Comments | Meridian Magazine

Sign up for our newsletter


Signed up, but still not getting our newsletter? Click here.


November 28, 2021

Comments | Return to Story

SimplicioOctober 11, 2016

[Please delete my previous comment.] While I agree with the teachings of the article, long essays are less effective at competing in today's battleground. The opposing side effectively gets their argument across by promoting pithy, succinct points. Help us to compete! We can do better!

PopsOctober 9, 2016

Excellent articles, and I'm glad the author brought this issue to our attention. It seems there are three predominant spiritual models of the universe: the me-centered model, which is pride; the no-center model, which Bro. Hancock describes; and the God-centered model, which is the correct model. Why is the God-centered model correct? Because it best describes reality. The role of the government in all of this mess could be cleaned up if we simply were to come to an agreement that it is not the role of the government to legislate morality, but rather it is to protect natural rights. A necessary second step would be to distinguish between natural rights and artificial rights, the problem being that nobody in positions of judicial authority seems to remember what a natural right is (or perhaps they never learned it).

Glen DanielsenOctober 8, 2016

Thanks so much, Ralph, for these important observations. It is disturbing that these and other faddish philosophies bluff their way even into LDS bookstores. It is, I think, another of the toxic effects of the Mormon Liberal culture.

Chuck SchulzOctober 7, 2016

Yep. Another tactic currently in play is to make it about the "children." One Mormon intellectual just published a piece comparing those not willing to surrender on the gender agenda to Lieutenant Hiroo Onda, who fought a solo war until the 1970s rather than surrender. "Let me be very candid here: I am worried about our children. I am worried that they will not even be willing to give the Church a chance because they do not hear it talking about anything that they recognize as part of their world. The longer we persist in fighting the culture wars of the last two generations—and in invoking political rhetoric that was manufactured for questions that are no longer at issue—the less relevant we will be in their lives, which they live in a version of “the world” that bears little resemblance to the hive of Satanic scum and villainy that they hear about in Church. In our minds we may be the last bastions of rectitude in a fallen civilization. To our children we look like crazy hermits in 30-year old uniforms torching some poor guy’s rice field for no particular reason." It is rather convenient for his metaphor that he chose Onda. It would be quite another matter if he had been playing the role of the Vichy French urging French partisans to surrender, because the 1,000 year Reich is here to stay. History is always best seen in hindsight. I tried to explain to an acquaintance that inevitability is not a moral argument, and that your job might be to help your children understand the core doctrines at stake, not follow them off the cliff. No go.

Fred R. KitchenOctober 7, 2016

I don't know why we call them intellectuals. They should be called knowledguals. The scripture states, "And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 130:19) Knowledge is gained through diligence but intelligence is gained through obedience. The scripture does not say the glory of God is knowledge, and it doesn't say that for a reason. Lucifer has a lot of knowledge, but he has no intelligence. If men would put as much time and effort into gaining intelligence as they do in gaining knowledge, this world would be filled with prophets, seers, and revelators.

Good ReasonOctober 7, 2016

We are taught that mercy can never rob justice. To those who believe in Love Wins, that teaching is gibberish. That should be a tip-off that there is something amiss in the Love Wins view.

Barry HansenOctober 7, 2016

I appreciated this and the previous article. Well-expressed and very much needed.

Scott WorkmanOctober 7, 2016

The “Love Wins” ideology may be the most glaring example of moral relativism in modern times. Sadly, even some sincere “intellectuals”, perhaps attempting to engender full acceptance for all, feel compelled to reinterpret and even trump thousands of years of history and scripture, to say nothing of the counsel of modern prophets who speak for the Lord and whose teachings are not swayed by polls or popular public opinion. That there is absolute and unchangeable truth in the universe, including the eternal laws and commandments that emanate from Heavenly Father and His Son, runs counter to the “Love Wins” philosophers. So to what end is their strategy? If their arguments are used militantly to justify views and behaviors that are sinful (in the name of love) – well, that only divides us further. On the other hand, if the dialogue itself asks sincere questions with intent to understand God’s will, then there is hope for our us and our rising generation, including those who now feel outcast. In the meantime, this issue, and every adjunct discussion, should be a clarion call for all Church members today – that is, we must not try to fashion God into our image. It is not for us to define for God His ways. It is for us to follow His counsel as given to us through his living oracles. Elder Holland stated “we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never did even once)”. He then counsels us to defend our [truths] “with courtesy and with compassion but to defend them”. There is safety and security in following our living prophets.

Tom JohnsonOctober 7, 2016

Brother Hancock, I totally agree with you. The interpretation of Jesus' teachings that love means to accept everything a person does is contrary to his clear teachings that there is such a thing as sin and that unrepented sin will keep a person from salvation. God himself discriminates against sinners and only God has the authority to define what sin is. I enjoyed your presentation at FAIR this year.



    Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.

Order Your Kirtland Diary Now
2022 Old Testament Calendar