{"id":8137,"date":"2021-10-06T07:33:21","date_gmt":"2021-10-06T13:33:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/?p=8137"},"modified":"2023-08-08T14:52:26","modified_gmt":"2023-08-08T20:52:26","slug":"elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/","title":{"rendered":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints"},"content":{"rendered":"

Of all the diverse responses to <\/span>Elder Jeffrey Holland\u2019s speech in BYU\u2019s August 23<\/span>th<\/span> opening conference main event<\/span><\/a>, none is more illuminating than the recent <\/span>Faith Matters interview with Patrick Mason and Tom Christofferson<\/span><\/a>, entitled \u201cElusive Unity at BYU.\u201d The Faith Matters response to Elder Holland merits special attention, owing not only to the quality of its content, but because Faith Matters is a prominent organization that has earned wide respect and support among thoughtful and faithful Latter-day Saints.\u00a0 From my personal experience at BYU, I would venture that a significant percentage of the BYU faculty whom Elder Holland was especially addressing is at least broadly sympathetic with the viewpoint espoused or accepted by all interlocutors in this Faith Matters podcast. All this is just to suggest that the question how Faith Matters views the world, in this podcast and more generally, is a question very relevant to discerning the direction of BYU and thus of what is considered the most careful and rigorous thinking among Latter-day Saints generally. <\/span><\/p>\n

In what follows I will not always attribute points to specific individuals among the four participants, two interviewers, and two guests. The interviewers deserve credit for raising some good questions, and at least one fundamental question, as discussed below. But they were more than happy to accept their guests\u2019 answers without much follow-up and with no apparent residual difference of viewpoint. Indeed, there were no serious disagreements expressed among the four\u2014all clearly felt themselves to be on the same \u201cside\u201d of the main question at hand. In the end, the podcast conveyed a sense of satisfaction shared by all thoughtful Latter-day Saints that Christofferson and Mason had shown a way forward, a way around the troubling implications of Elder Holland\u2019s speech.<\/span><\/p>\n

Elder Holland\u2019s speech, in which the apostle reminds BYU faculty and administrators of their duties as Latter-day Saints mentoring young people in the Church and upholding its doctrines, has become a very prominent flashpoint of controversy, a controversy focused mostly on Elder Holland\u2019s comments concerning that status of homosexuality in Church doctrine and on the BYU campus.\u00a0 All parties to the Faith Matters discussion sought to hear Elder Holland\u2019s remarks charitably, recognizing the difficulty and complexity of the situation he was addressing.\u00a0 The interviewers Aubrey and Tim Chaves approached the topic, which, as they avow, feels \u201cparticularly polarizing and raw,\u201d with some trepidation, begging their audience\u2019s \u201cgrace \u2026 as we navigate this tricky territory.\u201d They do not fail to challenge their guests with serious questions, and the guests respond in mild and measured tones with genuine efforts to address them. Thus, this interview provides an excellent case study of intellectual challenges\u2014 and challenges to intellectuals\u2014that arise from the growing tension between Church teachings, especially as concern sexuality and the family, and certain notions and sensibilities that hold sway among so many of those who wish to be thoughtful as well as faithful. The producers of the Faith Matters podcast have provided an essential service to those of us striving to understand this tension; they have opened a window onto the minds and souls of faithful Latter-day Saint intellectuals and their followers who are struggling to reconcile their faith with their best understanding of the nature of our modern society and of its ethical demands.\u00a0

For these brothers and sisters at Faith Matters, we should be open to \u201chealthy disagreement\u201d regarding Church doctrine, but it seems as if \u201creal experiences\u201d are beyond questioning and exempt from interpretation.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>\u00a0 <\/span>Just what did Elder Holland say to the BYU community gathered in the Marriott Center last month? Addressing a concern that \u201csome faculty are not supportive of the Church\u2019s doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly,\u201d Holland reminds the BYU community of the university\u2019s distinctive mission. He cites a letter from a parent expressing concern about BYU professors who are helping students bridge between faith and intellect.\u00a0 While welcoming \u201chealthy debate,\u201d he makes it clear that it is imperative to \u201cstay in harmony with the Lord\u2019s anointed, those whom he has designated to declare Church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young University as its trustees.\u201d\u00a0 Citing Elder Oaks citing Elder Maxwell, he asks BYU scholars to \u201chandle, as it were, both trowels and muskets,\u201d that is, to assume responsibility both for building the temple of learning and for defending the kingdom. And he singles out as a special concern the university\u2019s duty to defend \u201cthe doctrine of the family \u2026 and \u2026 marriage as the union of a man and a woman,\u201d particularly with respect to \u201cthe whole same-sex topic on campus.\u201d He strongly counsels \u201clove and empathy\u201d for those who experience \u201cthis same-sex challenge,\u201d but insists that \u201cwe have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.\u201d To maintain this distinction between love and advocacy, he counsels, will require that BYU more fully embrace its \u201cunique\u201d mission as so memorably expressed by President Kimball in his Second Century Address of 1975 to the BYU community.<\/span><\/p>\n

Faith Matters takes it as a given that Elder Holland\u2019s speech was \u201ctroubling\u201d to many, including, it is implied, to most of its audience. It is the turmoil occasioned by the speech that Faith Matters hopes to calm by sharing the perspective of Brothers Patrick Mason and Tom Christopherson. These invited guests and pillars of the Faith Matters project began by expressing love and respect for Elder Holland and appreciation for the loving service he has provided, including individual attention to Latter-day Saints experiencing same-sex attraction.\u00a0 <\/span>That is a far cry from the many hostile treatments of Elder Holland\u2019s commentary online in recent weeks that malign his character and attack him personally – and merits appreciation.<\/span> I also have no doubt about the sincerity of the participants\u2019 efforts throughout the podcast to encourage people to look to Christ for answers. Here, for example, is <\/span>Tom Christofferson\u2019s heartfelt expression<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

Through a lot of tears and prayers, I can come back to what Patrick began with, which is that our hope is in Christ. That as I can orient my focus on Him, then things I can\u2019t resolve, I can at least live with as I try to move forward and draw closer to Him \u2026 \u201cIf we are trying to follow Christ, if we\u2019re doing the very best we can to follow the spirit each day and to turn to Him for healing to each day strive a little harder to follow Him more diligently, perhaps we are holy men and women that others know not of.\u201d Maybe that\u2019s not a consolation, but just like our faith is in Christ, I think our consolation is in Christ. If we are doing the very best we can and being willing to interrogate our souls as honestly as we can about our motivations.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We should also note Patrick Mason\u2019s very kind words for BYU, for his personal experience there, for the university\u2019s distinctive mission, and for its important role in higher education in the United States.\u00a0 <\/span>After having accorded much credit to Elder Holland for his goodwill and diligent service, these podcast participants\u00a0 turned to the main business of the day: the challenge of processing \u201ctroubling\u201d features of the apostle\u2019s speech.\u00a0<\/span>All four interlocutors agree that there was something harmful, even abusive in Elder Holland\u2019s remarks, despite the acknowledged admixture of love and the unquestioned good intentions. In a word, he tried to help but he hurt.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tom Christofferson interjects what many have felt was an important misunderstanding into the conversation just as he introduces his criticism of Holland\u2019s speech. <\/span>He alleges<\/span><\/a> that a letter of concern from read as part of his talk suggests that parents “no longer want to send their children or their dollars to BYU, presumably, if it is a welcoming place for LGBTQ students, staff and faculty.” <\/span>But this is simply not the concern Elder Holland cited.\u00a0 <\/span>Here are the apostle\u2019s actual words<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cYou should know,\u201d the writer said, \u201cthat some people in the extended community are feeling abandoned and betrayed by BYU. It seems that some professors (at least the vocal ones in the media) are supporting ideas that many of us feel are contradictory to gospel principles, making it appear to be about like any other university our sons and daughters could have attended. Several parents have said they no longer want to send their children here or donate to the school. Please don\u2019t think I\u2019m opposed to people thinking differently about policies and ideas,\u201d the writer continued. \u201cI\u2019m not. But I would hope that BYU professors would be bridging those gaps between faith and intellect and would be sending out students who are ready to do the same in loving, intelligent, and articulate ways. Yet I fear that some faculty are not supportive of the Church\u2019s doctrines and policies and choose to criticize them publicly. There <\/span>are<\/span><\/i> consequences to this. After having served a full-time mission and marrying her husband in the temple, a friend of mine recently left the Church. In her graduation statement on a social media post, she credited [such and such a BYU program and its faculty] with the radicalizing of her attitudes and the destruction of her faith.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Brother Christofferson makes what appears to be for him an effortless, perhaps even unconscious leap from the question of whether Church teachings are being supported at BYU to the implication that an<\/span> interest in upholding prophetic<\/span> teaching implies an unwelcome posture towards non-heterosexual students. Already, then, we see clearly the premise (which will not be contradicted by anyone on the podcast) that the only way to welcome such students is for BYU to teach what they want to hear, that is, to bend doctrine so that it does not contradict their inclinations or preferred way of seeing their own identity.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

From this vantage, Elder Holland clearly hurt people because, by giving some satisfaction to parents of BYU students concerned about heterodoxy on campus, he raised the specter of an atmosphere at BYU hostile to those who identify as part of \u201cthe LGBTQ community,\u201d to \u201cthe reality of their lives.\u201d Elder Holland hurt people because, by criticizing a student\u2019s coming-out in a graduation ceremony, he discriminated against the minority and in favor of the majority who are free to celebrate their traditional marriages and families. And he hurt people because he spoke of same-sex attraction as a \u201cchallenge,\u201d in some way an obstacle to be overcome in our pursuit of our ultimate good.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To be fair, <\/span>Elder Holland\u2019s standpoint does not at all involve a denial of the fact that sexual orientations can become deeply interwoven with a person\u2019s sense of self, or that the deeply personal, emotional and spiritual grapplings of those experiencing homosexuality, whatever their causes or origins, should be seen as authentic and worthy episodes in a individual\u2019s eternal journey.\u00a0 But such a sympathetic understanding of the homosexual experience is something quite different from<\/span> the view advanced in this Faith Matters interview<\/span>, namely, that such sexual attraction lies forever at the heart one\u2019s essential \u2013 apparently, eternal \u2013 identity, and should be seen not as an obstacle, but as a source of pride.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As Patrick Mason averred, in the most bracing and lucid moment of the interview, there is now a \u201creal, serious, <\/span>unsustainable<\/span><\/i>\u201d conflict in the Church between the doctrine of the Church and the \u201creal experiences\u201d of LGBT+ members.\u00a0 (My emphasis.)\u00a0 This view of the status of homosexual orientation as a fundamental, essential experience that must not be questioned as a basic premise of life\u2019s ultimate meaning and of moral reasoning and spiritual concern, goes to the heart of the difference between Elder Holland\u2019s counsel and the hurt experienced by those represented at Faith Matters.\u00a0 Elder Holland, on the other hand, sees same-sex attraction as a \u201cchallenge,\u201d an orientation experienced by a person, no doubt very often at a very deep level, for reasons we cannot explain, but one that necessarily presents an obstacle to a Latter-day Saint\u2019s efforts to participate in the plan of salvation as it has been revealed. This plan as understood in Church doctrine is as \u201cheteronormative\u201d as a plan can be, grounded in a belief in heavenly parents, male and female, and an eternal destiny to be like them.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Faith Matters stance towards this plan appears to be, shall we say, complicated.\u00a0 Tom Christofferson, for example, expresses support for obeying rules of chastity (there is \u201cno exception from commandments\u201d), but he resists any logic that would tie these rules to a male\/female understanding of the purpose of life. The commandment prohibiting sex outside a heterosexual marriage must be accepted, but apparently only as a kind of unintelligible brute fact, detached from any shared and enduring vision of meaning and purpose.\u00a0 The regulation of conduct, while accepted for now, must not be understood in a way that accords any cosmic privilege to heterosexuality over homosexuality. For Christofferson and his interlocutors, it is best to limit the gospel to \u201cfollowing Christ,\u201d and to let go of any notions tying present, traditional ideas of the family to some eternal design.\u00a0 When Aubrey Chaves ventures to point to the elephant in the room, noting that there is more doctrine in the Church\u2014including a certain teaching distilled in the Family Proclamation\u2014than the idea of following Christ as Christofferson understands it, the consensus that emerged was very clear that the Proclamation was, to say the least, dispensable.\u00a0 \u201cWe are the Church of Jesus Christ, not the church of the Family,\u201d Tom remarks.\u00a0 And Patrick adds, \u201cYou don\u2019t need a Ph.D. in history to note that the Church\u2019s teaching on the family has changed since the 19<\/span>th<\/span> century.\u201d (Much laughter here.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

From this perspective, the only family that really matters eternally is the whole human family, the \u201cbody of Christ,\u201d which includes appreciation for the diversity of all its members. Love (unqualified acceptance) for the universe of humanity\u2014with each individual defining their own identity\u2014is the pure essence of the gospel, the truth that remains once traditional prejudices in favor of a certain family structure are eliminated.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Aubrey Chaves expressed a concern that Elder Holland\u2019s speech felt like a warning to stop open discussion in the name of unity.\u00a0 She speaks on behalf of a member who wants to be unified with the prophet, but also wants to leave room for \u201chealthy disagreement.\u201d\u00a0 This is where Patrick Mason notes that the conflict in the Church at present is real, serious, and \u201cunsustainable\u201d\u2014arguably because the apostolic teaching on sexuality is at odds with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of \u201cLGBTQ\u201d members. Clearly, for these brothers and sisters at Faith Matters, we should be open to \u201chealthy disagreement\u201d regarding Church doctrine, but it seems as if \u201creal experiences\u201d are beyond questioning and exempt from interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

How should <\/span>fellow <\/span>Latter-day Saints regard <\/span>these positions raised on this Faith Matters podcast? <\/span>Faith Matters does well to counsel love and patience in the midst of uncertainty and disagreement. But it is clear that with this love and patience comes a definite perspective on this disagreement and how it must eventually be resolved. <\/span>These participants in the podcast seem to have <\/span>unquestioned faith in certain ideas or principles, and this faith shapes their response to Elder Holland\u2019s unintentionally offensive or \u201cabusive\u201d speech.\u00a0 We have already noted the bedrock of this faith: the idea of the absolute authority of the self as it experiences and understands itself.\u00a0 There is no appeal beyond the self; there is nothing higher than the identity experienced or asserted by the individual\u2014what is held up as the \u201creal experience\u201d of members who experience sexual inclinations or orientations not in line with the man\/woman idea of marriage\u2014and which must not be questioned in any way.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Faith Matters interview, a number of other arguments are cited in support of the authority of the self\u2019s identity and experience. One is the argument that the inclusiveness of the gospel requires that doctrinal boundaries be widened so as to appeal to the maximum number of people.\u00a0 The body of Christ must include a boundless \u201cdiversity of members\u201d unlimited by any doctrine except that of \u201clove\u201d understood as \u201ccompassion.\u201d\u00a0 We are really trying to \u201cbroaden the circles\u201d of our culture and community, the argument goes, in order to help them become as expansive and inclusive as they can be\u2014both for those who already feel \u201csuper comfortable\u201d at church and for those who are \u201ctrying to find a place to fit in.\u201d The circle must be broadened, and teachings redefined, so that all may feel \u201csuper comfortable.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On this view, we have no competence to judge between wheat and tares; all judgment as to moral compatibility with Church unity must be left to Christ at the end of times. It is wrong, therefore, for members to express confidence in moral distinctions supported by revelation. In response to <\/span>Elder Holland\u2019s acknowledgment<\/span><\/a> that BYU\u2019s upholding of the Church\u2019s moral teaching might prove costly in terms of certain \u201cprofessional certifications,\u201d <\/span>podcast participants insinuate <\/span>that BYU must not sacrifice its prospects for a broader reach into the academic mainstream by clinging to narrower Church teachings concerning marriage and sexuality.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In support of this position grounded in the real experience of the self and in inclusiveness unlimited by doctrine, Patrick Mason in the Faith Matters interview also puts a great emphasis on the authority of \u201cscience.\u201d\u00a0 Mason\u2019s long digression on the marvels of the scientific method as the tried and true way to Truth is remarkable in its simplicity and conviction. What is not clear is just how the basic moral premise defended <\/span>in the podcast,<\/span> the sanctity of the self and the \u201cexperience\u201d it claims, is supposed to be supported by \u201cscience.\u201d Modern science, after all, is supposed to be based on a clear dichotomy between \u201cfacts\u201d (the domain of science), and \u201cvalues,\u201d which are left with no rational status. Does Mason believe that \u201cscience\u201d can by itself provide an adequate answer to the question of the ultimate purpose of life, and thus of the place of our powers of procreation in relation to that ultimate purpose?\u00a0 It seems more likely that Mason\u2019s understanding of the method of the natural sciences as the complete model of rigorous reason simply accepts without question the authority of the modern, self-affirming self, and assumes that \u201cscience\u201d will work towards the dissolution of more traditional understandings of morality.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As we have seen,<\/span> this popular position<\/span> in favor of the absolute experience of the self, borderless inclusiveness, and reason as a critical scientific method (from which only the Self is exempt) is reconciled with the Gospel by means of a reduction of Restoration Christianity to an idea of \u201clove\u201d purified of all commandment or purpose that might contradict the experience of the self. Faith in the self as the ultimate ground of truth and meaning, in boundless inclusiveness, and in the \u201cscientific method\u201d as the essence of critical thinking is <\/span>clearly popular in the world at large, and shows up frequently in Faith Matters content that grapples with <\/span>moral questions in the contemporary Church. <\/span><\/p>\n

Given these commitments, it is not surprising that Elder Holland\u2019s speech was experienced as harmful or abusive.

While the interlocutors lament the “false dichotomies” Elder Holland was presumably teaching, they seem somewhat oblivious to the impact of their own words on the conversation\u2014and the intense dichotomies implicit in their own efforts to shape the thinking of Latter-day Saints.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>The whole question between Elder Holland and these Latter-day Saints at Faith Matters concerns the distinction between loving and condoning, that is, between seeing sexual orientations that diverge from the revealed norm as \u201cchallenges\u201d and seeing them as expressions of eternally valid and uncriticizable identity. And it should be noted here that Elder Holland\u2019s distinction between loving persons and condoning proscribed behaviors or unorthodox teachings is hardly new. It is evidence of the confusion wrought by this kind of complex and \u201cexpansive\u201d reasoning, along with the accompanying distaste for the simple categories of either\/or, that these brothers and sisters were somehow surprised and disappointed that the apostle should insist upon the difference between loving a person and agreeing with a person\u2019s opinion on a moral question. President Oaks\u2019 classic 2009 address \u201cLove and Law<\/a>,\u201d is a notable example. But Elder Holland himself has long been very clear on the question, as in his remarkable 2014 message, \u201cThe Cost and Blessings of Discipleship”<\/a>:<\/p>\n

At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, \u201cLove one another, as I have loved you.\u201d\u00a0To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, \u201cIf ye love me, keep my commandments\u201d<\/span> and \u201cwhosoever\u00a0\u2026 shall break one of [the] least commandments,\u00a0<\/span>and shall teach men so,<\/span><\/i>\u00a0he shall be\u00a0\u2026 the least in the kingdom of heaven.\u201d\u00a0Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. <\/span>So if love is to be our watchword, as it\u00a0must\u00a0be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. <\/span><\/i>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 ever did even once). (My emphasis.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is hard to understand how any Latter-day Saints attentive to General Conference teaching could be surprised to hear once again from the apostle\u2019s mouth the clear distinction between loving a person and condoning that person\u2019s immoral behavior or erroneous opinions about morality.\u00a0 Elder Holland, it must be recognized, remains quite attached to what certain thoughtful members regard as simplistic either\/or thinking.\u00a0 While the interlocutors lament the “false dichotomies” Elder Holland was presumably teaching, they seem somewhat oblivious to the impact of their own words on the conversation\u2014and the intense dichotomies implicit in their own efforts to shape the thinking of Latter-day Saints. <\/span>We should note that at one juncture in the interview, Patrick Mason is bracingly candid about a divide that exists in the Church on questions surrounding sexuality and marriage:<\/p>\n

How can we sustain the prophets and apostles and how can we love our sisters and brothers? It seems impossible \u2026<\/span> we have our own Zion canyon right now. Where on the one side, we have the prophets and apostles teaching doctrine, which is their prerogative. And we sustain them as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their calling to do so. Part of that doctrine that they declare is the doctrine of love and the doctrine of compassion, but it\u2019s also doctrines around sexuality and around marriage. On the other side of the canyon, we have the real experiences of our LGBTQ sisters and brothers who are, as Tom said, they\u2019re not only in pain, but there is a lot of pain. Looking across the canyon, it\u2019s hard to know how we would ever bridge that.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Does Mason appreciate how his own framing of the situation may itself help create and expand the very chasm he laments? <\/span>While the interlocutors lament the “false dichotomies” Elder Holland was presumably teaching, they seem somewhat oblivious to the impact of their own words on the conversation<\/span>\u2014<\/span>and the intense dichotomies implicit in their own efforts to shape the thinking of Latter-day Saints.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is true that having clearly defined the chasm, on one side of which he clearly stands, Mason then offers some reassuring and familiar rhetoric intended to turn our minds away from the either\/or he has just represented to us:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the middle of that canyon is just a ton of pain and confusion and hurt, and it\u2019s felt on both sides. There are some people just lobbing artillery shells back and forth, but there are a lot of people who want to build bridges, who want to find a way to bridge that gap and aren\u2019t sure how. I\u2019m convinced that that\u2019s where the work of Jesus happens.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is not clear is just how this version of \u201cthe work of Jesus\u201d is supposed to bridge the doctrinal gap that Mason himself has so clearly alluded to. However, if we step back and consider<\/span> the different elements of the larger arguments being made,<\/span> I think it becomes clear that this work of \u201cbuilding bridges\u201d has two main elements.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first<\/span> rhetorical element, <\/span>which is certainly not unique to this interview or to Faith Matters itself, is the defining of Christian love as safely within the orbit of the sacred self of modern ideology.\u00a0 On this view, to do Jesus\u2019 work by \u201cbuilding bridges\u201d is to identify the Savior\u2019s teaching with an understanding of love that is subservient to the self\u2019s asserted identity, whatever that may be.\u00a0 If this is a \u201cbridge\u201d between the contradictory teachings Mason has referenced, then it\u2019s a bridge that only pretends to extend towards the other side\u2014but in reality, turns around and affirms its own starting point in the modern self.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The second<\/span> rhetorical element worth pointing out here is the specific way in which they approach<\/span> continuing revelation.\u00a0 Since there is much we don\u2019t know, then why not assume that the truth embraced by \u201cexpansive\u201d minds such as ourselves is the true morality towards which the arc of revelation necessarily tends.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the essential role played in the Faith Matters worldview by the idea of continuing revelation: if we can only be patient, understanding the present limitations of many members of leaders, then we can hope for new revelation which will align official Church teaching with the faith of Faith Matters.\u00a0 Faith Matters is able to represent what appears to be a moderate disposition by its stance of patience towards members and the highest Church leaders<\/span> who simply are lagging behind the arc of progress, the destiny of which has somehow been revealed to them but not to the rest of us. As <\/span>Mason remarks<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the challenge that we have before us. I don\u2019t think we have the answers yet. I think we\u2019re looking for conversations like this. The conversation\u2019s there, but the prayers that have been said over the past two weeks, the prayers that Elder Holland said that he and his brethren and the leadership offer daily, that\u2019s how we\u2019re going to get there. Because the Lord\u2019s going to give us more revelation. We\u2019re not there yet \u2026 Where we\u2019re at right now, we can\u2019t stay here because the gap is too big. Our job together is to fill that canyon. I hope we fill it with compassion and love and discipleship and trust and all those kinds of things. But it\u2019s going to take a little patience as we seek the Lord\u2019s revelation.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is true that Mason wants to avoid making promises he can\u2019t keep, or unduly encouraging impatience with the movement of revelation towards the vindication of the self and its \u201cexperience.\u201d As he notes:<\/span><\/p>\n

I never want to give people the false hope that we\u2019re living in 1977. That six months or a year from now, we\u2019re going to get an announcement from the President of the Church where we do a 180 on this thing. Because, for me, I have no idea what the future holds. I absolutely believe that God has many great and important things to reveal to us, and this seems pretty great and important. I have full expectations we\u2019ll receive more light and knowledge on the subject, but I don\u2019t know what that means, I don\u2019t know what it looks like, and I don\u2019t know what the timetable is.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What are we to make of this profession of total<\/span> uncertainty<\/span> regarding what the future holds?\u00a0 While respecting Mason\u2019s no doubt sincere efforts to practice humility, is it not clear that his hope for more light and knowledge already has a certain orientation, a certain content?\u00a0 Since he has already clearly defined a dichotomy between a doctrine that holds to certain substantive truths about sexuality and the family and one in which all such truths are dissolved in an idea of \u201clove\u201d completely open to the demands of the modern self, is there really any mystery remaining about the resolution of the conflict that he hopes for and expects?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

That being said, <\/span>I believe Patrick Mason is correct when he judges the present conflict between Church teaching and the \u201clived experience\u201d of \u201cLGBTQ\u201d members and their advocates to be \u201cunsustainable.\u201d\u00a0 On the one hand, Elder Holland and Church teaching, in general, exhort members that we must love those who \u201cstruggle\u201d with orientations that do not align with the plan of salvation as it has been revealed through prophets, but must not \u201ccondone\u201d sexual behaviors <\/span>or understandings of the deepest meaning of sexuality <\/span><\/i>that spring, not at all from the Gospel, but from the modern idea of the self-affirming self as the touchstone of morality.\u00a0 Of course all of us fall short of the familial ideal that, despite some elusive implications and unanswered questions, informs the Great Plan of Happiness; and all who embrace this plan and keep covenants associated with it, whatever our challenges related to orientation or, for that matter, our marital status, are on the same gospel footing as those more fortunate in their present family circumstances. <\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand, Faith Matters appears to embrace the view, increasingly dominant in contemporary society, that individuals should <\/span>proudly<\/span><\/i> embrace orientations or self-definitions not consistent with the plan of salvation. As Patrick Mason at least, among the Faith Matters voices, seems at bottom to understand, we really are confronted with an \u201ceither\/or\u201d question of morality and religion.

If we can only be patient, understanding the present limitations of many members of leaders, then we can hope for new revelation which will align official Church teaching with the faith of Faith Matters.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>In my judgment, the faith advanced in this and other Faith matters content is not compatible with Elder Holland\u2019s faith. The talk of \u201ccomplexity,\u201d the rejection of \u201ceither\/or thinking,\u201d the rather empty rhetoric of \u201cbuilding bridges,\u201d provides a rather thin veil for the hope that Church will sooner or later abandon Elder Holland\u2019s faith for one that puts no boundaries on \u201cinclusiveness\u201d towards the demands of the modern self. This faith in the absolute priority of the claimed \u201cexperience\u201d of the self is certainly widely held among many Latter-day Saints today.<\/p>\n

The rhetoric of building bridges of \u201ccomplexity\u201d and thus somehow overcoming \u201ceither\/or thinking\u201d is simply a way of averting our eyes from an unsustainable tension. It is time to recognize that Faith Matters (at least as represented in this interview) is committed to a faith quite different from Elder Holland\u2019s\u2014<\/span>and we will have to choose between the two<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Returning to Elder Holland\u2019s focus on the mission of BYU, it seems quite probable that<\/span> this version of faith often advanced by Faith Matters (and many others) <\/span>holds sway among many professors and students at BYU.\u00a0 We will all have to decide whether our loyalty is to this version of faith or to the doctrine as understood by Elder Holland and the Church for which he speaks.\u00a0 No doubt there is much complexity to explore in issues surrounding sexuality and the gospel, and many bridges to build, but in the end, Patrick Mason is right that the present tension between the final authority of personal experience and the moral doctrine at the core of the Plan of Salvation is unsustainable. This is an either\/or that will have to be faced at BYU, and in the Church more widely.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+. In what ways might unexamined assumptions about identity be contributing to this same divide?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":8190,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[472,499],"tags":[177,718,105,728],"coauthors":[271],"class_list":["post-8137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dialogue","category-persuasion","tag-byu","tag-jeffrey-r-holland","tag-lgbt","tag-sexuality"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nElusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Public Square Magazine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"628\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ralph C. Hancock\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ralph C. Hancock\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ralph C. Hancock\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d95f2a82e2a87ed147ff564ad1333405\"},\"headline\":\"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5405,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"BYU\",\"Jeffrey R. Holland\",\"LGBT\",\"Sexuality\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Dialogue\",\"Persuasion\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/\",\"name\":\"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg\",\"width\":1024,\"height\":1024},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/dialogue\\\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"Public Square Magazine\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Public Square Magazine\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/11\\\/Public-Square-Logo-Primary-WHT-Background-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/11\\\/Public-Square-Logo-Primary-WHT-Background-1.png\",\"width\":2195,\"height\":416,\"caption\":\"Public Square Magazine\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d95f2a82e2a87ed147ff564ad1333405\",\"name\":\"Ralph C. Hancock\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g799091cd30200ac5987aa554a231e5da\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ralph C. Hancock\"},\"description\":\"Ralph Hancock is Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University, where he teaches political philosophy. He is the author of Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Saint Augustine\u2019s Press, 2011) as well as The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011), and the editor of several volumes. He has also translated numerous books and articles from the French, including Pierre Manent\u2019s Natural Law and Human Rights, and has published many articles on the intersection of faith, reason and politics. Dr. Hancock is also co-founder of Fathom the Good Curriculum.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/publicsquaremag.org\\\/author\\\/ralphhancock\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine","description":"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine","og_description":"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.","og_url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/","og_site_name":"Public Square Magazine","article_published_time":"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":628,"url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ralph C. Hancock","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ralph C. Hancock","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/"},"author":{"name":"Ralph C. Hancock","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#\/schema\/person\/d95f2a82e2a87ed147ff564ad1333405"},"headline":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints","datePublished":"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/"},"wordCount":5405,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg","keywords":["BYU","Jeffrey R. Holland","LGBT","Sexuality"],"articleSection":["Dialogue","Persuasion"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/","name":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints - Public Square Magazine","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg","datePublished":"2021-10-06T13:33:21+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-08T20:52:26+00:00","description":"In Faith Matters\u2019 podcast, \u201cElusive Unity at BYU,\u201d Church teachings about sexuality and the family are characterized as in profound conflict with the \u201creal experiences\u201d of Latter-day Saints identifying as LGBT+.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg","width":1024,"height":1024},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/dialogue\/elusive-reasoning-among-expansive-latter-day-saints\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Elusive Reasoning Among Expansive Latter-day Saints"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/","name":"Public Square Magazine","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#organization","name":"Public Square Magazine","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Public-Square-Logo-Primary-WHT-Background-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Public-Square-Logo-Primary-WHT-Background-1.png","width":2195,"height":416,"caption":"Public Square Magazine"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/#\/schema\/person\/d95f2a82e2a87ed147ff564ad1333405","name":"Ralph C. Hancock","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g799091cd30200ac5987aa554a231e5da","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff12588c49b660131b6ff711e623558fff8cb388c0a452cfe4878df98e64815b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ralph C. Hancock"},"description":"Ralph Hancock is Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University, where he teaches political philosophy. He is the author of Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Saint Augustine\u2019s Press, 2011) as well as The Responsibility of Reason: Theory and Practice in a Liberal-Democratic Age (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011), and the editor of several volumes. He has also translated numerous books and articles from the French, including Pierre Manent\u2019s Natural Law and Human Rights, and has published many articles on the intersection of faith, reason and politics. Dr. Hancock is also co-founder of Fathom the Good Curriculum.","url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/author\/ralphhancock\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/water-lily-pond-with-japanese-bridge-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8137"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8227,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8137\/revisions\/8227"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8137"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicsquaremag.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}