, what you quoted was "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." 

This was an expression of opinion about ES's definitions of equality, love, compassion, and fairness being "the versions espoused by the likes of Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, Elder Rasband, and Brother Hancock."  This is on its face an opinion, and not CFR-able. But you demand that he prove that Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, et. al. "attacked young BYU scholars." 

I think only legitimate CFRs need to be responded to.

Edited September 2, 2016 by rongo

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you must know, it was Valentinus. It was in one of the earlier threads about the conference.

Val can get carried away at times in his language.  He is a passionate guy.  Most of the time I report it when I see him (or anyone else) cross lines, don't know if others do very often (I am the only one on board who reports her reporting publicly on a regular basis, I do it in hopes more people feel less awkward about it, but perhaps everyone assumes I am taking care of it for the rest of the posters by this point, lol).  I don't remember if I reported this one, even I get distracted from such things quite often.  I am not actually looking for stuff to report.   Mods have expressed a preference for people to report rather than board nannying and I suspect a lot respect the boardnannying side even if they feel strange about reporting.

Labeling someone in a dismissive or derogatory way on a message board is somewhat different than doing so in a presentation one hopes will reach and persuade or at least educate large quantities of people.  For all I know, Val was letting off some frustration as opposed to attempting to persuade people to see things his way.  Rants are not unusual on the board; I would hope no one sees them as common fare at even FM conferences.  I doubt many on the board are naive enough to believe we have much impact in persuasion here that way.  Doesn't excuse it, but it seems rather strange to point to him posting on this board as comparable to someone presenting in a semiacademic forum.

[juliann]

Rongo, you have not represented what is being asked for accurately. One more time,

CFR that Blair's blog, in which Hancock doctored one quote and made up another that was not even in the blog, said what Hancock represented. Provide documentation from the blog itself, that supports Hancock's accusations. 

This isn't about Hancock's personal ideology, it is about his attacks and misrepresentations as he calls out faithful BYU scholars by name.  I've said that repeatedly. I'm happy to say it every time someone tries to change the topic. Or at least until Ttribe tells me what computer to get.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Rongo, you have not represented what is being asked for accurately.

Yes, I have. You quoted (in the quote box) his opinion that his views are closer to the Brethren's, and your specific CFR (which I quoted) was "Where have Oaks and Rasband ever, ever attacked "young BYU scholars?" 

Quote

 

I'm happy to say it every time someone tries to change the topic

It looks like your rapidly-changing CFRs try to change the topic at least as much as you are claiming he is.

CFR that you're right!  

(CFRs lose meaning when they are brandished as a weapon).

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by rongo

[juliann]

Well, I don't remember that being a CFR but it was such an outrageous (and arrogant) claim that I will be happy to add it. And we both know that ES has no intention of responding to them. We get another volley of attacks, eye wink gossip, and ad hominem instead.  I'm not a very good bully, evidently.