"... We can see that sensitivity to the perceptions and rights-claims of our fellow citizens would be an important part of love towards our fellow human beings, but by no means its fulfillment."
I have much regard for Ralph, but I often get lost in his wordplay. Frankly, it makes me feel like an idiot — especially when I read a cluster of words and can't extract any meaning from it. Maybe I should hire a tutor.
Good ReasonAugust 30, 2016
"In being “fair” to those who reject the very distinction between righteousness and wickedness, we must never forget the reality of eternal consequences." Very well said. Now, how does one articulate that in an internet discussion thread? Could you give an example of how you would express that in a way that the other person would not see as hateful?
Neal KramerAugust 30, 2016
Once again, Ralph Hancock encourages us to move away from shifting definitions of core values in the world to a deeper, eternal understanding of eternal truths. Such reminders are always timely--especially today,as Elder Rasband and President Uchtdorf both remind us.
While Hancock does not mention it specifically, toleration as it has come to be defined also weakens the ties of love the gospel of Jesus Christ enjoins. Slippery notions of this weakened version of truth seem to me to deny the very possibility of sin in the world. Of course, the denial of sinfulness, as Nehor and Korihor taught the Nephites, denies the need for Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice.
I do not think we speak meaningfully about love until we humbly recognize our need to repent and be forgiven. But our need for grace must never be confused with the belief that we are all simply entitled to Jesus's love.
Hancock sees our need to repent, and the need of all mortals to repent, as the source of any true love. This sounds to me like it must be true. We love, indeed, because we first were loved by God.
Comments | Return to Story
Glen DanielsenAugust 31, 2016
"... We can see that sensitivity to the perceptions and rights-claims of our fellow citizens would be an important part of love towards our fellow human beings, but by no means its fulfillment." I have much regard for Ralph, but I often get lost in his wordplay. Frankly, it makes me feel like an idiot — especially when I read a cluster of words and can't extract any meaning from it. Maybe I should hire a tutor.
Good ReasonAugust 30, 2016
"In being “fair” to those who reject the very distinction between righteousness and wickedness, we must never forget the reality of eternal consequences." Very well said. Now, how does one articulate that in an internet discussion thread? Could you give an example of how you would express that in a way that the other person would not see as hateful?
Neal KramerAugust 30, 2016
Once again, Ralph Hancock encourages us to move away from shifting definitions of core values in the world to a deeper, eternal understanding of eternal truths. Such reminders are always timely--especially today,as Elder Rasband and President Uchtdorf both remind us. While Hancock does not mention it specifically, toleration as it has come to be defined also weakens the ties of love the gospel of Jesus Christ enjoins. Slippery notions of this weakened version of truth seem to me to deny the very possibility of sin in the world. Of course, the denial of sinfulness, as Nehor and Korihor taught the Nephites, denies the need for Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. I do not think we speak meaningfully about love until we humbly recognize our need to repent and be forgiven. But our need for grace must never be confused with the belief that we are all simply entitled to Jesus's love. Hancock sees our need to repent, and the need of all mortals to repent, as the source of any true love. This sounds to me like it must be true. We love, indeed, because we first were loved by God.
Ashby D BoyleAugust 30, 2016
Terrific!
ADD A COMMENT