May 7th, 2012
When I chose recently, in articles posted at Meridian Magazine (part 1, part 2), to engage critically what I called “Mormonism Lite,” I knew I was likely to stir up considerable heat, but I was hoping the light might be worth it. To judge from all the anger I have provoked at numerous LDS or quasi-LDS blogs, it would seem heat is a clear winner at this point. Herewith another attempt at light.
I am neither surprised nor offended to have elicited disagreement — in fact, I’m sorry there wasn’t more actual, substantive, disagreement, as opposed to indignant complaints about my tone, my manner, my masculinity, my employer, etc. Here I propose to restate the main stakes of my argument without reference to any persons, and so clearly that those who pretend to be open to rational discussion will have no possible excuse for avoiding the questions I’m raising.
In particular, I frankly challenge faithful LDS bloggers at what I had taken on the whole to be faithful LDS blogs (Times & Seasons, By Common Consent, Wheat & Tares, for example) to distinguish themselves — if they wish, that is — from voices on their sites that seem to reject out of hand any attempt (such as mine) to limit the absorption of LDS belief into what I will call “lifestyle liberalism” or “extreme tolerance.” I have to say I had hoped for more substantive discussion from such sites; but my recent experience suggests that, although surely not all principals on these blogs are fully committed lifestyle liberals, they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the “hard left” among their associates and readers. I am reminded of the slogan of the French Popular Front of the 1930s: “Pas d’ennemi à gauche” — that is, no enemy on the left. The effective rule seems to be: we intellectuals of the Mormon Blogosphere will speak no evil of anyone advocating more “tolerance,” more inclusiveness, more concessions to secular culture and politics, more criticism of “orthodoxy” — in fact, we will not even presume to contradict their arguments. But anyone perceived to be more “conservative” is fair game for the harshest and most personal attacks. (It is not surprising then, that people who agree with me, sometimes enthusiastically, find it necessary to communicate privately, choosing not to brave the bullying of the “open-minded” blogs.) I am looking for evidence to contradict this characterization of the LDS Blogs; so far I haven’t found much. But I’m willing to keep looking: hence this invitation.
I thank the appreciative readers who have posted at Meridian and particularly the brave readers who dared share a bit of my infamy by posting comments favorable or at least respectful of my arguments at the more, shall we say intellectually ambitious sites such as Times and Seasons or By Common Consent, as well as those women and men who have communicated to me privately their thanks for saying things they felt were important to say. And I also wish to thank and compliment those few writers unfavorable to my views who actually carefully read and directly engaged my arguments in some way.
A particularly notable attempt to address my arguments was by Lynette at Zelophehad’s Daughters (reposted at Feminist Mormon Housewives). I have attempted to address Lynette’s main points in the general response below, but let me say in advance that the main thrust of her vigorous objection to my review is that I dare to take exception to Brooks’ positions — in a word, that I dare to argue that Brooks is wrong or misguided about certain things, which in itself makes me “authoritarian” or “condescending,” and which is apparently particularly unseemly because Brooks is a woman and I am not. It is hard to know how to respond to such an objection, except to say that I do not honor the sexist principle that a woman cannot make an argument that a man is allowed to answer, and to point out that anyone who makes an argument generally makes it because he (or she) is proposing the possibility that he is right and thus that whoever disagrees with him is wrong on the point in question. I am not an exception to this rule, but then neither is Lynette or Joanna: they think they are right, and they too, I must say, address the world with some confidence. Like many who prosper in the Mormon blogosphere these days, my respondents are simply not accustomed to having someone contradict their fundamental assumptions. It adds to my sin, I suppose, that I do so rather straightforwardly, which I think is as much for the sake of clarity as it is a sign of confidence. In any case, it would be more useful to respond to my arguments by answering them rather than by complaining that I think I am right.
It would be quixotic in the extreme to undertake to address any significant sample of the objections, not to say spirited attacks, that have been leveled against my essay, and in fact against me as a thinker, a teacher, a person. It is clear in fact that both sides in this “conversation” find it easy to feel viscerally that they or their friends are victims of the most unjust personal attacks. Here I think President Uchtdorf’s recent observation is very acute and very important:
But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.
If, then, we find it impossible to imagine ourselves into the shoes of those with whom we disagree, I think it just best to suspend the question of motives and to attend to arguments with as much serenity as possible, ready to forget and even to forgive offenses.
Overlooking or forgiving offenses is one thing, but judging ideas and arguments and intellectual-political projects is another matter, though, isn’t it? Can this responsibility for intellectual judgment be avoided — without, that is, abandoning the good we find and the greater good we hope for in dialectical exchange about the theory and practice of our faith? To savor spiritual goods “in the tangle of our minds” requires that we reason together, and this in turn requires that we judge as best we can of what is true and false, well-reasoned and not. And how can faithful and responsible reasoning in this area avoid the effort (however hazardous) of taking account of and critiquing ideological paradigms that may well seep into our religious opinions? That, you will have noticed, is what I see myself doing, and one key area where I think I can make a contribution to our reasoning together about our faith.
Now, of course, an obvious objection arises here: but you, Hancock, have your own ideology (“conservative,” I suppose the objector would say), and you are just responding to those you disagree with from that point of view! To be sure this risk is always present. All we can do is beware of the risk, and muster both the virtue and the insight necessary to suspend our ideological inclinations and think around them and through them. The alternative is clearly unacceptable: to accept the relativist premise that our reasoning faculty is enslaved to ideologies or interests from the outset, and so that we are locked in a conflict with no issue, in fact no conceivable issue. This would be a closed world, a cave of all heated conflict and darkness, and I cannot accept that.
So judge we must, trying our best to sort ideology from the possibility of Truth, and I do my best with the powers and knowledge I have. And here I might begin to respond to questions that were frequently raised regarding my competence, given my academic discipline, to address a personal memoire such as. I’m not sure the question of credentials is really very important, since the quality of a piece of writing should speak for itself, and the critique of professional credentials is a distraction, and hardly normative in the blogosphere. So I’ll just say this: Political Philosophy, my line of work, is a way of doing philosophy and of thinking about the task of thinking in relation to moral, political and religious claims. The intersection of religion and political ideology is very much a part of this task. And I see no reason for abstaining from critique when this intersection is addressed in the form of a personal memoire, especially when it fairly leaps to the eye that this memoire is no less informed by a public purpose than were Rousseau’s famous Confessions — indeed, more obviously, militantly so. I would have been happy if others, especially women, had stepped in to raise the kinds of questions I thought needed to be raised, but I did not see this happening. I have to rest content with the gratitude and endorsement a number have confided in me privately.
I take Rousseau as a kind of founding master of the personal memoire as political strategy. Rousseau aims to weaken traditional moral and religious restraints by exposing his life in all its lurid vicissitudes in order to argue, or to convey the sentiment, that, underneath all the foibles and the miscues, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his heart of hearts is as innocent as can be. In doing this he proposes himself as an exemplar of the natural goodness of human beings, in opposition to the traditional doctrine of the Fall of Man and to the restrictions and commandments and punishments associated with this doctrine. The implicit lesson is that it is not obedience to divine commands or some traditional conception of virtue but rather authenticity, that is, simply and sincerely being who one is, that is the key to a fully human existence. Similarly (not identically, of course), the Mormon memoire in question bravely exposes a woman’s personal struggles, weakness and foibles (nowhere near as lurid as Jean-Jacques, it should be noted) in order to present her own authentic, sincere personal existence as an alternative to an old-fashioned regard for commandments and for the authority (in her view often hypocritical and even cruel) of those who teach and, in certain cases, verify conformity to these commandments. As in Rousseau’s case, the personal life is advanced as a public lesson, a standard of personal authenticity proposed as a model for other brave souls.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my Part Two, feminists often stake their claims by making the personal political. Apparently many believe that this strategy should make an author immune from criticism, but this would be implicitly to accept the reduction of the religious life to the cultivation of personal authenticity. I have no interest in engaging a discussion of anyone’s personal life (or of their Church membership status), but I do not see why I should shrink from a discussion that has more general religious and political stakes.
Thus I do not in fact accept the imperative to allow an author “ to be authoritative on her own experience.” We are not — certainly not automatically and always — the supreme authorities on the meaning of our own experience. That is what religious authority is for – to help us get ourselves right and to let us know when we are wrong, even or especially wrong about ourselves. I do not presume to exercise religious authority; I am simply using rational argument defend a certain view of the meaning of religious authority and therefore, necessarily, to criticize the view that personal “authenticity” is the be-all and end-all of human meaning.
It is not true, then, that I presumed to “excommunicate” Joanna Brooks. I have made it as clear as can be that I hope she will remain in the Church. I was quoted by Jamie Reno in the Daily Beast as saying that “Joanna’s position on gay marriage is irreconcilable with the church.” This statement of mine, quoted (I have to trust) from a good hour’s wandering discussion with the reporter, was taken by some to mean that I believed Joanna should be excommunicated because she disagreed with me on the political question of the definition of marriage. This is not my position, and I take some responsibility for not being clearer in this sentence in distinguishing between the political and the theological question. I did go on immediately to say that I find it “hard to conceive of calling anything Mormon that relinquishes the importance of sexual difference and procreation in the big, eternal scheme of things.” My primary concern is not with the political question of the civil definition of marriage (though this is an important disagreement I have with Brooks), but with the properly religious question of the place of sexuality in eternity. I believe, following the Church’s Proclamation to the World on the Family, in heterosexuality as an eternal reality and thus an eternal norm. (And thus I think our country is better off reflecting the goodness of the man-woman union in law and policy.) I understand Brooks’ interpretation of the principle that “all are alike unto God” to imply that homosexuality should enjoy all the rights of heterosexuality in this life and in the next — or, perhaps that sexual difference is irrelevant in the next life. In any case, the tendency of her political rhetoric has certainly been to undermine the normativity of heterosexuality, and this is what I oppose, and find incompatible with Church teaching. I have no interest in raising the question of excommunication, but, just as she has a right to argue for a certain understanding of Mormonism, I have a right, and, I think, a duty to point out where I think she is wrong.
My problem, then, with liberalism and feminism as a frame of LDS belief does not finally concern specifically political questions. What concerns me is a strong tendency for liberalism to migrate from politics and to penetrate and reshape religious understandings. Thus I argued, based upon evidence from her book, that Joanna Brooks tends very much to make a liberal principle of toleration or non-discrimination (which she hears in the scriptural teaching “all are alike unto God”) into the most fundamental touchstone of religious truth. This accords at a deep level with the tendency of her personal confession and of her defenders’ pleas to make every person, and in particular every woman, the best, most authentic judge of her own experience. On this view, to be truly religious is to be compassionate, and to be compassionate is to acknowledge the legitimacy of each individual’s view of her own good, that is, with moral relativism or an ethic that gives final authority to personal self-expression. For example, since all are alike, then, on this lifestyle-liberal view, not only does God love homosexuals as much as heterosexuals, but he loves homosexuality as much as heterosexuality. Thus “all are alike unto God” is understood to mean that every individual has a sovereign right to define his own good.
This formulation of equality of lifestyles under God will no doubt strike some liberal readers as unproblematic, even as obviously sound. And that is exactly my point. Over the last generation liberalism has broadened and absolutized its claims, making equality of worldviews and lifestyles and thus absolute Toleration the only truth, and many political liberals have begun to interpret their religion according to this extreme liberalism, especially where sexual and familial norms are concerned. It seems a large number, even a preponderant number on the more “intellectual” blogs, have convinced themselves that this liberalism is the underlying, latent truth of Mormonism. Such a view is seductive in many ways, including the fact that it seems to justify one’s own or one’s loved one’s behavior, and also that it removes of a vexing obstacle to full membership in the prestigious liberal intelligentsia. And here I come along saying, no, I think not. I state candidly and plainly my view, a view I am confident is shared by the great majority of faithful LDS who are aware of such questions, that there are fundamental differences at the level of basic and essential beliefs between LDS teaching and this boundless late-liberal “toleration.” I confess this seems rather obvious to me, and so I state it straightforwardly, and with some confidence. I have to ask whether you liberal intellectual bloggers really believe, for example, that any of the General Authorities you presumably sustain a few times a year would disagree with this proposition. Understandably, many who have constructed for themselves a different , more “open” view of Mormonism are offended, and find me arrogant, bullying, condescending, etc. I am not sure there would have been any way to raise the questions I’m raising without offending those who are committed to the new, liberal Mormonism.
The problem we confront today, and that Joanna Brooks represents in an increasingly popular form, was clearly in evidence in a conversation a friend reported he had had with several liberal Mormon intellectual acquaintances. This person had dared openly to doubt whether Mormonism could survive full acceptance of gay marriages. They attacked him for questioning one of their articles of faith. Their attitude toward matters of gender does not only include an acceptance of continuing revelation and of the possibility that the Church could someday give women the priesthood and perform same-sex temple marriages; instead, they are convinced that the Church WILL do those things, and this has become part of their testimony. Given this state of affairs, anyone contradicting such liberalized testimony, even in a most moderate and reasonable tone, can only be perceived by the liberal blogosphere as threatening, and thus as arrogant, condescending, and, of course, inevitably,“snarky.”
This tendency of a late-liberal conception of justice, and the corresponding virtues of toleration and compassion, to become theologically foundational for a significant number of Mormon believers, especially among those who consider themselves intellectually accomplished, goes far towards explaining a profound imbalance or asymmetry that one finds in the LDS blogosphere. It is remarkable how rare and mild are any objections, even among the more moderate bloggers, to more radical claims to personal freedom and to borderless definitions of Mormonism. In such cases, an ethic of sympathetic understanding and inclusiveness reigns supreme. On the other hand, as I have found by hard experience, anyone who dares affirm a more … what shall I call it? “traditional” or “conservative” understanding of the faith, especially where feminism and sexuality are concerned, is likely immediately to be classified as offensive, uncaring, beyond the pale, especially if this person happens to bear the burden of a Y chromosome. This is the structural asymmetry I referred to above that results effectively in the “pas d’ennemi à gauche” policy. This is the “openness” that seems for the most part to characterize even what I had not long ago taken to be the more faithful, moderate and responsible Bloggernacle. To be sure, this attitude may be applied in perfect sincerity, since openness to a diversity of views and practices does not operate as a formal principle of deliberation — a way of considering questions —but as a substantive principle, as the answer we know in advance. However sincere, though, such a frame of discussion can only lead more and more bloggers and their readers further away from the distinctive, substantive commitments of the Church.
It has been objected, reasonably, to my critique of Brooks that I use the term “feminism” rather loosely and attribute to her positions that she nowhere articulates. Fair enough. The problem is that, for all her insistence on her feminism, Brooks herself gives us precious little help in defining what the term means. In any case, this, I find, is a common problem in engaging feminists: they tend to use the term broadly and vaguely to be as inclusive as possible (“Mormon women matter”), and when one objects to some application or implication, they deny that it applies to their understanding of feminism.
Despite almost infinite variations in the precise meaning of “feminism,” there is clearly a strong tendency towards the ideal (explicit or implicit) of a gender-neutral society – that is, a society in which family roles, careers and positions and in principle all desirable social outcomes are equally available to men and women, and thus in which men and women are equally represented in all careers and public positions. This may appear unobjectionable on its face, but it begs the question who will devote most time to the direct care of children. To the chagrin, apparently, of many “progressive” LDS bloggers, The Family Proclamation does not shrink from taking a position on this controversial topic:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
Here is a marvelously clear and concise statement of sex roles that are equally esteemed, but also clearly differentiated. Church leaders wisely allow for families’ adaptation to particular circumstance, but they also consistently warn women against putting careers above their distinctive role in the nurturing of children. (Notably, a recent General Conference address counseled members against judging women who work outside the home.) But the Proclamation’s unmistakable endorsement of motherhood is vital counsel, I think, at a time when many full-time mothers and home-makers feel disdained by society in general and by more visibly “successful” women in particular. Now, there is no doubt that motherhood is very important to Joanna Brooks, but I wonder whether she and her feminist defenders fully embrace the role differentiation and emphasis on children that are clearly reflected in the Proclamation?
Whatever, exactly, is meant by feminism, according to its various versions, a common theme is certainly the objection to certain possibilities being open to men that are not open, or less open, to women. Is it not a universal feature of feminism to claim for women certain privileges or opportunities or positions that have been reserved or mostly reserved to men, and to measure progress by the standard of equal (at least) statistical representation of women? Does this not imply a vision of a gender-neutral society, and tend practically in that direction? Please, feminists, take this as an honest question, and show me where my assumptions or my logic is mistaken. In any case, it is clear that Joanna Brooks felt slighted as a girl by differences in the way boys and girls were treated – most notably in respect to the Priesthood – and that she continues to chafe at such differences. In my review, I indulged some anthropological speculations about male and female acculturation, only to illustrate the rather obvious possibility that there are good reasons to raise boys (and thus to motivate them by honoring and rewarding them) in different ways from girls. In fact, the differentiation of boys from girls may be essential, it seems to me (and not only to me), to the formation of a productive and responsible male identity. But the argument was necessarily merely illustrative and incomplete. I stand only on the main point that there is no compelling reason, apart from feminist ideology, to assume that boys and girls should be treated the same in every respect.
In any case, Joanna Brooks, like so many other Mormon feminists, is very much preoccupied, not only with social inequities in this world, but also or especially with what she regards as eternal inequalities that, in Mormon teaching, limit women’s possibilities and show favoritism towards men: that men hold the Priesthood, and that women bear children. She is worried, notably, about the eternal burden that pregnancy and child-bearing, essential natural characteristics of femininity, seem to put upon God’s female children, and seems to feel slighted that our Mother in Heaven does not get as much public recognition as our Father.
Here we are at the heart, I think, of the liberal feminists’ discomfort with basic Mormon teaching. This discomfort arises from what they perceive as an eternal inequity regarding women that is grounded in the conventional or mainstream understanding of the role of sexual difference in the eternities. It is hard to see how this feeling of inequity, this implicit claim to equality as gender neutrality, might be assuaged without sacrificing something essential in the LDS understanding of the corporeality of divinity and the centrality of fecundity to eternal lives.
Is this understanding “fair” to women? Can any understanding satisfy modern claims of fairness as long as it differentiates between male and female roles, either in this world or the next? Here, when speculating about the eternities, it is particularly appropriate to acknowledge the extreme limitations of our knowledge. I certainly do not know the meaning of all things: I do not claim to understand the eternal operation of the priesthood in relation to manhood and fatherhood on the one hand and womanhood and motherhood on the other; I am taught that exalted beings are embodied, but I do not know how parenthood works in celestial spheres — whether or how often, for example, a celestial mother’s belly swells with new life as my mother’s did with mine. Nor do I know in what way an Eternal Queen might defer to her King, or in what way she might yet rule his heart.
I do not know just how the mysterious and life-giving equality in difference that obtains between the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve is lived and understood by those exalted to celestial spheres. I do not know just how it is that, through the power of the Atonement, “everlasting dominion” can be exercised “without compulsory means,” or just how this dominion can be articulated into male and female spheres without diminishing either dominion. But I trust it is so, would strive to prove worthy, in partnership with my wife, to enjoy the fruits of such righteous and non-compulsory dominion.
I do know that when we claim a certain status as a “right” — not as part of a covenant the terms of which are set by God, but on our own terms, and thus by envious comparison with the “rights” we see others as enjoying — I know that such claims can never bring us goods that transcend our worldly demands, goods that surprise us, that delight us, that enrich us with eternal lives. And I am confident and grateful that, when we see as we are seen, we will be truly equal in the only way that matters, and therefore in no way concerned with equality as measured by the competitive vanity of this world. And I worry that, if we do not learn to subordinate our notions of political and social equality to the promise of the distinct eternal blessings of manhood and womanhood, if we spend this time of probation envying the perceived privileges of the other sex, then the earth, as far as we are concerned, will be “utterly wasted at His coming.”
81 Responses to “Mormonism and Liberal Authenticity: A Reply to Critics”
Leave a Reply
- The Obama Administration's Neo-Puritanical Repression May 16, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Men Fading Badly? May 10, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Capitalism Has Won! And Conservatives Are Confused May 8, 2013 Peter Lawler
- MOOCS and the Stratification of American Higher Education May 3, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Having Issues with "Issues" April 28, 2013 Peter Lawler
- Nathan Harden : Nipples in New York May 18, 2013Lady Ricochet readers: If you were upset about potentially losing your right to bear an oversize soft drink in New York City, perhaps you will take comfort in knowing that at least some rights remain vigilantly protected by the Bloomberg regime: The command was read [in February] at 10 consecutive roll calls. Each of the cityâs 34,000 officers, in theory, […]
- Joe Malchow : IRS Planted Question May 17, 2013The audience question at an otherwise sleepy conference that allowed the IRS to ever so slightly frontrun the revelation that it targeted conservative organizations was, in the event, planted by the IRS. The Internal Revenue Service wrote and planted the question asked on May 10 that led to the IRS scandal, the questioner said in a statement today.Celia Roa […]
- Nathan Harden : They Know They Didn't Know They Didn't May 17, 2013This week, we've been told over and over just how much members of the Obama administration know they didn't know. It's the week of: ⢠the IRS I dunno, ⢠the Benghazi blame dodge,⢠and the AP-AG answer refusal/alleged recusal.But today I discovered something else that a member of the administration maybe didn't know she didn't k […]
- tabula rasa : The Modern World: What and Who Do You Love and Hate? May 17, 2013I've had occasion recently to read or re-read most of the works of C. S. Lewis. It's been a great experience, but it has caused me to ponder an issue that was often on Lewis's mind: Lewis was never comfortable with the modern world, and had an active dislike for much of it. His literary world was that of Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, and […]
- Jack Dunphy : Welcome Back, Milt Rosenberg May 17, 2013Back in January I posted here lamenting the sudden absence of Milt Rosenberg from the WGN radio lineup. Today I was gratified to discover that he has launched his own program on the Internet. Appearing as his first guest is friend of Ricochet Mark Steyn. Whatâs not to like about that?If youâre unfamiliar with Mr. Rosenberg you can consider yourself bless […]
- Troy Senik, Ed. : Yet Another Constitutional Problem for the White House May 17, 2013While we're all lost in the Benghazi, DOJ, and IRS scandals (and the anticipation that the President will eventually just decide to hit for the cycle and quarter troops in the homes of Americans), it bears noting that an earlier White House exercise in making the Constitution an outhouse accessory came back to the fore this week. From Damon Root at Reas […]
- Need To Know with Mona Charen and Jay Nordlinger : Abusing Power May 17, 2013Direct link to MP3 file This week, Jay (on location in Oslo, Norway) and Mona welcome the WSJ's Best of The Web columnist James Taranto. He discusses the IRS and the Associated Press scandals and gives us a tour of even more controversies currently flying under the media radar. James also explains why our current Alinsky-style of government doesn't […]
- Big John : Netflix Reloading May 17, 2013So, now that summer is here, we will replace our DVR patterns with off-season fare like AMC's Longmire and USA's Psych and Burn Notice. We also cycle through Netflix collections of British stuff. We loved Foyle's War and Inspector Lewis, and have now started George Gently. We need more stuff to watch in our Instant Queue while we escape the T […]
- Greg Lukianoff : WSJ: "Feds to Students: You Can't Say That" May 17, 2013Check out my op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal about the crazy campus overreach coming from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice: The scandals roiling Washington over the past two weeks involve troubling government behavior that had been hiddenâthe IRS targeting of conservative groups and the Justice Department's surveill […]
- James Delingpole : Obama, the IRS, and the Fuhrer Prinzip May 17, 2013Before anyone calls me on Godwin's Law, I'd just like to say that I don't believe in Godwin's Law. (For reasons we can perhaps discuss another time.)Anyway, to my headline. Though I'm not saying Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler are peas in a pod, I do think there are certain similarities going on in the way their administrations work - […]
- Western Chauvinist : Stay Focused, Advance the Agenda May 17, 2013Republicans are, once again, squandering a critical opportunity. Mitch McConnell's "The truth will come out, no matter how long it takes" is cold comfort to those of us with any sense of urgency about the disastrous course this country is on, and any experience with Republican "effectiveness" in fighting this administration. And John […]
- Mollie Hemingway, Ed. : What About the Video? May 17, 2013I'm in New York, where I attended the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's annual Canterbury Medal Dinner last night. This year's winner, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, spoke about the rising threats to religious liberty. You can read his remarks here.The Becket Fund is something of an ACLU for religious liberty. Their events tend to look like the World […]
- Denise McAllister : Jack Bauer Is Back! May 17, 2013All you 24 fans can grab your popcorn and beer because Jack is back. Fox is rekindling the popular show as a miniseries called 24: Live Another Day, starring Kiefer Sutherland. Unfortunately, it will run at half the length, with 12 episodes instead of the full 24. The show will be in chronological order but will skip some hours and is expected to kick off on […]
- Rob Long : I Just Think This Is Cool May 17, 2013There's no real reason to post this, except I think it's cool: I found it, and some other cool Cold War stuff, here.For some reason, this stuff still seems more thrilling to me than an iPhone. […]
- Pejman Yousefzadeh : I Wrote Too Soon on the IRS Scandal Today May 16, 2013Because now, even more information has come out.Start with the fact that we have yet another resignation: President Obama on Thursday appointed senior budget adviser Daniel Werfel as the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, as that agency manages a scandal stemming from its targeting of conservative groups. The appointment is effective May 22 […]
- Roman Genn : Madam Secretary May 16, 2013[…]
- Roman Genn : What, Me Worry? May 16, 2013[…]
- tabula rasa : Lileks' Line of the Day (The Boys of Ricochet Shine in the New Issue of NR) May 16, 2013My electronic version of National Review just arrived. I, of course, went to Steyn, Lileks, and Long first. I can get to that other stuff any time. Steyn has a great column on the savaging of Niall Ferguson and Jason Richwine (Ferguson's apology was, as Steyn called it, a "self-neuter"). Rob imagines how the talking points for Pearl Harbor and […]
- John Yoo : Eric Holder's Bizarre (Non?)Recusal May 16, 2013As noted over on the Member Feed, I spoke to the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin about Attorney General Eric Holder's claim that he recused himself in the case of the Justice Department obtaining extensive phone records from the Associated Press, yet said that there was likely no written evidence of that fact. For the benefit of the Ricochet audie […]
- Pejman Yousefzadeh : The IRS Scandal Gets Worse and Worse May 16, 2013I have a lot to write about.Iâll start with the fact that the president has asked for the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting director of the IRS. There was a lot of tough talk from the president about how the IRSâs actions were supposedly inexcusable and intolerable, but note that the IRS makes it very difficult to actually bring it to account for […]
- Ralphism Redivivus May 11, 2013Naturally I appreciate the kind and intelligent attention to my ideas from Peter Lawler, Richard Reinsch, and Carl Scott. (I would not be dismayed in the unlikely event that the term “Ralphism” caught on, though I might have suggested a term more along the lines of “the Hancockian wisdom.” But be that as it may…) […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay Marriage” and the End of Lockean Conservatism (Part 3, Conclusion) January 31, 2013Finally, as an example of such vision of substantive goods (as evoked by Roger Scruton, above), let me share a tidbit from an important essay against same-sex marriage (made world famous by the Pope’s high praise) authored by France’s chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim. I have just finished translating this essay, very soon to appear in […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay Marriage” and the End of Conservative Lockeanism (Part 2 of 3) January 30, 2013(This is a continuation of a post from yesterday; it will make most sense in that context.) When Maggie Gallagher answers John Corvino’s individualist argument for “gay marriage” (in Debating Same-Sex Marriage), she relies mainly on a good and important argument for man-woman marriage based upon universal human and social necessities: “Marriage is a word [.. […]Ralph Hancock
- “Gay” Marriage and the End of Conservative Lockeanism (Part 1 of 3) January 29, 2013Tom West – who, I want to make clear at the outset, can easily run circles around me in his knowledge of Locke’s writings – does well to remind us of the (now) conservative, pro-family conclusions that Locke draws from his very modern philosophical premises. And these conclusions are (or should be) still relevant to […]Ralph Hancock
- Politics and Christianity: The Rule and The Exception (Continued) December 11, 2012(Please read my previous post first, if you haven’t.) Try to follow me here: Christianity, I was arguing, necessarily implies an ambivalence towards any moral-political culture. On the one hand, it reinforces much conventional moral content by declaring it to be the object of a divine command: Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, etc. At […]Ralph Hancock
- Politics & Christianity: the Rule and the Exception December 10, 2012The essence of Christianity is to love one another, to have compassion, not to judge, but to forgive, to accept – no? Applied to politics, the implication seems obvious: unlimited tolerance, equality of lifestyles, etc: in a word, extreme liberalism. What’s wrong with this picture? Everything, conservatives will say, and they will have a point, […]Ralph Hancock
- Come Let Us Reason Together January 13, 2011The outrage in Arizona has sparked another cycle of mutual recriminations between liberals and conservatives that points up what seems to be a growing chasm running through our political culture. Each side sees itself as faithful to good old American principles, and sees the other side as tending (at least) towards a dangerous extremism. It […]Ralph Hancock
- Propadeutic to a Thumotic and Erotic Ontology December 11, 2010[The following is the preface to my forthcoming The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield)] Propadeutic to a Thumotic and Erotic Ontology. This is the fanciful and facetious subtitle I used to try out on friends when asked about the book I was writing. It was a serious […]Ralph Hancock
- THE CONSTITUTION AT RISK? Founding Principles and Today’s Politics November 13, 201017-20 November 2010 A Conference Hosted by the Tocqueville Project of Brigham Young University, with Funding from The John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs and The Sutherland Institute. Is the Constitution as understood by the Founders at risk? If so, then how so, and what caused this? And would […]Ralph Hancock
- Overheard at Yale: Pomocon Ontology II November 9, 2010[Conclusion of the astute synopsis by Mr. Entel, followed by his even more astute questions:] Plato, Hancock contends, enacts this yoke between being and knowing by seemingly affirming the simple superiority of theory to practice, thus suppressing the question of the relation between the good of thinking and the common good by appearing to answer […]Ralph Hancock
No big surprises:
http://www.jrganymede.com/2009/04/08/why-i-quit-times-and-seasons/
Thank you for an outstanding essay. There are many folks who appreciate your rebuttal of what Joanna Brooks really stands for: Mormonism Lite, or New Reformed Mormonism.
In my mind, what modern feminists are really fighting against is not ideology, per se, but rather, the tyranny of Nature itself. It is inconvenient to them that women have wombs. And this is really what it boils down to for them. They revolt against Nature because Nature made men and women fundamentally different. It is this steadfast refusal to acknowledge this basic fact that has them so up in arms. It confounds their thinking.
A great essay is by Mary Rose Somarriba, “The Battle Against Nature’s Sexism” found here http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5242
It’s a great summation of the entire Fluke imbroglio, and it showcases where radical feminism flounders these days. Joanna Brooks partakes of the same kool aid that Fluke does.
I think, broadly speaking (and acknowledging that this is a general rule not applicable in all situation) it may be hypothesized that conservative Mormons see their politics through the prism of their religion, while liberal Mormona see their religion through the prism of their politics; that is, for liberal Mormons, any principle must bend to the assumptions and preferences of the left.
Excellent description of the hypocrisy and arrogance of T&S and BCC.
Ralph, I just wanted to add a voice of appreciation for your efforts to tackle this difficult subject. I am a later-in-life convert to the Church, and I am a proponent of what I call “big tent Mormonism,” by which I mean keeping open arms to all. The Brethren have made it clear that people like Joanna and others will work through their issues in their own way, and the Savior loves all people as they struggle with things that keep them from fully embracing the Gospel. I am concerned, as you mentioned, that Joanna pretends to speak for all Mormons when she is not a temple-going Mormon, and I wish she did not set herself up as a church spokesperson when she only speaks for a certain type of member. I feel your pain when it comes to offending the liberal orthodoxy. Many of us have learned the hard way that certain people are only tolerant of opinions that range from A to B. Any opinions from C all the way to Z cannot be allowed and must be snuffed out through selective outrage, insults and cyber-bullying. The good news is that in the long run such tactics do not work and the majority of people see such intolerance for what it truly is.
For the New Godbeites, its not spiritualism but the sexual revolution to which the gospel must conform.
Anonymous,
that goes too far. The battle line through good and evil runs through every human heart.
Thank you, Ralph, for articulating what so many of us feel but are not as adept at working out and putting on paper. I sincerely hope that many more “progressive” LDS thinkers will take you up on your invitation to reason together as opposed to name-calling. Non-alcoholic cheers from Europe.
It is evident that you are trying to elicit some genuine and substantive dialog here, but to the extent that your stated desire to do so is sincere, I think you undermine your own goals right out of the gates. You note (and not inaccurately) that many of the most aggressive criticisms of your Meridian posts (and some of your work on this blog as well) focused primarily on your tone and rhetoric. That was certainly true of my own response. But to imply that this response is born of an unwillingness or inability on the part of liberal LDS bloggers to engage you substantively is not only self-serving (not to mention self-indemnifying), but incredibly misleading. In my own case, I was explicit that it was the bullying, condescending tone to which I responded, and my post made no pretext at engaging your arguments substantively or critically. But I have engaged you substantively in the past (you know I have), and so have many others.
From the outset you condescendingly describe the interlocutors with whom you claim to desire civil and substantive discourse: “my recent experience suggests that…they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the ‘hard left’ among their associates and readers.” Even a casual familiarity with the content of the two blogs you single out here (BCC and T&S) would disabuse anyone of such notions. Again, you claim “The effective rule seems to be: we intellectuals of the Mormon Blogosphere will speak no evil of anyone advocating more ‘tolerance,’ more inclusiveness, more concessions to secular culture and politics, more criticism of ‘orthodoxy’ — in fact, we will not even presume to contradict their arguments. But anyone perceived to be more ‘conservative’ is fair game for the harshest and most personal attacks.” It’s possible that you genuinely believe these claims, but it is not really possible that you do so while simultaneously claiming that you are sincerely seeking evidence to contradict them, since the evidence is everywhere in the archives of the bloggernacle.
Both blogs have long histories of criticizing attacks coming from what for lack of a less loaded terminology I will join you in calling “the left.” BCC has featured a number of posts critical, for example, of John Dehlin’s ongoing project, and our comment moderation policy applies itself much more regularly to secular and/or post-Mormon criticisms than to orthodox ones. I do think it would be accurate (at least in the case of BCC) to say that at times we are more tolerant of rudeness from liberal than from conservative commenters (in the sense that we sometimes allow liberal commenters to mistreat conservative ones but are less likely to tolerate the former), but I think that’s more a function of the demographics of blog readership and the nature of communities of shared interest (we are more likely to tolerate bad behavior from our friends and to publicly stand up for them, and more of BCC’s regular commenters are liberal than conservative, and very often conservative criticism comes in the form of drive-by comments by non-regulars), than of any ideological commitment to tolerating bad behavior from the left as opposed to the right. And Daymon Smith has been judged every bit as harshly as you have by the bloggernacle (including and especially these two sites but also Faith Promoting Rumor), not just for tone problems (though they have played an important role—he is routinely perceived as bullying those he criticizes) but for his generally highly critical descriptions of Church administration and of Mormon Studies.
I personally have attacked prominent “New Order” Mormons (including Dehlin) and ex-Mormons as well as hostile Church critics (like Will Bagley) with every bit as much “spirit” as can be found in my response to your treatment of Brooks (though I have often defended the above mentioned Daymon Smith, largely because he is a close personal friend, which underscores my point about community and friendship). It’s also worth noting that there are a number of prominent conservative voices within the LDS blogging community (including its more liberal climbs)—such as Rosalynde Welch, Scott Bosworth, Jim Faulconer—who are not routinely treated as bullies or personally attacked on the grounds that they are making “conservative” or “orthodox” arguments (including arguments critical of modernity and/or feminism). And you also know that, in the past, you yourself have been engaged substantively by this community (and you and I both know that some of your fiercest critics have privately offered to civilly and publicly engage you on your criticisms of Brooks).
You have not been attacked for being conservative. You have not been attacked for being orthodox. You have not been attacked for defending the prophets. You have been attacked, but if you’re not capable of acknowledging that your critics intended their attacks as counter-attacks—not against your spirited conservatism or unapologetic orthodoxy, but against what they perceive (with very legitimate grounds) as the smug, paternalistic, and generally unprofessional tone of your review of Joanna(‘s book)—then we’re going to continue to talk past each other.
If you’re really, genuinely, sincerely interested in having a substantive discussion, you shouldn’t start by characterizing your would-be interlocutors as intellectual cowards. I can acknowledge my own rhetorical bad behavior—I quite deliberately packed my attack of you with arrogance and meanness—but I’ve never accused you of intellectual cowardice (or any other intellectual shortcomings, for that manner). Your characterizations here of the liberal LDS online community are offensive, and you know it because you intended them to be offensive. That’s a rhetorically effective way of allowing like-minded readers (like Bookslinger) to feel (alongside you) moral superiority over their perceived liberal intellectual enemies. But it’s a pretty ineffective way of initiating genuine, good-faith dialog. You’re welcome to continue to characterize us however you like; but following it with President Uchtdorf’s quote and then proclaiming your desire for civil, non-personal, substantive conversation is just bad form.
p.r.i.v.i.l.e.g.e.
Bookslinger, it saddens me that you consider my online projects arrogant and hypocritical. FWIW, I’ve long admired your online project, political differences or no.
ah, unity in Christ….i do think this is what He meant.
Bro. Hancock,
You still seem to fail to recognize why your review was received the way it was by those deluded souls of the ” dangerous left such as myself. It wasn’t that you wanted to argue with feminism or the compatibility of various liberal tenants with the gospel. It is the fact that you still are so wrapped up on your own political agenda and world view that you fail to see how personally condescending and spiteful was the way in which you made your arguments as well as the pure hypocrisy of calling out Joanna Brooks memoir for being a thinly disguised piece of political propaganda while presenting our review as some apolitical, “true gospel” based review. My reaction is that your stated goal of trying to warn our brothers and sisters of the insidious influence of the liberal left infiltrating the church is so sad because we need to be at least as worried if not more worried about the insidious influence of far right-wing political operatives and intellectuals such as yourself warping our church into some hideous arm of your political movement. And lets be frank if there should be any real concern of serious co-optation all the evidence points the right not the left as having its claws sunk most deeply into church culture and networks of control. We are the single most politicized religion and Mormons in Utah are leading the charge in extreme right-wing agitation. Primarying Hatch for not being conservative enough? Please.
Finally, to be honest I could really care less what you write in Meridian Magazine or here. You have the right to your opinion and of course the right to argue it in a way that embarrasses yourself in my eyes and apparently leads to wonderful plaudits from your political kinfolk. However, I do care when the church owned Deseret News abrogates professional standards of journalism as well as its moral responsibilities as a church-owned publication and chooses to run your piece as the only book review placing it in the Faith not Politics section where it belonged. It is that which is truly upsetting, to see that type of tacit legitimation of your views as rooted in faith not politics. You should have seen how inappropriate it was for that venue specifically. This just goes to show how far the cultural and rhetoric of the right have seeped into the institutions of the church. You self-righteously quote Elder Uchtdorf’s wonderful talk and again accuse us of being blinded in our political prejudices while failing to see the beam in your own eye in publishing what is simply a political personal hit piece on a member of the church that happens to not share your political ideology. So go ahead and blow your political dog whistle as if it was a trump from Mount Zion. You can join the long line of bitter men who managed to get prestigious degrees from good institutions who find salve their wounds by parlaying that into pseudo-intellectual political hackery. Being a Pied Piper is decent consolation prize. Play on.
sigh..Ipads=typos.
And yet again, not a single Joanna Brooks defender, or defender of “liberalism” who flocked here just recently, not a single one of them takes up Prof. Hancock’s challenge for a rational conversation. Instead it’s more name-calling. It’s more whining.
Folks, read the essay on this page very very carefully, because what I’ve read of the comments posted today, it is clear that you didn’t read the essay closely enough. Prof. Hancock has touched on several very important philosophical points that deserve adult conversation. Continual harping on his “tone” is missing the point. Engage the substance of his remarks.
Brad Kramer — let’s stipulate you have successfully made the argument that Hancock is rude and condescending. As I see it, however, you still haven’t shown that he is wrong, which would seem to be the more serious thing at stake. And, to put it bluntly, you have not shown you are equipped or unafraid to engage him on any substantive grounds, ironically giving more support for the idea that while Hancock might be condescending, he just might be right about you and his other critics. If you really think Hancock is wrong in calling his critics out for these things, would it not be more effective to actually prove him wrong by engaging the argument instead of continuing to attack him on these tangential issues, no matter how much they bother you? Or trying to come up with other times you’ve attacked those on the left?
What dear Ralph fails to realize in his spirited argument that Joanna can’t be allowed to define her own experiences for herself is that this threatens him because HE wants to be able to define ALL experiences according to his own.
It’s all well and good to say you are using “the Gospel” as a marker for your judgments. But as a white, privileged man, you’ve been so used to having your opinions and experiences equated with “the Gospel” that you take it for granted. You are so sure that you have it right, that you have a true understanding, that God is on your side. What you fail to see is that you are exercising the same privilege you deny to so-called liberals — being the best, most authentic judge of your own experience — but then insisting that all others adopt your truth as their own.
Joanna is claiming her truth, yes, but as her own. She is not insisting that you live it. You are the one coming out of that process with a mandate for all to follow lockstep behind you.
Then again, none of this is being said to you for the first time, and I do believe we are all quite wasting our time by attempting to engage.
Oh that’s classy, nat kelly. Bringing up the fact that Ralph Hancock is a “white, privileged man” somehow makes his arguments invalid? What racist trope! Seriously!
Brandon, I’m not claiming that he’s either right or wrong in his substantive criticisms of Mormon feminism, liberalism, liberationism, late-liberalism, or whathaveyou. I’m claiming that he’s wrong that he’s being attacked for being conservative or orthodox, and that he is misrepresenting his interlocutors in a manner that is both offensive and not at all conducive to the kind of substantive debate and conversation he claims to be interested in.
It would be helpful if the author defined some of his terms. For example, I am not precisely sure what he means by “lifestyle liberal,” “extreme tolerance,” and “late liberal.” It would be most interesting if we could get a summary of the most important points the author wants to make, then take them over to BCC or one of the other blogs for discussion. Perhaps I am naive, but I actually think there are plenty of people on the LDS blogs who are quite capable of debating these topics with civility and kindness.
Ralph, as someone who’s had more than their share of complaints about “tone,” I feel your pain. On other issues, I also tend to agree.
Um, yea. But it’s not just in LDS circles, it’s in the culture at large. The liberal de facto argument is ad hominem. And religious conservatives can’t retaliate in kind because then they are hypocrites. So when a raft of celebrity AND high level libs start calling me a “tea-bagger,” the only thing I can say is, “On, my goodness me, no. I am certainly not.”
As for (the few) conservative voices speaking out in the Bloggernacle against “the mob,” it’s a matter of priority. I have six kids, I homeschool, I’m a profession speaker/blogger, work with many blogging clients, and am CFO of an engineering company. And I have a calling that requires at least a number of hours per week. How much time should I spend speaking out to people who, frankly, aren’t very inclined to hear? Banging my head against a wall isn’t on my short list.
In my years at Times & Seasons, I’ve written a grand total of 27 posts. Four of those, I think, were as a guest blogger, before I was a perm. Most of the time, I write about gender issues, because right now that’s what I’m interested in (meaning that’s the topic that is compelling enough to get me to take the time to write).
A couple of times last year, rather than just commenting, I actually delved into the tolerance issue. Tolerance is THE overwhelming value of the left, IMO, and it’s utterly nonsensical. And, of course, the sweeping tolerance excludes tolerance for the intolerant. Here are the posts:
Shunning the Unbelievers discussed the including/excluding people from your life, based on their behavior.
Can God Proscribe Behavior? was making a vain attempt to get some kind of consensus that we might not get our way on stuff, that God might actually refuse to tolerate things we want tolerated.
Years ago, I discussed Christianity with a minister in West Palm Beach. He said I wasn’t a Christian, so I asked him to define Christianity. He hemmed and hawed and finally gave a description. He immediately followed that with, “But, wait, that would mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, and we know they aren’t, so that can’t be the definition.”
In other words, he didn’t have a particular definition, he just tried to create one based on whom he wanted to exclude.
This is the same problem I have discussing such issues. Few seem willing to engage in honest discourse, because they don’t like the conclusion that may be reached on their pet issues by doing so. In that climate, I find it’s seldom the best use of my time. But I wish you the best in your attempt!
BTW, you have a serious problem with your captcha. :/
No, his argument is that others are incapable of defining their own experience (well, that’s one of his arguments in this rather convoluted essay). He is proclaiming that HE actually has the privilege to define Mormonism for all people, while his very argument is that “liberals” don’t have that same right on a micro-scale. And his arrogance in doing so is related to his privilege.
And I can feel myself getting sucked into an incredibly ridiculous conversation with people I’m not very interested in engaging, so I’m out.
Beyond that, I’m completely fine if either you or Ralph chooses to interpret my comment as evidence that Mormon liberals are too cowardly or stupid to engage Ralph’s brilliance.
heh, yeah, it’s okay for mr. hancock to be rude and condescending to his critics, but his critics better go for the substance itself!
Hi Ralph, half-way through the last week of the semester is not my most leisurely time, so I’ve only read about a page of your post. I’ll just say for now that there is a decent amount of variety in the views of bloggers at Times and Seasons, and which views turn up on any particular post or in any particular week (or perhaps month) may have more to do with whose kid is sick that week or who is finishing a paper for a conference than who agrees with whom. I for one was proud of myself for having read most of one of your reviews, let alone trying to blog about it. There was, though, a very spirited debate about Joanna and your review on the T&S backlist (email) as it happens, so for what it’s worth, anything you think people at T&S think about this is only the view of some fraction. I am a week late giving Greg comments on his paper, so I’ll sign off for now. Enjoy!
clearly this is what Jesus had in mind for his church, that we be at each others’ throats, that we fear each other, that we distrust each other, that we think one side or the other is out to destroy the church. Yep, exactly what he had in mind. Good work, Mr. Hancock. You are successfully fulfilling the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m certainly feeling the love.
You know what’s really classy, Michael? “Arrogance,” “hypocrisy,” “koolaid drinking,” “New Godbeites,” and “whining” in a discussion ostensibly committed to generating more light than heat.
Brad:
You wrote-
“From the outset you condescendingly describe the interlocutors with whom you claim to desire civil and substantive discourse: “my recent experience suggests that…they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the ‘hard left’ among their associates and readers.” Even a casual familiarity with the content of the two blogs you single out here (BCC and T&S) would disabuse anyone of such notions. Again, you claim “The effective rule seems to be: we intellectuals of the Mormon Blogosphere will speak no evil of anyone advocating more ‘tolerance,’ more inclusiveness, more concessions to secular culture and politics, more criticism of ‘orthodoxy’ — in fact, we will not even presume to contradict their arguments. But anyone perceived to be more ‘conservative’ is fair game for the harshest and most personal attacks.” It’s possible that you genuinely believe these claims, but it is not really possible that you do so while simultaneously claiming that you are sincerely seeking evidence to contradict them, since the evidence is everywhere in the archives of the bloggernacle.”
As one who has witnessed (and received) the harsh treatment of so-called conservative Mormons in the more progressive corners of the LDS blogsphere, most orthodox or conservative Mormons do not feel comfortable expressing their views in those forums or blogs.
Michael: “It is inconvenient to them that women have wombs. And this is really what it boils down to for them.”
Bless your heart.
Interesting reading, but I think you subscribe far to much weight to tradition. Think for a moment about the operation of the natural tendencies of man (and women) – what the Book of Mormon refers to (partly) as the natural man. We have a situation here on Earth where people who fail to yield their hearts to the Gospel will simply function on the natural man level. Obviously that is the vast majority of the entire human race when viewed from an historical perspective (maybe 98% of all who have ever lived on the Earth and currently live here?). In that case families and/or societies will develop which are based on “might makes right” – powerful men (on average more “mighty” other men and certain most women) will succeed in passing on more genetic material if they can manage to set up a sexist society. To the extent a man can control access to women he guarantees that only he gets to produce children. Much of the extreme control of women by men which shows up in some of the scriptures is simply (I believe) an artifact of this mindset, and these “natural” actions, over long time periods. The fact that the Church has (recently) explicitly refuted much of this world view (what several of our fore fathers took to be “doctrine”) shows it was/is not of God, but of men.
Women already hold and exercise the priesthood – i.e., perform ordinances – in the temples (if they do not then at least three of the ordinances performed there have no validity) so why is it such a stretch in your mind that the full priesthood would not be given to all of God’s children eventually? That some wish that day would be sooner rather than later should not give you heartache.
We must all admit that we don’t know much of anything about the state of affairs in the eternities. So it is likely of much more worth to our souls to concentrate on doing good here.
Homosexuality is likely the most difficult issue the Church and members face in the current time. Given that the Church already knows how to deal with same sex marriage is several countries (and now some US states) it operates in it seems pretty straight forward that it (the Church) will be able to carry on with its mission regardless of how these political issues play out in any given country.
I think it would be incredibly useful if members of the Church could just treat sin as sin, and not get all tied up in condemning people for seeking equal rights. Our doctrines don’t have to change at all just because the laws of the land change to allow equal rights for all. To examine an historical case for reference purposes – we have a terrible history of racist teachings in the Church, which we have now have to try to overcome, since we (as a people) were so resistant to change with respect to Blacks and the priesthood. This was a case where the Restoration got it right (Blacks were ordained and called to serve – one as a Traveling Elder – like a Area Authority Seventy today – and one as a Branch President) during both Joseph’s time and Brigham’s. Yet the Church went astray on that issue for the next 100 plus years. Why run the risk of doing the same again with homosexuality? Follow the Article of Faith admonition to “. . . let all men worship how, where or what they may”. Just leave the politics alone.
Brian,
as one who has witnessed (and received) the harsh treatment of so-called liberal Mormons in the more conservative corners of the LDS blogosphere, most liberal Mormons do not feel comfortable expressing their views in these forums or blogs.
See how easy it is. But go on, live as a victim.
That’s right, Brad. I remember you on your blog, By Common Consent. You were rude, condescending, inhospitable to me a while back. But I do sincerely forgive you and your cohorts on your blog for the rude treatment I received.
I forgave you, and stopped visiting your site. :)
Michael,
Very clearly….you repay the favor here. You’re clearly NOT rude, condescending and inhospitable to Brad here. You are kind, gracious, friendly and hospitable. Just like Jesus taught you.
“When I chose recently, in articles posted at Meridian Magazine (part 1, part 2), to engage critically what I called “Mormonism Lite,” I knew I was likely to stir up considerable heat, but I was hoping the light might be worth it.”
Look at me, trying so hard to engage critically in a good faith discussion, by applying a pejorative term to people who disagree with me.
“it would seem heat is a clear winner at this point”
I am shocked, shocked.
You’re an academic with a longstanding record; you know the difference between different modes of conversation. Nothing in your writing, including this post, has evidenced a genuine desire to engage.
Michael, if people there were inhospitable to you (and that’s entirely possible), it wasn’t because you are conservative or orthodox.
Brad — I don’t doubt that you aren’t, as you say, “too cowardly or stupid to engage Ralph’s brilliance,” but it seems like the most effective way to show this would be to engage the argument. Meanwhile, I do doubt that Hancock’s mode of argument is the source of your problem with his review and that you are equally disgusted when far more condescending and juvenile posts you agree with appear at BCC. Let’s take this for example: http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/03/27/where-i-come-from-there-are-penalties-when-a-woman-speaks/. Yes, I get that you’re trying to be funny, but the fact remains that you’ve reduced Hancock’s argument with Brooks to some sort of “schoolyard crush” and a machismo rooted in his own “deeper insecurities.” Is this really satisfying to you? To anyone on the left? Is this an example of “generating more light than heat?” Will you admit that Hancock raises any good questions re. Brooks’ work? Is there anything about her work that likewise troubles you? Or, is Hancock wrong altogether? This is a conversation worth having. Please Brad, I implore you, prove Hancock wrong and attempt a substantive response.
Dan, I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to Brad. Please stop portraying yourself as Jesus’ Peaceful Discourse Spokesperson. Thank you.
Brad, it was precisely because I stood up for the Church’s faith claims, as well as a conservative and orthodox approach to understanding the Church’s faith claims, that I was attacked and mistreated. You see, I committed the sin of questioning the Holy Grail of Tolerance, which is the Holy of Holies of the liberal Mormon crowd.
If you detect a mild element of frustration in my snarky comment, it is because it was intentionally placed. I am tired of going to sites like T&S and BCC, speaking my orthodox opinions that are in no way outside the mainstream of LDS cultural modes, and having my presence on those sites demeaned by people that are convinced that in the not-too-distant future, gay marriages will be performed in LDS temples, female Bishops will preside in our wards, and a socialist utopia will prevail in our country. I am sick, sick, sick, of people, such as Joanna Brooks, who relish taking the Church to task for what they perceive as the Church’s gross contemporary sins, while they themselves seek to cloak themselves in the mantle of membership.
Mr. Hancock’s essays have exposed the logical flaws in their arguments (and in Brooks’ specifically). And all he gets (and all I have ever gotten from you folks who are sympathetic to Brooks) are bitter recriminations.
Faithful orthodoxy to the Church’s truth claims is here to stay. And it’s here to stay on the Internet, in loyal opposition to the claims of people on the other side who interpret Church practice and history through the lamp of their own “progressive” political conceits. And people like Hancock and myself are here to stand up for traditional values and FAITHFUL DEVOTION to the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While sympathetic to Michael’s comment at 8:27 p.m., I would take a slightly different approach. I think we want the Joanna Brooks of the world to continue to go to Church so that eventually she can accept the fullness of the Gospel and go to the temple and draw closer to the Savior. It is the Spirit that will change her, as it changed me and has changed millions of people over time.
I think the so-called “liberal Mormons” who criticize the Church because it doesn’t live up to their political inclinations and today’s secular world are dead wrong. To the extent that they drive people away from the Church because of their own politics, they are literally doing something evil and will suffer the consequences someday (in my opinion). To the extent that they are helping people accommodate their political beliefs to the Lord’s church — and providing a safe haven for people who might otherwise leave the Church — they are doing something grand and wonderful. I guess each person has to decide which of the two they are doing, ie, drawing people away from the Church or attracting them to it.
I will say that the extremely unfriendly environment on some blogs (that will go unnamed in the spirit of rapproachement) toward so-called “orthodox Mormons” who dare to express certain apparently taboo opinions does not create what I would consider an environment intended to attract more people to the Church. In case there is any doubt on this point, there is a very, very large group of orthodox intellectual Mormons who have given up reading and visiting these blogs because of this unfriendly environment. I would humbly suggest that this is something that could be changed with not too much effort. Two words: be nice.
so, on substance then, if i could boil Mr. Hancock’s point down to the short short version. Liberals think humans are inherently good and should be free to be who they really are. Conservatives humans are inherently evil and should be controlled and judged as much as possible by whatever forces possible. Thus because Joanna Brooks disagrees with the conservative viewpoint, she is a corruptive influence and must be intellectually purged from within Mormon culture, unless she puts on sackcloth and ashes and begs forgiveness from the Great Hancock.
have i got the gist of his substance yet?
oh sorry, and if we don’t listen to the Great Hancock, the earth will be utterly wasted at His coming. Can’t forget that now….
Geoff,
You mean like…..
yeah, that’s real nice.
Once again, a member of the Mormon Left refuses to address the merits of Hancock’s logical arguments point by point. Instead, he resorts to a histrionic distortion of Hancock’s essays.
Unless and until a liberal Mormon shows up with something more than childish games, I will continue to believe that they have no critical rationality to back up their progressive re-visioning of what Mormonism is all about.
” I am tired of going to sites like T&S and BCC, speaking my orthodox opinions that are in no way outside the mainstream of LDS cultural modes, and having my presence on those sites demeaned by people that are convinced that in the not-too-distant future, gay marriages will be performed in LDS temples, female Bishops will preside in our wards, and a socialist utopia will prevail in our country. I am sick, sick, sick, of people, such as Joanna Brooks, who relish taking the Church to task for what they perceive as the Church’s gross contemporary sins, while they themselves seek to cloak themselves in the mantle of membership.”
Now suddenly I’m convinced that you really were treated inhospitably merely for expressing orthodox opinions. Seriously, Michael, that comment was some epic performance art.
Now, before I say my prayers to the gods of late-lifestyle-liberal-liberationist secularism, I’m going to take a few minutes to reread this thread and ponder just how mean and rude and judgmental the mean liberalsp5 are to mormon conservatives.
I commented on the substance of the original post at 5:21 pm, not one “conservative/orthodox” poster responded to anything I mentioned. I guess the complaint goes both ways.
I found the original rant/post to be personally humorous though. I grew up in Utah County in the 1960s and 1970s. I was (and still am) the rare Mormon Democrat (multi-generational). The complaints I read here of being made to feel unwelcome are pretty minor and funny compared to what a Mormon Democrat went through in Utah County in the 1960s and 1970s (I was once rebuked by the power of the priesthood in a Gospel Doctrine class – the teacher commanded the evil spirits which possessed me to leave – for reading word-for-word out of the Book of Mormon with no commentary, it was part of King Benjamin’s address). It strikes me that friends of a feather like to flock together, and that because of sheer numbers many Wards by default become gathering places for conservative/orthodox folks – to the attempted exclusion of all other viewpoints, and since getting together on the internet has now become easy to do the much smaller contingents of liberal/tolerance loving Mormons have carved out a place of gathering in the “Bloggernacle”. Maybe that’s about as good as we (collectively) can do.
” I will continue to believe that they have no critical rationality to back up their progressive re-visioning of what Mormonism is all about.”
Is it possible that you really think that anyone reading this imagines that there is anything a liberal mormon could say that would cause you to believe otherwise?
Here’s a summary of today’s proceedings:
Original Post: Permit me to demonstrate my graciousness by inviting my cowardly and intellectually stunted critics to engage in civil dialog with me over the arguments at the core of my critique of Joanna Brooks.
[A well-written summary of concerns about the consequences of privileging individual conviction over traditional authority for a religion that places enormous premiums on divine authority and revelation; about downplaying the place of heterosexual coupling and creativity in the Mormon view of eternity (and eternal truth); and about setting aside the basic thrust of Apostolic proclamations in favor of a liberal reading of the single scriptural phrase "all are alike unto God.]
Comment: Yeah, liberal Mormons suck.
Comment: TOTALLY suck.
Comment: Arrogant hypocrites.
Comment: Licentious Godbeites
Comment: And SOOOO mean!
Comment: Um, insulting would-be interlocutors doesn’t strike me as a very good faith way of inviting them to engage in civil dialog.
Comment: Liberal!
Comment: See? We told you liberals are cowardly idiots.
Comment: I can’t believe the liberals are too scared to come here and engage the SUBSTANCE of this post!
Comment: Oh, I totally believe it. Didn’t you know that liberals are sucky idiots who say mean things and bully people who say conservative stuff?
Comment: WHY won’t the STUPID, ARROGANT, MEAN, SNOTTY, KNOW-IT-ALL, KINGDOM-RUINING, MEAN, RUDE, JERKY, CHILDISH liberals come and just have some CIVIL DIALOG with us here?!?!?!?!?
A final note to Professor Hancock. You and I have never met, but we share a close and valued friend. I trust this person’s judgment enough that I have no doubt that you are as good a friend and a person as he says you are. I sincerely apologize for treating you the way I did in my BCC post. It was rude, and juvenile, and bombastic, and way out of line. I know it was those things because, at the time, I intended it to be those things. There are obviously things—substantive things—that you and I don’t see eye to eye on, But I respect your intellect and I believe that you are asking (however unproductively) important, vital questions about what it means to be Mormon and what Mormonism is today. I am not unsympathetic with a fair number of the concerns you raise, and I really, sincerely would like to have a serious, substantive, and public conversation about all of it. But answer yourself honestly: why would someone in my position ever consider, even for a second, trying to have that kind of conversation here?
I resonated with this piece (not so much with the Meridian reviews, fwiw). One concern out the chute: I think we always risk trouble the minute we start using labels like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ or ‘lite Mormons’ or whatever (it’s always bound to bring up defenses, and can end up feeling more -ites-like).
BUT then I’d ask how *can* someone like Bro. Hancock (or any number of people who have been involved in the ‘nacle for years and run into the dynamics he is describing time and time again (!!!)) discuss disagreements with *ideas* without bringing up such defenses? I think he’s brought up some important points that do reflect how many, many members feel. I wish more people who disagree with the Church’s stand on Proclamation-related issues would engage the ideas head-on. I do think he’s trying hard to separate out the personal from the general — clarifying that he’s not trying to oust Joanna from the Church, for example, but *is* wanting to be able to uphold what the Church teaches without being labeled a bully or what have you.
I do sense that Bro. Hancock is honestly trying to engage Mormons of all perspectives in talking about how our Mormon doctrine interfaces with social and political mores that, as Adam points out, are becoming increasingly more sexually permissive (and as Dr. Hancock points out, more gender neutral). And this is all happening at the time when, in contrast, our male AND female leaders are consistently teaching sexual purity (virtue — Sister Dalton’s inspired banner!) as a pointed and clearer-than-ever, deliberate standard; pointing youth and adults toward the temple (where gender *does* matter and heterosexual marriage is the pinnacle ordinance for potentially sealing all of God’s blessings on a man and woman, together) is a key focus; and earnestly teaching about the central role of marriage and family/children to God’s plan (this last General Conference resounded repeatedly with such messages). Gender roles *are* also part of our teaching and training and doctrine. These are not peripheral teachings. They are all inextricably tied to the doctrine of the plan of salvation as we preach it. It’s not all politically correct, but it is what Mormonism teaches. And it all ties into the doctrine of the Atonement. (“If we say there is no law” and all of that.)
This isn’t a outlier-type, ‘privileged’ perspective. Wanting to engage and uphold Proclamation teachings is a desire shared by Mormons of both sexes from the gamut of social statuses, economic classes, educational backgrounds, countries of origin, races, cultures…. And the Proclamation is repeatedly upheld by male and female leaders in our Church. Consistently. Boldly. Unapologetically. (But lovingly!)
And there are many (among all of us who have the luxury of having a computer and not living so hand-to-mouth that we have some time to engage online (there’s the privileged life!)) who do feel that online Mormon discussions too often take a subtle (and sometimes more overt) hostility to Proclamation-related teachings (on gender, sexual purity, marriage, parenthood, priorities, gender roles, etc.). I think many people crave, however, a way to be able to discuss ideas and tensions and hard questions in ways that don’t feel like it requires also having to somehow apologize for the Church’s teachings.
methinks Brad nailed it right on the head in his comment at 1:19 in the AM.
and yes, it is ironic that in a post that quotes a beautifully worded statement from President Uchdorf about being nice, the original poster and ALL the conservative comments are NOT nice toward liberal Mormons. You guys can’t seem to help it. You want us to be nice, but then you say things like Geoff said:
In his opinion, liberal Mormons are “literally doing something evil.” Brian, Adam, and all the others use this forum to complain how victimized they are. Mr. Hancock himself ends his piece by saying ‘if you don’t listen to my viewpoint, the earth will be utterly wasted at His coming.” So it’s either Mr. Hancock’s way, or the earth gets it. Yep, Be Nice.
At some point, someone is going to have to actually be nice. And I don’t see why it has to be liberals. After all, liberal Mormons are NOT authentically Mormon, are they? Maybe the real authentic Mormons ought to show the world and liberal Mormons what President Uchdorf is actually talking about.
Ralph, I am saddened to learn here from your post and from some of the commenters that “Tolerance” is now a hiss and a byword among those Mormons who are disciples of Robert George’s socially conservative political philosophies (and by virtue of that view themselves as the true heirs to the faith?) to the exclusion of other Mormons who also claim the faith but perhaps subscribe to other political philosophies. I note with even more disappointment that although some of the commenters here transitioned immediately to screeds against contemporary liberal “Tolerance”, Ralph actually used the term “Toleration” in the original post, which is significant because it potentially reveals that he really is interested undermining the pillar of Lockean Toleration that supports our ideal of a truly pluralistic society in the United States as an essential founding principle from which many others flow. But we must remember that it was not so long ago that the social aberration known as Mormonism was not tolerated in our society, either in the Lockean or any other liberal sense. The majority in our country felt it had excellent reasons to expell, mistreat and disenfranchise Mormons. The weight of respectable tradition and every prudentially conservative argument seemed to be fully on the moral majority’s side in that episode. (And, absent incorporation of the First Amendment against the states, mistreatment of Mormons at the hands of state governments was not yet against our inspired Constitution.) How grateful are we as Mormons in 2012 that Lockean Toleration — and derivative theories of liberal “Tolerance” — eventually won the day? I for one am eternally grateful and view the constitutional and legal developments that led from the Constitution as originally drafted and interpreted to the full protection we now enjoy despite our status as a widely despised religious minority to be as inspired as the original drafting of the document itself.
Brandon and other commenters — you appear to have misunderstood one aspect of Ralph’s post above: when he referred to bloggers being not “at all inclined (or equipped?)”, he was not saying that bloggers at T&S or BCC (like Brad) are not brave enough or smart enough to respond to Ralph’s arguments against the way Joanna Brooks interprets and presents her religion, which is what you seem to have understood Ralph to mean with that phrase based on Brandon’s comment on May 8 and 2:36 pm. Rather, with that statement, Ralph was accusing politically conservative leaning bloggers at T&S or BCC of being cowards or not being smart enough to stand up for his essays and defend him against their own politically liberal co-bloggers at T&S and BCC whom he viewed as “attacking” him (rather than arguing with him and his methods). Do you see the difference Brandon? Because your comment at 2:36pm strongly implies that you do not.
It is a criticism I have received before from Mormon bloggers who claim that the Bloggernacle (which they claim is overwhelmingly politically liberal) is detrimental to faith rather than, as a whole, conducive to and expressive of faith (which is my observation and belief) — that if I lean politically conservative, then I must be afraid of offending politically liberal friends at BCC if I do not argue with them on the blog about their particular liberal theories or comments. In Ralph’s case (which is quite specifically focused on his long-term monitoring of Joanna Brooks’ coverage of Mormonism in the public eye with her Religion Dispatches column and her memoire), perhaps he is overlooking that there might be other reasons that politically conservative leaning bloggers in the Mormon blogosphere aren’t taking his corner for other reasons? I think this is at least a possibility that should be seriously considered. My own personal observation about Ralph’s Meridian articles against Joanna were that they themselves were more in the nature of creating more heat than light — and so it did not surprise me that a number of the responses on Mormon blogs were in kind. In fact, it just seemed like a straightforward application of the law of the harvest. For example, Brad stated from the outset of his BCC response that he was responding in kind to the tone and posture of Ralph’s Meridian articles and not to the substance of the arguments, which are not novel or complicated and have been debated copiously on Mormon blogs including BCC. (Ralph might not be aware of this as he seems a relative newcomer to the world of Mormon blogging — but he should read the archives of T&S and BCC, and the comments to those posts, as a starter.)
I also thought Ralph’s articles in Meridian and earlier criticisms he had published here at this blog of Joanna directly contravened President Uchtdorf’s words that Ralph has ironically quoted in the blog post above. That is, a large portion of Ralph’s response to Joanna seemed to be based on him casting aspersions about her motivations, intentions, “agenda” and even experiences. We saw derisive judgment of her politics, her choices, her understanding, her upbringing and even superficial psychoanalysis of her based on her gender and the experiences she wrote about in her memoir.
As for the substantive arguments that Ralph makes, they seem to boil down to this: The Church’s 1995 document titled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” authoritatively prescribes differentiation of gender roles in earth life and implicitly in eternity. Joanna Brooks’ politically liberal enthusiasm for gender equality in this life and implicitly in eternity is incompatible with this. And a huge corollary seems to be that liberal society is inimical to the Gospel itself (because it “tolerates” as the basis for creating a real and robust pluralism), and that only American politically conservative views are truly compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I do not think that any of Ralph’s blog posts or Meridian articles so far have sufficiently established that there is something eternally normative about contemporary American political conservatism such that a Mormon who chooses politically liberal policies and outcomes in the contemporary American political climate is less of a Mormon or is living in contradiction of the Gospel. Empirically speaking, I have known many Mormons who have a testimony in God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and who sustain the current leaders of the Church in their callings, but who lean politically liberal. Some of these people even think that some General Authorities are mistaken in their own apparent political loyalties. I am not convinced that such political interests, loyalties or observations should call their spiritual standing into question or define them out of true Mormonism. In fact, I see this whole fracas as detrimental to the cause of Zion. It depressingly highlights for me that we remain very far indeed from building Zion.
Thank you for this post, really, really. Thank you.
For the record, count me as one who was bullied off the aforementioned sites. I don’t have an interest in returning.