- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/10/our-one-sided-openness-to-continuing-revelation From his article at First Things.
Quote:
Isn’t this kind of “openness” to the right kinds of revelation”which is to say, the left-leaning kind”really a sort of intimidation by the perceived moral authority of the progressive left? Does it not even occur to the “thoughtful” Latter-day Saints who hold themselves open in this fashion that, if the heavens are really open to new guidance, we shouldn’t presume which direction such guidance might take us. Can we only imagine “openness” in one direction?There is no end of generous speculation that sexual norms and the definition of marriage might be altered to accommodate the “progress” of modern societies. But what if we were asked by on-going revelation to be less modern, less permissive, even less “equal” (that is, less the same, in defining male/female roles)? I won’t be more specific, because I’m not arguing for, much less predicting, any specific change. I’m just suggesting that, if we want to prove our openness to new revelation, then we ought to be able to scan channels in more than one direction.This is why I demur slightly from the approach taken by many faithful friends, who insist, for example, that they care not a whit whether the Church ordains women to the priesthood or not; they are open to whatever the prophet should reveal on such a question. Well, me too. But why not say something on behalf of what has been revealed, and affirmed? Of course there is much that we do not know, and we surely have no purely rational access to some right answer concerning the earthly governance of the Church and the distribution of roles between men and women. But, if we really support the prophets, why not really support them? Why bracket our support in order to defer to more enlightened sensibilities?
If anyone has the time to read the article, I’d be interested in your response.
What Bro. Hancock seems to be advocating for is holding fast to the revelations and social conventions of the last 50 or so years. He mockingly portrays individuals that are ready for the church to move on as being fence sitters at best.
He frames his ideal as being MORE open. But I can’t believe that he is. Would he be open to a revelation bringing back stoning for seemingly trivial offenses? Probably not (and thank goodness – cause that would be a little scary
😈 ). I don’t even think that degree of openness would be healthy. We all need to have a framework of expectations. For me, I work from a framework with a God that is more loving and accepting that we might suppose. It is only natural therefore, for me to expect that new revelations over time would become progressively more loving, accepting, and inclusive.I suspect that Bro. Hancock is VERY OPEN to the church’s conforming to his personal preferences, beliefs, and political inclinations – just like the rest of us.
I suspect he might have written this same piece in 1977 about another issue – but I don’t know him well enough to say that with certainty. I also wonder how he is reacting to all of the new explanations that are being published currently – and the others that probably will be even harder for hardcore conservative members to accept and handle that are bound to be coming in the future. For example, in regard to the exact issue he addresses, the explanation of women laying on hands and healing in the early church – and women prophesying in the early church – and more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.