Lance Andrewsen

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Irreligion is now the state religion.

Check out the latest episode on my series "Overrated" where @KaiSchwemmer, @LanceAndrewsen, and I discuss why Christianity needs its (virtuous) pride back.

https://t.co/jcE2Nmt14I

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/OPmFPzm1GB

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/9xmryU1OWu

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Latter-Day Saint culture elevates politeness over truth - this is Greg Matsen's plain talk take-away from dust-up over Elder Corbridge's plain talk. If it's true -- if God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet and to translate the Book of Mormon from ancient Gold plates -- then, really, our "cultural" preferences don't weigh that much. https://t.co/61UlRuhrju

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/is95ntXE8y

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

I'm confused but unfortunately not surprised at the backlash against those such as @ThoughtfulSaint and @KimballCall for taking issue with the recent church PR department post.

If the member featured in the highlight is truly actively engaged in the promotion of teachings, practices, or doctrines contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that is absolutely cause for the post to be taken down.

No one reasonable is calling on the church to only highlight specific kinds of members that fit an imaginary mold.

No one reasonable is going to leave the church or attack the brethren over the post.

No one reasonable is going to conclude that this post signals that the church is super progressive so we should all just embrace a progressive view of the gospel and skip into the sunset while leaving behind all prophetic and scriptural teaching on the LGBT issues.

Unfortunately there are many unreasonable people on this app. A truly surprising amount emphasizing a non-existent progressivism in church doctrine, but that is besides the point.

The church instagram account is not the church. The straw-man argument that many are using to invalidate concerns about the post are unconvincing and not an honest engagement with the questions being raised.

It is important to remember that all members are imperfect. We should have patience and charity for one another as we seek to have honest and respectful conversation about even the most controversial of topics.

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Though @JasminRappleye's point is one worth considering, I feel that the late Elder Holland's teachings in his addresses "Personal Purity” and “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments” are precious doctrinal statements on the eternal meaning of sexuality and on the severity of sexual sin.

Consider in particular the following excerpt from "Personal Purity":

“In exploiting the body of another—which means exploiting his or her soul—one desecrates the Atonement of Christ, which saved that soul and which makes possible the gift of eternal life. And when one mocks the Son of Righteousness, one steps into a realm of heat hotter and holier than the noonday sun. You cannot do so and not be burned.”

“Please, never say: “Who does it hurt? Why not a little freedom? I can transgress now and repent later.” Please don’t be so foolish and so cruel. You cannot with impunity “crucify Christ afresh.” “Flee fornication,” Paul cries, and flee “anything like unto it,” the Doctrine and Covenants adds. Why? Well, for one reason, because of the incalculable suffering in both body and spirit endured by the Savior of the world so that we could flee. We owe Him something for that. Indeed, we owe Him everything for that. “Ye are not your own,” Paul says. “Ye [have been] bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” In sexual transgression the soul is at stake—the body and the spirit.”

It is no secret that sexual sin and the celebration of immorality are on the rise throughout the world, but it seems that our response is too often to shy away from teaching the severity of the sin and instead trying to find explanations to downplay its severity in an attempt to shift the focus to the possibility of repentance.

The reason I take issue with this approach is that an increased emphasis on the potential for repentance does not need to negate prophetic teaching on a sin’s severity. And the gravity of sin only adds importance to the teaching that we can sincerely repent and be made clean.

I would like to emphasize that I greatly admire Jasmin’s work! She teaches doctrine clearly and effectively while also being a clear and eloquent voice in defense of the faith. Everyone should go give her account a follow!

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/3QIXXzysHi

[Lance Andrewsen @LanceAndrewsen]

A seriously important point that seems to be overlooked among many, especially young people.

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/3QIXXzysHi

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

What does it mean to be a peacemaker? Check out my debate with @patrickqmason where I argue for a peace grounded in virtue or rule of right reason.

"Peacemaking Debate - Patrick Mason and Ralph Hancock with Greg Matsen"

https://t.co/DN2YKZmLqX

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

https://t.co/nVRn9ERN8g

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Check out this clip from my recent episode from my series "The City and the Soul" with special guest @KaiSchwemmer

"Why “Love” Is Destroying Western Civilization"

I argue we must have pride in moral virtue in addition to love and charity.

https://t.co/X0U9K3uwjc

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Politics & the Constitution: 5th Sunday discussion comments.

Did your Bishop or other ward leader warn you against promoting a political cause in your ward's 2nd hour discussion on Religious Freedom, the Declaration, and the Constitution? How did your ward do? Things were calm and reasonable in my ward, but I've heard of a couple of reports of members who could not resist espousing some particular cause during this church meeting. Tell me in the comments how things went in your ward: did someone violate the political truce? In the name of what cause(s)?

*****

And I would say I sympathize to a degree, because we can hardly befriend the Constitution and promote its health if we don't have any idea as to what threatens it or what its health consists in exactly. Still, it's best in Church to stay as far above obviously partisan politics as possible.

I thought Elders Christofferson and Cook set an excellent example in their introduction to the discussion. The stayed at a very general level, but did not shrink from firmly stating some very important principles ... that are not entirely uncontroversial, and not equally acceptable on both sides of the partisan divide, I would say.

The discussion began, notably, with some observations on the famous philosophical "self-evident truths" of the Declaration, including a significant discussion of the meaning of "the pursuit of happiness." I think our leaders were on firm ground in suggesting that in 1776 happiness was not a matter of "pleasure" or of "success" alone, but included the connotation of virtue. Being good and doing well were then inseparably connected in the public mind.

Then, at the end of their introductory discussion, our leaders read a longish quotation that including John Adams' affirmation that our constitution required a moral and religious people.

Thus, the way this video began and ended provided essential context for the discussion centered on Pres. Oaks 2021 talk on our inspired constitution. What was said yesterday will be helpful in avoiding common misinterpretations of Pres. Oaks' emphasis on "pluralism" and reasonable disagreement. It comes down to this: pluralism is essential to our constitutional democracy, but NO PLURALISM IS ABSOLUTE. Without some broad but substantial common ground in morality and religion, there will be no way to moderate and contain our differences. And there are some things that must not be compromised.

Thank you, @ChristoffDTodd and @CookQuentinL !
(And don't forget to let us know how things went in your ward.)

https://t.co/kTxibhUHu1

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Is "flourishing" enough? I have always consider "flourishing" a good word to evoke a rich conception of human purpose. "Pleasure" is less than "happiness," and "flourishing" seems to suggest a deep and substantive conception of happiness. But here @MichaelPakaluk shows that Jesus taught that true flourishing must yield fruit, it must be "fructifying." Sacrifice is inherent in true prospering! (This is also a conclusion I reached in my Love and Virtue in a Secular Age, new from Notre Dame U Press.) And even Aristotle, the great philosopher of Eudaimonia or Happiness, saw that happiness must point beyond itself to the divine.
https://t.co/x6v6bPuc72

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Did Greek Philosophy Produce The "Abominable Creeds" And Corrupt Christianity?

Go check out my latest video in "The City and the Soul" series on Cwic Media where I sit down with the political director for the College Republicans @KaiSchwemmer to discuss:

https://t.co/js3L9Iixmw

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

I was impressed overall by responses of Latter-day Saints to Andrew Klavan's surprising mishandling of Matt Fradd's clumsy and ill-informed attack on "Mormonism." Look, the underlying impasse is not that complicated: @RealMattFradd and, apparently, alas, @andrewklavan are willing to respect religions they consider "mainstream," but at bottom they believe the claims and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are ridiculous, if not vicious. And look, those claims are of a different order from what sets Anglicans apart from Catholics or even Jews. If Joseph Smith's testimony is true, and if the Book of Mormon is really an ancient record, then, well, it's a whole new ballgame. So it's disappointing, though not surprising, to see that an intelligent and otherwise open-minded and morally grounded Christian like Andrew Klavan cannot give serious consideration to those claims. But the inconvenient fact is that the evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is very strong indeed -- even before one considers the beauty and power of its profoundly Christian teaching. Thanks, fellow "Mormons," for your temperate and sincere responses to our friends at DW.

For my part, despite this disappointment, I think it makes sense still to consider them friends. At least I consider Klavan an irresistible font of both mirth and wisdom. And, ironically, I find his understanding of Christianity marvelously consonant with LDS in many ways. So I think we can put ourselves in the shoes of those who are not ready to question the assumptions of "mainstream" Christianity and be patient with an underlying contempt for the claims of the Restoration, if not for "Mormons" as people. It's not easy to question the conventional ground one stands on, but what is at stake is nothing less than the most powerful witness for the Living Christ there is! And the LDS faith has a firm rational foundation in witnesses, textual evidence, the unique practical fruits, etc.
https://t.co/j9UMixOxr5

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

The problem with radical acceptance in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Although there is no movement that is immune to moral drift, we as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints need to do better at recognizing movements and sentiments that are not compatible with our shared faith.

Could you imagine devout followers of Jesus Christ during his mortal ministry promoting the idea that God does not care if you continue in sin or reject his teachings as long as it makes you happy? That the most important thing to God is that you are free to “express yourself” in a way that is praised by the secular world? Even if at its core it is a denial of God’s divine hand in creation of the spirit and body?

It is obvious that Jesus Christ would teach that we should not judge those that have gender dysphoria, but that is only half the story. He would teach those with gender dysphoria that He loves them, but also that gender is an eternal and immutable characteristic that should not, and more importantly cannot, be changed or altered. We should love those that are confused, but we should not encourage, support, or promote confusion. The Family Proclamation is doctrine and the Lord’s revealed answers for questions regarding gender identity, same-sex marriage, and those that seek to identify as transgender. These are not open questions in the faith and they are not subject for debate. They have been settled for thousands of years.

Without fully getting into the weeds this post, I’d like to ask why those who claim to be devout members such as Richard Ostler (@Papa_Ostler) would be reposting the Salt Lake Tribune’s (@sltrib) article about “LGBTQ latter-day saints�� trying to find space within the church to live outside the bounds the Lord has set? Would those same members repost a puff piece about a middle-aged man seeking to find space within the church to worship multiple deities at the same time? Probably not. They would recognize that practice as a rejection of one of God’s fundamental teachings, yet they are unable to draw the same conclusion about promoting the LGBTQ movement, especially the transgender movement. According to God’s teachings, there is no such thing as a “transgender” individual, there are individuals who are confused about an essential part of their identity. They need our love and support, but both of those should be grounded in supporting and encouraging them to live according to God’s law, not participating in the game of pretend that the modern left has engaged in. This is another example of the subversion of Christlike love into a modern, and secular, idea of inclusion. If we are to love as Christ did, we ought to start by both living and teaching the principles that He teaches.

There is room for all to come unto Christ and we want everyone to feel welcome at church and other social gatherings, but that does not require members to pretend that God’s laws are not eternal and that individual’s feelings supersede God’s laws and teachings.

As for policies regarding bathroom usage and other sensitive areas, the feelings of the women who use them should be what is taken into account. It is not transphobic to state the reality that there are only two genders and that one's gender is eternal and that is what dictates who can use what facility. Though an individual may struggle with that identity, it is far more loving to encourage them to live according to the truth.

The article by the Salt Lake Tribune contains several logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and a willful ignorance of basic church doctrine. The most egregious of which is likely the claim that there is no scriptural basis for the belief that you cannot change your gender (a biological fact) or for the belief that engaging in homosexual activity is sinful. Both of these claims are unequivocally false and I would invite all of those that reposted this article to explain why modern liberalism should supersede revelation and scripture? I would hope that those that engage in this activity in good faith will come to see that it should not, and in turn, do more to keep modern secularism out of Christ’s church.

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

Are Latter-day Saints misunderstanding prophetic calls for peacemaking?

Peacemaking is a high priority for Latter-day Saints, as urged recently by our late Prophet and President Russell M. Nelson. LDS scholars at BYU and elsewhere have stepped up to propose ways of pursuing this noble goal. @patrickqmason is foremost among those proposing strategies for peacemaking. In his own engagements with others Patrick models reasonable discussion very admirably.

But in this article I argue that his interpretation of "peace" largely falls in line with the secular idea of "inclusion" while neglecting the spiritual contents of Christ's peace.

Here is my close reading and critique of Mason's Proclaim Peace. Thanks to @InterpreterFnd .

https://t.co/0nPpj3swyi

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

The Civil War Inside Conservatism - Kai Schwemmer and His BYU Professor
https://t.co/8l1bfsv51C

On this episode of my series on Cwic Media "The City and the Soul", I sit down with political director for the College Republicans @KaiSchwemmer to do a deep dive into the Right's current political crisis.

[Ralph C Hancock @RalphCHancock]

A brilliant, brief but lucid and synoptic take on the President vs. the Pope. https://t.co/nfzTZwTQX4