Love wins and Charity loses

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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? 

I don't remember any personal animosity being shown towards Blair by Scott.  Is there some reason this needs to be made personal?  Seems like there is too much of this in the thread (especially ES's latest post, there are imo others).  It is distracting from what could be really useful, a discussion of the quotes in the presentation and if they are accurate or misrepresentaions and the implications of either (man, I have crossed the line into boardnannying big time but I don't think I will resistthe temptation this time, feel free toreport me).  It would be much more interesting to get the quotes up again to refresh everyone's memory (and get the thread back on track) and then documentation provided by everyone for why they conclude they are accurate or misreprensation.

Unfortunately I have to run off to Mom's.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

juliann, 

In trying to follow this thread and understand everything.  Are you meaning the specific blog post or the blog "Common Consent" in general.  Because the link EuropeanSaint provided does come from the Common Consent Blog.  As does this one from today: 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/09/02/how-to-account-for-evan/

Which contains this quote from the author: 

Quote

I know enough people who have found that joy in loving same-gender relationships that I simply reject our current doctrine.

 

Now if you are trying to focus on a specific blog post.  I issue a separate CFR that EuropeanSaint ever claimed that blog post was opposed to church doctrine rather than the BCC blog in gteneral.  

[European Saint]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

in which Hancock doctored one quote and made up another that was not even in the blog, said what Hancock represented.

 

CFR 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

juliann, 

In trying to follow this thread and understand everything.  Are you meaning the specific blog post or the blog "Common Consent" in general.  Because the link EuropeanSaint provided does come from the Common Consent Blog.  As does this one from today: 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/09/02/how-to-account-for-evan/

Which contains this quote from the author: 

 

Now if you are trying to focus on a specific blog post.  I issue a separate CFR that EuropeanSaint ever claimed that blog post was opposed to church doctrine rather than the BCC blog in gteneral.  

That is not the blog under discussion, there is only one blog under discussion by me. ES has, however, turned to other blogs that are not in Hancock's talk. That should be a new thread. This is about the talk and what was referenced in that talk.

ES, what you are asking for has already been provided. If not in this thread the other one. I am on my way to do what I intended to do hours ago. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

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.

Bear in mind that the published transcript of the talk had content that was not in the spoken version and evidently drew upon a subsequent email discussion between the two men (I made this point earlier, drawing upon my own personal transcript of the talk as presented at the conference). Could it be that, when you say Hancock "made up another that was not even in the blog," you have reference to this additional content from the follow-up email conversation? If that's the case, we cannot say definitively that Hancock made up the quote, as we do not have access to their email exchange.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

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.  

OK.

Then what is really at issue here is the suggestion that the "love-wins/love-has-no-labels/all-you-need-is-love" mentality has an especially strong influence among the more youthful segment of the populace (a suggestion I suspect is correct, by the way).

You might find that off-putting, but I don't see it as so, any more than the frequently reported statistic these days that for millennials and generations younger than that, religion has alarmingly little appeal. I might not like hearing that, but stats are what they are, and perhaps I and others need to be alerted to it so as to do something about it, if we can.

Saying it is "off-putting" to identify this "love wins" meme as being popular among younger people is classic shoot-the-messenger mentality.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[European Saint]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then what is really at issue here is the suggestion that the "love-wins/love-has-no-labels/all-you-need-is-love" mentality has an especially strong influence among the more youthful segment of the populace (a suggestion I suspect is correct, by the way).

YES! One reader (at least one) gets it. Thank you. I humbly beg forgiveness for quoting from any other blog for trying to further clarify this point with materials deemed apocryphal by a certain commenter.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

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? 

On the one hand, I see how Ralph Hancock could draw the conclusion he did.

On the other hand, I believe Blair Hodges is best qualified to say what he does or does not mean. And I trust his integrity.

So, because of the ambiguity, I have elected not to put my oar in.

And whether or not I choose to do so is my affair, not yours.

[Calm]

The complete part of Hancock's talk currently being addressed by Juliann:

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

The argument of Blair’s that I am addressing was not made in his BYU capacity but as a prominent blogger at By Common Consent. Responding on that site to an example used by Elder Anderson concerning the challenges an LDS teenager faced in standing up for her “belief in marriage between a man and a woman,” Mr. Hodges proposes “a different version” of such an experience in which the girl wishes to defend her belief in “marriage equality.” The premise of Hodges’ argument is the equivalence of these two experiences – as if it were arbitrary or accidental that Elder Anderson was offering support to the girl defending a specific LDS teaching. Of course Elder Anderson would counsel, as Church leaders have often counseled, that we treat those who contradict church teachings with courtesy, respect, and love. But this takes nothing away from the Apostle’s clear intention to contribute to the defense of true teachings and not to compromise with a significant and dangerous error.

Hodges goes on to defend the equivalence between the two girls’ cases (one favoring real marriage, the other “marriage equality”) by invoking “love for one another” (John 13:35) as the “generally reliable indicator of our Christian discipleship.” Of course the statement itself is incontrovertible, but the whole question concerns the status of particular commandments and principles in relation to the great and ultimate idea of love.

Hodges disposes of this question with this decisive affirmation: “If we can be united on this one single idea, we will be united in the one thing that ultimately matters.” Citing 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, Hodges thus counsels us to regard all opinions on matters such as gay marriage and abortion as personal perspectives that admit of no certainty, and that don’t ultimately matter anyway. Since we don’t have “perfect knowledge,” we should consider love to be the only absolute truth – and this then is a love that has been severed from any “opinion” we may have about such things as commandments and purposes.

Of course, if Mr. Hodges were merely saying that all our dealings with other human beings, especially fellow saints, should be informed by love, then he would be saying something very true and very uncontroversial. But he is saying more than that. In the guise of claiming, in the notion of “love,” a higher ground above all mere opinions, “liberal” and “conservative,” he is in fact laying out an aggressively liberal position, a position of effective relativism (whether he knows it or not, and he insists that he does not): We can’t know if Elder Anderson is right, or if the girl favoring gay marriage is right, so let’s put them on the ground of equal ignorance of the ultimate truth. Since “we could be wrong about any particular subject,” but not, it seems, about something called “love,” our beliefs concerning the content of God’s love for us, that is, concerning his plan for us, must not enter into the way we show love. If we are ignorant of the ultimate truth… then how can we really object to anyone’s “preferences,” since they are all equal. And why would we ever presume to offer “correction” to someone who just happens to find himself “in a minority position within the church,”?

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.

Blair Hodges’ 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. (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.)

[Calm]

Quotes from the PP:

BLAIR HODGES, “NONE OF US WITH PERFECT KNOWLEDGE, OR ALL OF US WITH LOVE” 

•  “love for one another” (John 13:35) as the “reliable indicator of our Christian discipleship.” 

•  “If we can be united on this one single idea, we will be united in the one thing that ultimately matters.” 

•  Since “we could be wrong about any particular subject,” but not, it seems, about something called “love,” our beliefs concerning the content of God’s love for us, that is, concerning his plan for us, must not enter into the way we show love. 

 

[juliann]

5 hours ago, European Saint said:

 

CFR 

And here it is (thank you Calm)

The doctored quote #1 blue indicates word substitutions that change meaning, red indicates omissions. Note that there are no ellipses to notify the reader of an omission and that the word change preceded the quote mark. 

Quote

  •  “love for one another” (John 13:35) as the “reliable indicator [of the level of] our Christian discipleship.” 

The real quote before it was changed and rearranged. 

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.”

 

[Calm]

Blair's blog referred to above, probably best to read the whole thing though I am only posting the commentary:

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

In the first example, as in the second, a person took a risk by expressing a personal belief that, depending on the context, could seem wildly unpopular. As Elder Andersen observed, they risked having to stand, in some sense, alone. Perhaps these two people, the real one in the first example and the hypothetical one in the second, could begin to appreciate each other more if they recognized the same sort of vulnerability in the other as they felt in themselves. Perhaps that would help them deal more charitably with each other.

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.”

Beneath our disagreements we share so much more in common. Our household of faith will become more Christlike as we learn how to love each other in spite of our differences. If we can be united on this one single idea, we will be united in the one thing that ultimately matters today. We’re all still learning. If you know a member of the church who has different perspectives on various issues like gay marriage, gun rights, abortion, or whether mothers should work outside of the home—whatever it is, I swear to you they need your friendship and love so much more than your correction, especially if their opinion places them in a minority position within the church.

It’s so difficult and scary to stand alone, whether you feel more alone within the church community or beyond it where standards sometimes differ from the church’s. Conservative, liberal, all the labels we use for ourselves and each other—these “ite” labels we really do love too dearly to ever quite relinquish (much like our predecessors in the Book of Mormon)—love could transcend them.

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.

If you’re right and they’re wrong, you can rest assured they will find out the truth someday. And if you’re wrong and they are right, you will, too. But either way you’ll be bonded together through your love for each other in spite of your differences. And you don’t have to wait to find out about that. You can try to make that happen today. I constantly screw it up, myself, I know how unrealistic it is in practice. But it remains my ideal because that’s what the gospel really looks like to me. It seems like my only hope because I can’t possibly be right about everything and if that’s what it takes to be saved I’ll never make it. Who could?

Our options are none of us with perfect knowledge or all of us with love. It’s like Paul said:

“Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13.8-13 NRSV, see also the KJV passage.)

I can think of no more important sermon than this for American members of the church facing the next presidential election."

Me: third quote source seems to be in comments at date June 30, 12:51

I can't figure out how to copy Blair's comments on this device.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

Ralph's made up "quote"  Purple means it doesn't exist anywhere but on Hancock's slide.

Quote

•  Since “we could be wrong about any particular subject,” but not, it seems, about something called “love,” our beliefs concerning the content of God’s love for us, that is, concerning his plan for us, must not enter into the way we show love. 

“we could be wrong about any particular subject,” is not in the blog he names on his slide. Neither is what follows it in any shape or form to be found in that blog.  Nowhere. He made it up, put quotes around it, and attributed it to someone who didn't say it. And then he included his own words, represented as coming from the referenced blog. 

Now, I expect you, ES, to follow suit and respond to my CFR.  Document where the blog Hancock references and names in his talk contains what he claims. You can start with the above riff on a nonexistent quote. 

Edited to note that Cal, after much reading, found the portion in quotes in the comment section!  He did not reference it and represented it as being in the blog. It is not. Nor does the quote represent what was in the comment section other than his lifting the beginning clause of a sentence without acknowledging the rest of it.

From the comment section but not in the blog: 

Quote

I’m suggesting that underneath all of our disagreements—and even our agreements—we should work to cultivate charity. We could be wrong about any particular subject, but if we’ve worked to fulfill the gospel law of love our differences will ultimately be resolved, and we will have already built the networks of love that will last beyond all controversies.

Hancock's version:

Quote

•  Since “we could be wrong about any particular subject,” but not, it seems, about something called “love,” our beliefs concerning the content of God’s love for us, that is, concerning his plan for us, must not enter into the way we show love. 

There is no relation between the comment section quote and the clipped version Hancock used, embellished, and misrepresented as being in the blog. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by juliann

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Me: third quote source seems to be in comments at date June 30, 12:51

I can't figure out how to copy Blair's comments on this device.

Here you go Calm: (Bold added by me.)

Quote

BHodges says:

June 30, 2016 at 12:51 pm

StirFry: “I suspect, however, that a decent # of bloggers and church members fall in Group 3, and are trying to change the church from within, yet don’t have the guts to be public about their intentions.”

I’m suggesting in this blog post that your concern about any given church member’s personal beliefs on gay marriage—particularly in your case with regard to whether a person believes it is not sinful in the eyes of God—may be preventing you from better fulfilling the gospel law of love—whether you think such supporters of SSM are bad Mormons because of heterodoxy or because they don’t just leave the church because you see it as a hateful organization. My post works regardless of where people stand on the particulars.

To put it in academic gobbledygook, you’re assessing fellow church members (I presume you’re a member) with a hermeneutic of suspicion rather than a hermeneutic of charity, by your own words, and it isn’t difficult for people to detect this in you. This may make them wonder if you’re more concerned about them as a person, a child of God, a fellow Saint on the one hand, or as a collection of specific beliefs that must align with yours in order to be acceptable on the other. Or on another hand, whether you think they are a deluded liberal tied to a backwards church who needs to liberate themselves from delusion. Again, my post works regardless of where you stand on this.

I’m suggesting that underneath all of our disagreements—and even our agreements—we should work to cultivate charity. We could be wrong about any particular subject, but if we’ve worked to fulfill the gospel law of love our differences will ultimately be resolved, and we will have already built the networks of love that will last beyond all controversies.

 

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ralph's made up "quote"  Purple means it doesn't exist anywhere but on Hancock's slide.

“we could be wrong about any particular subject,” is not in the blog he names on his slide. Neither is what follows it in any shape or form to be found in that blog.  Nowhere. He made it up, put quotes around it, and attributed it to someone who didn't say it. And then he included his own words, represented as coming from the referenced blog. 

Now, I expect you, ES, to follow suit and respond to my CFR.  Document where the blog Hancock references and names in his talk contains what he claims. You can start with the above riff on a nonexistent quote. 

So since the quote you claim was made up does in fact appear on that page, I assume you will be apologizing to Mr,. Hancock personally for accusing him of dishonesty and fraud, and also to ES for the frivolous CFR?

[Calm]

See Juliann's edited post, kll

----

Here are all of Blair's posts in the comment section in case anyone needs help in figuring out what Blair was saying, though I didn't see much ambiguity...my summary:  don't deny our disagreements as we all should put our principles out there even when it is hard, but let's be charitable while we discuss them as well as the rest of the time.

Quote

 

Thank you, cat. I’m glad you lent your voice there and here. 

Mike Harris: Thanks for the question and kind words. No, this post isn’t an “attempt to justify or advocate same-sex marriage within the LDS church.” It’s a post about how we might deal, according to the gospel, with the fact that church members have different views on various difficult issues.

 

Quote

 

StirFry: “I suspect, however, that a decent # of bloggers and church members fall in Group 3, and are trying to change the church from within, yet don’t have the guts to be public about their intentions.”

I’m suggesting in this blog post that your concern about any given church member’s personal beliefs on gay marriage—particularly in your case with regard to whether a person believes it is not sinful in the eyes of God—may be preventing you from better fulfilling the gospel law of love—whether you think such supporters of SSM are bad Mormons because of heterodoxy or because they don’t just leave the church because you see it as a hateful organization. My post works regardless of where people stand on the particulars. 

To put it in academic gobbledygook, you’re assessing fellow church members (I presume you’re a member) with a hermeneutic of suspicion rather than a hermeneutic of charity, by your own words, and it isn’t difficult for people to detect this in you. This may make them wonder if you’re more concerned about them as a person, a child of God, a fellow Saint on the one hand, or as a collection of specific beliefs that must align with yours in order to be acceptable on the other. Or on another hand, whether you think they are a deluded liberal tied to a backwards church who needs to liberate themselves from delusion. Again, my post works regardless of where you stand on this. 

I’m suggesting that underneath all of our disagreements—and even our agreements—we should work to cultivate charity. We could be wrong about any particular subject, but if we’ve worked to fulfill the gospel law of love our differences will ultimately be resolved, and we will have already built the networks of love that will last beyond all controversies.

Quote

thelawsmith: I’d prefer to keep the discussion in this thread connected as closely as possible to the original post, which only peripherally discussed SSM in a wider discussion about how to be members of a church where different perspectives exist, and the importance of prioritizing love. I’d appreciate it if you saved your comment and found a different place to discuss it.

Quote

 

Jax, I directly addressed your main point in the original post. Here is the relevant section:

“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.

If you’re right and they’re wrong, you can rest assured they will find out the truth someday. And if you’re wrong and they are right, you will, too. But either way you’ll be bonded together through your love for each other in spite of your differences. And you don’t have to wait to find out about that. You can try to make that happen today.”

Stir Fry, do you understand how your question could come across as a threatening litmus test, whether it be for “conservative” or “liberal” purposes? In that way it seems like you’re missing the entire point of the post.The spirit of the post will be best actualized in real interaction between family members and ward members and friends who know each other beyond screen names. It seems extremely important to you to know what I personally believe when I haven’t asked anyone here to change their views on the issue of same sex marriage, or anything else. The post is about how to abide with charity in spite of whatever differences of perspective arise. You do see how your interrogation runs counter to the post’s intention and the moral argument it makes, yes? (The same goes for Jax’s contribution.)

 

Quote

Thanks Angela. 

Thinking more about this discussion overall. It’s interesting to me how several commenters straight away displayed the very sort of uncharitable discourse the post was intended to identify and discourage. More disappointing than interesting, really.

Quote

The responses that understood the post vastly outnumbered those that didn’t, and I’m grateful for that.

Quote

An interesting point. Do we get to decide when we’ve been charitable or not, especially when the people we claim to have been charitable with felt no love?

Quote

Removing this post because it was responding to a different topic, imo

Edited September 3, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

39 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Here you go Calm: (Bold added by me.)

 

So since the quote you claim was made up does in fact appear on that page, I assume you will be apologizing to Mr,. Hancock personally for accusing him of dishonesty and fraud, and also to ES for the frivolous CFR?

See above. Those are your words, not mine.. And the CFR stands. Try going to the next academic conference, claim you are quoting a blog, and then pull a partial sentence out of the comment section, embellish it.....then get back to me. And why didn't Hancock use ellipsis when he omitted important parts of the first quote after substituting a word that changed the meaning?

Edited September 3, 2016 by juliann

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

See above. Those are your words, not mine.. And the CFR stands. Try going to the next academic conference, claim you are quoting a blog, and then pull a partial sentence out of the comment section, embellish it.....then get back to me. 

Juliann, do understand the difference between a blog post and a.blog? Because there is a huge difference. A blog post is somewhat like an article in a journal.  A blog is akin to the whole journal.  This inevitably includes the comments.  Since you seem to be trying to limit the entire discussion to not only the individual post but to the original post of that page, your language of blog is very misleading.  

Quoting a blog as an example of how a mindset of love being more important than truth is pervasive even among scholarly members seems perfectly reasonable.  BHodges even goes so far as to question whether charity is even charity if the recipient doesn't interpret it as such, sure seems to be a strong indication of the attitude Hancock attributes to BHodges. 

I'm not even sure I agree with Hancock, but you're certainly not presenting a convincing or even fully understandable case here by refusing to accept the evidence on its own terms. 

 

[Calm]

Quote

a mindset of love being more important than truth

CFR where Blair said or implied this as I didn't get it from my reading of his blog.

Quote

"Our household of faith will become more Christlike as we learn how to love each other in spite of our differences. If we can be united on this one single idea, we will be united in the one thing that ultimately matters today."

Quote

It’s so difficult and scary to stand alone, whether you feel more alone within the church community or beyond it where standards sometimes differ from the church’s.

There is a recognition here, imo, that it is brave to stand up for principle, how in the world is he diminishing the act of standing up for principles when he is saying we should give our love to all people who are willing to do so?

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.

So talk about our disagreements, take our principled stands but do it with love whether you agree with them or not.  Still not seeing putting love above truth here, but rather love with truth (which imo is much more likely to be persuasive than otherwise).

And as far as "questions"...that was an actual question and not a challenge as far as I could see.  It is, imo, a necessary question on charity, how do we determine whether our act is charitable or not?  And one others were discussing in the comments.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

Yes, I understand the difference. kll. Do you understand that the slide that was used named (not referenced) the blog post? That a link has been given to that blog post? What possible confusion could there be unless you aren't paying attention?

Do you know that blog post comments require a separate reference, noting they are comments with enough information given to find them? Google a style guide. (I have yet to find any footnotes in this talk, BTW)  

But what does that have to do with what was done to that blog post comment, now that it has been found? What does it have to do with the first doctored quote from the blog post?

Edited September 3, 2016 by juliann

[Calm]

In the comments:

Quote

this post isn’t an “attempt to justify or advocate same-sex marriage within the LDS church.” It’s a post about how we might deal, according to the gospel, with the fact that church members have different views on various difficult issues.

Quote

The post is about how to abide with charity in spite of whatever differences of perspective arise.

I see nothing in his blog post or comments that indicate you can't tell someone they are wrong.  For example, he himself is doing that to those he sees as treating others without charity.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, juliann said:

(I have yet to find any footnotes in this talk, BTW)  

That bugged me as I had to do my own search for Blair's blog and it wasn't coming up until I figured out it was under a combo of his name, not the one used by Hancock and not all the other versions I looked at.  I am getting spoiled.  I look forward to footnotes and finding some interesting tidbit I didn't know in them.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I see nothing in his blog post or comments that indicate you can't tell someone they are wrong.  For example, he himself is doing that to those he sees as treating others without charity.

And we wait in vain for any support for the continuing misrepresentation of the blog post Hancock named. 

Seriously, CFR. We have been very patient and I have responded to theirs while waiting. In vain.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

  That bugged me as I had to do my own search for Blair's blog and it wasn't coming up until I figured out it was under a combo of his name, not the one used by Hancock and not all the other versions I looked at.  I am getting spoiled.  I look forward to footnotes and finding some interesting tidbit I didn't know in them.

I am beginning to wonder if the omission of complete references was deliberate. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by juliann

[European Saint]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I am beginning to wonder if the omission of complete references was deliberate. 

Only Hancock can answer for the minutiae you demand, but I -- as a family member and outside observer -- have listened to Hancock's talk, read the transcript, and read Hodges' blog posts and comments for years (so yes, not just the one). Honest question: has Hancock not captured the thrust -- however subtle -- of Hodges' argument? I believe he has, and I believe an objective third party (not Hancock's offspring or Hodges' bowling partner) would state as much.

The larger question is why, in a post about Hancock's FM talk, is the entire focus of discussion attempted to be limited (rather fervently, I might add) to the Hodges section (and not, well, the entire talk)? Do you folks disagree with Hancock's warnings about the incursions of the Love Wins mentality into the church membership? Do you agree that this is a negative development? Why or why not?

If you agree, well, I think the topic just might merit careful thought and discussion... but that hasn't happened here (we might ask who among the commenters is/are dodging the core issue here?).

Discussing replies to the aforementioned questions, IMO, is what an intelligent conversation would look like. What I read above is instead the Olympic Games of hair splitting. And not the slightest bit charitable to my father, I might add (Why would he doctor quotes? Why would he make up quotes? I see no motivation in the man of integrity I know and love to do so. He has no bone to pick with any of the scholars he references, but he recognizes the bifurcations from the Gospel in their arguments about what love means.)

[European Saint]

Ralph C. Hancock wrote me the following in an email this very morning:

"So I quoted from the Blair¹s response to comments as well as the the blog
itself.  Is that wrong?  It didn¹t twist anything; he was clarifying or
amplifying his own argument, and I quoted it ‹ yes, I considered it part
of the same document.
Anyway, the logic of the argument is as transparent as can be: we can be
sure about ³love² but not about truth (especially the moral truth
surrounding sum ‹ which is topic the blog begins with, after all).
Therefore our love can be expressed w/o reference to any particular moral
truth, and questions of moral truth can be deferred indefinitely.
Anyway, as you point out, nitpicking the quotes is a distraction: the
question is the clear implication of Blair¹s argument.  Sure, he says
people can go ahead and disagree, but he has already put disagreement ³on
any particular subject²  (the Red Sox/Yankees?  Pants/Skirts?  ³Gay
Marriage² / Real Marriage?) within a framework in which they it doesn¹t
really matter because we allegedly know that we can¹t know and that only
³love² is important anyway.  What if I were to say "look, we disagree on
whether
PATRIARCHY is wrong, but who can say?
It¹s impossible to know.All our knowledge is faulty, and love' is the
[only] reliable indicator of the state of our souls. Sure, We¹ll know the
truth of that and everything else someday [when it¹s too late to guide our
actions in this time of probation], but anyone who thinks they know
something now is aggressively self-righteous and uncaring.  So let¹s be,
not only courteous and civil, but compassionate, feel each other¹s pain,
take our bearings definitely from people¹s feelings (and not by any
supposedly available standard of truth), since ³love² is the one true
thing - but not insist on any supposed knowledge of morality.²
Does that sound like taking the moral question of THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN
seriously?
And is there any other way to interpret the logical structure of Blair¹s
argument?  (And of course my analogy here has nothing to do with
attributing ANY PARTICULAR VIEW OF PATRIARCHY to Blair.  It¹s just an
example of moral
knowledge. Shall we be guided by such moral knowledge, or not?)

But it is said that Blair gets to decide what his argument means. Well,
not really. if Blair denies the clear implication of his argument, then
either:
1- he is dissimulating, because he would rather the implication not be
stated so clearly before an audience he has not chosen.  Or,
2- he really doesn¹t see the implication of his own argument, and wishes
in fact to hold contradictory positions (we can take moral questions
seriously, even after we¹ve determined in advance that no one can have any
actionable answers until some future state and that that¹s OK, because we
can practice ³love² without claiming any truth).  But then, if we wishes
to remain in this contradictory state, then, yes, someone else might be a
better judge of the meaning of Blair¹s argument than he is.

PS: Some of my best friends are “young.""