Introduction and Episode Overview

Part 1 of 4 · Ep. 392

Ralph Hancock [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber

John Dehlin [00:00:26] today@mormonstories.org hello and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host, John Dehlin. It is 2013, so happy new Year to everyone who's listening, who's within the sound of our virtual voice. This recording is on January 2nd and I have with me somebody that I've known and respected in many ways for over two decades. His name is doctor or professor Ralph Hancock. He was a professor while I was at BYU getting my degree in political science. He was on the faculty there. And I was also privileged to have the experience of being a teaching assistant in the kind of famous and for some infamous American heritage class that BYU has offered now for decades as well, that I believe was started either by Frank Fox or someone before him. But at some point in that time, Dr. Hancock was tapped to teach sections of the course and honor sections, honor sections as well. So I was able to actually be a teaching assistant to Dr. Hancock and, and most importantly, I was able to play basketball with Dr. Hancock in BYU intramural basketball. And he was quite a basketball player, which Phil Barlow discusses. I don't know if he discusses that on my interview with him, but, but I've talked to Phil about his epic days of basketball war in Boston with Ralph Hancock back at Harvard. Do you remember those days, Dr. Hancock?

Ralph Hancock [00:02:14] Oh, sure. Well, by all accounts that I've heard, I used to be quite a spirited basketball. Actually I haven't given it up altogether, but I'm glad you remembered that part of our association. And I had recruited, I think three very tall youth to be on this intramural team with me. And that wasn't too bad. That was some fun. And I wouldn't claim to have had a complete game, but I had a step in the day, John. You had to admit it was fun.

John Dehlin [00:02:44] And Phil Balder remembers him as being a defensive specialist and you as being an offensive specialist.

Ralph Hancock [00:02:49] Yeah, we got matched up a lot. It seems like my chin and his elbow were involved in a lot of our matchups. But that's just a one sided memory of the situation.

John Dehlin [00:03:00] I'll make sure and tell him that

John Dehlin [00:03:02] that's how you remember it.

John Dehlin [00:03:03] No, I'm just kidding. So yeah, so I mean, just to tell a little Bit more about you, Dr. Hancock.

John Dehlin [00:03:09] I mean, I know you.

John Dehlin [00:03:12] I know you served a mission in France.

John Dehlin [00:03:14] I know that you.

John Dehlin [00:03:15] I believe it was France. I know that's right. I know that you went to Harvard and got your PhD. I believe, in political philosophy. Is that right?

Ralph Hancock [00:03:23] That's it, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:03:24] And then you worked at University of Idaho in Moscow before you went to byu.

Ralph Hancock [00:03:30] Yeah, I actually taught at a little college in Michigan, which has a pretty high political profile for a very little college. Hillsdale College.

John Dehlin [00:03:41] Oh, right.

Ralph Hancock [00:03:41] Was my first job for four years, then when things turned sour there. But that's a long story. I got that job in the very nice town of Moscow, Idaho. And we might have stayed there longer, but there was an opening at BYU that I was offered in 1987. So that's not long before we met, was it?

John Dehlin [00:04:07] That's the year I entered byu, actually. And, and just I want. I always like to tell my listeners why I think this is a really important interview before we even get in, so they don't jump off too early. Okay. And I'm just. I'm just going to say that, you know, I would say, Dr. Hancock, you've been. I kind of characterized you a bit on Facebook as sort of a defender of political and religious conservatism for a few decades now. And I don't know if you're comfortable with that sort of characterization, but I'll add to it by saying that you're sort of one of the leaders at something called the John Adams center, which is described on the Web as for the study of faith, philosophy and public affairs. My good friend Brent Bishop is on the board. I think Matt Holland is also on the board. But you've got a blog called the Bulwark, where from time to time you've written sort of social commentary. I would describe it as where you speak up about various events within the broader culture, but I think specifically you tend to target social commentary on Mormonism. And specifically, you've had some strong things to say about. I don't know if you'd want to characterize it as progressivism or liberalism, you know, within 21st century Mormonism. And so, for example, and this is just so my listeners can know who you are.

Ralph Hancock [00:05:49] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:05:49] So, you know, so if you know when Prop 8 might happen or, you know, this recent episode where women decided to wear pants or, you know, sort of the dust up between myself and Daniel Peterson last year. When sort of big social events happen within Mormonism, it's common for you to write a commentary and provide a view That I don't know if you'd be comfortable calling it an apologetic view or not. We can get into that. But you would provide a more conservative defense of the faith and of culture, sort of saying, hey, we should be a little bit careful and not become too progressive or too liberal and sacrifice things of import. So that's the way I would respectfully frame what your contribution has been over the past few years to my listeners.

Ralph Hancock [00:06:57] I have no objection to any of those shorthands as long as they're recognized to be shorthand, particularly the characterization conservative. Sure. I mean, how can I avoid it? I'm more a critic of liberalism than I am an expounder of conservatism, I suppose. But sure, I have no reason to run away from that. And let me just add that it should get your listeners attention that, that this stands out so much or it seems so singular or that we haven't been talking about byu, but the fact that. People, when trying to identify me, I've heard them come up with this brief tag, oh, Hancock isn't. He's the conservative at byu. That's kind of extraordinary, isn't it? It's not. And of course, I'm not the only one. But what does it mean that someone would stand out for being conservative at byu? But anyway, we can kick that question down the road, I suppose.

John Dehlin [00:08:15] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:08:16] And I just want to make sure everyone understands my intent up front. This is not intended to be sort of, you know, I try never to do this with any of my guests, but. But the purpose of this interview is not going to be to sort of put, you know, Ralph Hancock's feet to the fire and try and catch him or embarrass him or give him, you know, these questions that are sort of coming from a more hostile or antagonistic frame. I'm really interested. And here I will be sort of laying out maybe the outline for our discussion that we sort of discussed beforehand. But I'm interested in understanding, number one, you know, a little bit about your background to understand the pillars for your Mormon experience in your faith. That'll be part, kind of a part one.

John Dehlin [00:09:08] Part two would be, you know, the

John Dehlin [00:09:10] pillars of your religious and political philosophies.

John Dehlin [00:09:13] What are the values that you hold

John Dehlin [00:09:15] most dear, that, you know, that serve as the foundation for why you feel it's so important to defend or even sometimes, I don't want to say attack, but I'll say critique what's going on, you know, within Mormonism. And then, you know, I didn't, I didn't necessarily mention this, but I'm not lifting it as a. As sort of a last minute gotcha. But it probably would make sense to discuss at least two of the most, let's say three of the most prominent topics that I think have been raised by you and towards you, which are sort of progressivism in general and then kind of women's issues and maybe LGBT kind of issues, just. Just because I think it'd be impossible to avoid some. Some discussion about those.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:09] But I. Yeah, why avoid them? I'm not, I'm not for avoiding. I don't claim to have complete answers, but there's nothing I'm particularly bent on avoiding either.

John Dehlin [00:10:20] Sure. And I think it probably would make sense to discuss, and we did talk about this, about the role of defense or apologia or.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:33] And

John Dehlin [00:10:36] what might be effective or ineffective ways to try and stand for something in a religious context. And then we'll end by, by talking about your, you know, your faith today and what's important to you spiritually and religiously and maybe a little bit about your vision for the future. You know, if we can also talk a little bit about politics and, you know, the current state of affairs within the, you know, Republican Party. And we're not going to have time to cover all this in, let's just say two or three hours, but it would be fun to try to get to that as well. So that's the overview. Did you have any amendments or quick reflections before we. No.

Ralph Hancock [00:11:23] All fair game as far as I'm concerned. Once we get into something, I'm sure that there will be curlicues within curlicues that will open up, and we'll just have to see how far to pursue them.

John Dehlin [00:11:34] Okay, excellent. So let's begin. Ralph Hancock, tell us a little bit about your early Mormon story and a little bit about your biographical sketch that would help us understand the frame from which you have come.

Ralph Hancock's Early Life and Mormon Upbringing

Ralph Hancock [00:11:50] All right, well, let me try. I'm not sure there's anything very remarkable or explanatory, but, you know, I was raised a Mormon boy of two Mormon parents who met at byu. My father having converted, father from coastal North Carolina, actually an island off the coast, Harkers Islands, North Carolina. Met my mother from Cali, Wyoming, at byu. And so I was raised a Mormon boy. And I tend to think I've always been a believer and a questioner and explorer.

John Dehlin [00:12:37] Did you say your dad was a convert?

Ralph Hancock [00:12:39] Pardon me?

John Dehlin [00:12:40] Your dad was a convert to the church?

Ralph Hancock [00:12:44] My father, yes.

John Dehlin [00:12:46] Okay.

Ralph Hancock [00:12:46] Your voice cut out there a bit, but I'm sorry.

John Dehlin [00:12:48] So your father was a.

Ralph Hancock [00:12:50] He's, he's from his. My father's mother was a member. His, his father was only baptized in his 70s, I think, so when, you know, when my father himself was in his 50s probably, but. And I should say quite an apolitical upbringing. And my father's kin were all. Democrats, kind of liberalizing moderate Democrats, I suppose. I remember, I guess one of my first political memories is coming home from elementary school in Boise, Idaho, where there had been some discussion of the presidential election. It must have been. The second Eisenhower election. And, and you know, I assumed that everybody in Boise that I knew, first of all he was the president and that's the way we elementary kids looked at him. And I assumed everybody was voting for him. Everybody in my class seemed to favor him in my first or second grade class. But then I found out that my dad was voting for Adlai Stevenson. So I had to kind of square that. So that's one of my earliest political memories. But there was no political teaching or political emphasis in my family life. And even more generally, in terms of basic interests and orientation, I was really left remarkably to myself. When I think back, it's almost alarming how little guidance my parents chose to give me. It was a bit of a different world back then than now too.

John Dehlin [00:14:52] But was, was, were your parents? You know, I mean, Harvard's a. Something that many people view as like the pinnacle of, of, you know, educational experience. And I always wonder about what type of family, you know, raises, raises a child who can then go on to get a PhD at Harvard. Was it an intellectual family where your parents highly educated? Was education privileged in some way in your household that was unique from your

Ralph Hancock [00:15:22] peers or the short answer to that would be no. I don't want to be ungrateful to my parents, but they were just at BYU long enough to get married a year or so, I think. And my dad was a self made man, a salesman, you know, of that model that came to prominence in the post war period. Getting his foot in the door on carpet sales and becoming a manufacturer's rep, eventually having his own store. Just a, you know, on not a particularly grand scale. A self made man in a certain way who. Very, very smart man. Great. Far greater memory than I could remembering lines from movies and so forth, but no particular high culture. My mother is a great operatic singer, but other than that was the only high culture she was aware of. There's a, there's an incident I remember. I mean the very fact that I remember it is, must be significant. But really, because it's. Otherwise, it seems so incidental. But I must have been in third grade because we were living in California then for a short time. I remember that. And a cousin of my mother's came through because he was enrolling at Stanford Law School. And I just remember that occasion. So this was a Wyoming boy enrolling at Sanford Law School. And I remember my mother speaking with great deference and awe in her voice this my cousin is going to Stanford.

John Dehlin [00:16:56] Right.

Ralph Hancock [00:16:57] And so I think that made a mark of me. Like, oh, so obviously they think that's really cool to be smart and to achieve higher education. They really look up to that, that, that and that. Again, I wouldn't remember it if it didn't stick somehow, right? And. But my father, though I think my father would have been very happy if I'd been able to participate in the family carpet business as my younger brothers ended up doing. But, yeah, I just, I just, I was following some other muse, I guess you could say. And I think in that sense it would. It took a little bit of. It took something for my father to just let me go my own way, you know, a way that he had no understanding of at all. And especially when I decided to go to graduate school after byu, when lots of my successful uncles, for example, were saying, you're really smart, you're a quick study, you ought to go to law school, you could make some money, you could be successful. And that's kind of what I intended to do for a while, but I just couldn't sustain an interest. And I kept following these philosophical questions and decided to keep following them. And my dad never put up a bit of resistance whenever you might expect a very practical man to have done so. So that was the kind of support I got, just believing in me and letting me go my own. But there was never any family preparation to go to a high level graduate school. And it never, you know, when I went out to college, John, I went to. I lived in the Seattle area, but I went to Utah State. And the only reason was because I had a football scholarship there.

John Dehlin [00:18:43] Go Aggies.

Ralph Hancock [00:18:45] Yeah, and that's. I really hadn't thought much about. I didn't consider myself partly because of the expense and just it seemed remote. It seemed like another world. I hadn't thought of applying to Harvard or Stanford or. Lots of my friends went to the University of Washington across the lake from where I lived there. But that's why I ended up at Utah State. And so it just happened that I made good grades. And when it Came time to apply to graduate schools, I just, Harvard was among my applications and I, I got in. It's as simple as that.

John Dehlin [00:19:20] And if I remember, if I remember right, did you say you were a running back for the football team?

Ralph Hancock [00:19:27] A wide receiver and a defensive back. But that was in the days when the freshman teams were, by rule, separate, you know, and then I was going to be red shirted before any varsity prospects. And that's when I, I had also had a concussion and I'd won an academic scholarship, so I thought this is probably not worth my time anymore.

John Dehlin [00:19:50] But did you play for the, the freshman football team?

Ralph Hancock [00:19:54] Yeah, I scored a touchdown against byu, too.

John Dehlin [00:19:56] Yeah. That's awesome. All right, well, I'm a Cougar and an Aggie, so I, you know, you

Ralph Hancock [00:20:03] have broad sympathies like me.

John Dehlin [00:20:05] Real quick, tell us about your religious. What role did the church play in, you know, your upbringing?

Ralph Hancock [00:20:13] And

John Dehlin [00:20:16] were there any foundational spiritual experiences that you had that really cemented your commitment to the gospel? Was it a religious household that you grew up in?

Ralph Hancock [00:20:28] Well, we were with the program. We went to church. We were expected to be faithful and obey the commandments, but my father was first generation and I wouldn't want this at all to sound like a critique, but he hadn't had a father who ran a religious household. So I don't know if we had family home evenings. It certainly wasn't. Or pictures of the temple in the house, and it wasn't, it was very far from an aggressively religious household.

John Dehlin [00:21:03] But what about your mother? Religiously, the same. Okay.

Ralph Hancock [00:21:11] We all went to church together and I knew they believed. I think my mother had been a Relief Society president when I was still young. And so we were all active, but not particularly valiant or we didn't stand out in our observance, let me put it that way, but I guess, but I was always with the program. And I would say, in retrospect, I think I would have, I would be ungrateful if I didn't say that. The influence and testimony of the Holy Ghost have been with me since I was a child. And so some core of testimony. I've had my wandering practically and theoretically, but some core of testimony was there from a very, from a very early age. And then when I started to question, you know, as adolescents do, or to wonder, to question happily, I somehow was introduced to questions and problems in a, in a gradual and not confrontational way. I can't remember a lot of detail, but I believe I had a home teaching companion when I was a Teacher major or must have been priest because it was in Mercer island up in the Seattle area who read Dialogue magazine and showed me some things. And I found those interesting, but I looked at them not as contesting the authority of the Church. Of course, Dialogue has gone through various phases, I suppose, so I'm not sure exactly what I was reading. Dialogue was pretty new then, wasn't it? In the later 60s still.

John Dehlin [00:23:05] Oh yeah, it would have been brand new.

Ralph Hancock [00:23:07] Yeah. So somehow I had somebody who turned me on to that. And not that I was very far from being a religious research geek or anything like that, but I was interested in things I must have learned about. Hugh Nibley and Truman Manson are two people that I knew about already in high school. And that gave me some confidence that being very thoughtful and intellectually ambitious was by no means contradictory to being a faithful Mormon. So there was the kind of aura of Nibley and Truman Madsen and some early Dialogue exposure. So I never felt that there was any period where I came up against a shock of, of revelations about church history or anything like that. It was all, you know, line upon line, checking out one thing and then another. That said the main. This probably goes a long way to accounting for my intellectual bent. But in terms of confrontation in my worldview, it had more to do with political, social, cultural upheaval. I mean, I graduated from high school in 1970, so

John Dehlin [00:24:33] yeah, that's Woodstock, right? Hippie generation.

Ralph Hancock [00:24:36] Well, Vietnam War and basically contesting the idea of America. And you know, earlier, I mean, I'd been much exposed to Cold War issues and to somewhat to Mormon literature. Again, my parents were not at all into John Birch type things or for that matter, Ezra Taft Benson or Cleon Skousen, those kinds of things. But they were around in, you know, in the library of somebody else in my ward. I look at these things, defending America against communism. And I wasn't sure what to make of all of it, but. But I did. I think basically I was convinced that on balance America was good and worth defending. But then we enter the maelstrom of the late 60s and early 70s and all that is in question. And that was really the, the matrix of my intellectual interests, sort of the, the, the religious question as a, an element of this general upheaval about America, countercultural 60s radicalism and so forth. And I was very open to influences on all sides buffeted. You know, I can remember going to teach INS there in Logan at Utah State about the Vietnam War and kind of scratching my head and you know, probably being. Tending to be Swayed by whoever the speaker was that I heard last. You know, that was kind of my situation, but that's what, that's what kind of grabbed me. And those moral, social, political issues, yeah, they had some purchase on me from very early on. Not that I was much of a reader or scholar, you know, that, but I did, you know, even in high school, I read a little Socrates for some civilization class. Some Plato, Socrates, I mean, and, oh, some existentialism, which was all the rage. So I knew who Jean Paul Sartre was. And Kierkegaard, I think, not a great reader, but in a way, intellectually ambitious to try to come to terms with the most fundamental issues driving the social and political questions.

John Dehlin [00:27:40] Were you ever.

John Dehlin [00:27:42] Did you.

John Dehlin [00:27:43] Was there ever a time where you actually identified as coming down more on the side of liberalism or progressivism than conservatism? Or was there ever a time where you had deep sympathies for, let's say, the anti war movement? Or. You know, I. I've read a little bit about, you know, that book. I think it's called the Ugly American. You know, the stuff we did with the CIA in Central and South America. Like, you know, and of course the women's rights movement and the ERA and the civil rights movement and just the atrocities of war. Like, were there, Was there ever a part of you that. That had deep sympathies for what was at the heart of liberalism back then or anti materialism? Just, you know, there's a lot of values that I. I'm guessing that you would sympathize with that would be the values from which a liberal might operate. And I'm asking if in your youth or teen or early adulthood, when you were seeing such a critical time in our nation's history of social, of discourse, did you have sympathies for those values that the liberals or progressives were operating from?

Ralph Hancock [00:29:07] I was very much up in the air. I was very open to solicitations from. From all sides. Let me mention that I wrote my senior honors thesis at BYU on what was in the still quite new liberal philosophy of John Rawls. It was Kant, Rawls and the priority of right. And you might say that as I look at that, you know, wouldn't be hard to say that I'm critiquing Rawls from the left in that honors thesis. At the same time, there's great continuity with where I ended up because I'm critiquing Rawls. The fundamental question that I had arrived at was that of the priority of right or of you know, rights over goods. And I just analytically, I arrived at the argument that not only Rawls but Kant were wrong to think that you could arrive at an idea of rights independently of some commonly held good. So in one sense, on questions of equality, I think I was criticizing Rawls in a way from the egalitarian left. But philosophically, I was already going in a communitarian is kind of a loose word, but teleological communitarian direction, which, when I landed at Harvard, proved to be very fertile soil. I mean, I had plowed the ground but didn't know what I was planting. And just to jump to another stage in the story, here it was. So I'd gone to Harvard imagining that I'd keep following up on this Rawlsian interest because that was the big thing in political philosophy and remained so for decades, if it isn't still as big.

John Rawls and Political Philosophy at Harvard

John Dehlin [00:31:28] And for our listeners that just don't know anything about philosophy, how would you describe in a couple sentences what Rawls was trying to say to someone who is relatively illiterate philosophically?

Ralph Hancock [00:31:39] Yeah, okay. Yeah, thanks for reminding me to fill in that gap. So John Rawls published, a Harvard political philosopher published, and he was already fairly mature in years when he published in 1971 a theory of justice, which is essentially an attempt to work out a comprehensive justification for a, I would say, a late liberal welfare state liberalism. So, you know, really a familiar academic left liberal point of view, but developed with painstaking, even painful care in hundreds and hundreds of pages.

John Dehlin [00:32:23] And he's trying to say we should take care of the poor. What's he saying?

Ralph Hancock [00:32:28] Right. Well, in a way, he's trying to strike a middle ground, saying that he's trying to distance himself from Marxist socialism on the one hand and from, let's say, pure individualistic capitalism on the other hand. And so he's. One of his principles called the difference principle, is that it's morally okay to allow some people to earn more, to be unequal in that sense, if everybody benefits from this.

John Dehlin [00:33:08] Got it.

Ralph Hancock [00:33:09] Different. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:33:10] So it really is a middle ground between Marx and, let's say, Ayn Rand. It's basically saying there's good in both poles. Let's take a moderate kind of view.

Ralph Hancock [00:33:20] Right. But it's a moderate on the academic left, and that's, I think, a key factor in Rawls huge success and reputation is that he's basically systematizing what a very large percentage of university intellectuals thought or the sensibilities they held.

John Dehlin [00:33:38] Okay. And before we now explore the ground that that ended up plowing for you and what fruit came of it? I'm just going to go back to a question I just asked and ask you. I'm going to ask you this again from not an intellectual perspective, but kind of from an emotional perspective. Did you feel for, let's say, the injustices against blacks, the Jim Crow laws and our history of slavery? Did you feel for anything about the women's, whatever movements were going on with women? The fact that women at some point weren't able to vote, the fact that women weren't receiving equal pay for equal work? Did you ever feel anger at America's involvement in Latin America and the supporting of brutal dictators that killed lots of people at all, the deaths of the young soldiers in Vietnam? Did you ever emotionally connect with the issues that sort of were fueling the left?

Ralph Hancock [00:34:46] I wondered. I tried. I never gave myself emotionally. Women voting, of course, was long time before my time. And so the equal pay for equal work.

John Dehlin [00:35:00] No, I didn't mean that the suffrage movement was happening while you were alive. I meant did you tap into an understanding of our history of how women were treated and that the women's movement, for example, was an attempt to extend and achieve, you know, better justice for women in the 70s, you know, so for each of those, each of those movements that I'm sure you're aware of, did you ever connect emotionally with the past injustice or the past brutality or violence in the case of war?

Ralph Hancock [00:35:40] I guess the shortest true answer would be, I tried and I was open to it, but I was buffeted. I was also distrustful of the premises and ambitions coming from the left. But let me, you know, maybe I can answer with the fact in part still I was already at Harvard, married, with my second child on the way when I participated in. Didn't cost me much. I mean, it was just happening right there in Harvard Yard. Participated in a. Some kind of a socialist protest march, thinking I might sympathize and just wondering what was going on. That's how informed I still was at, you know, maybe the age of 26 or something, with the second child on the way.

Guest [00:36:43] So.

Ralph Hancock [00:36:45] But no, I was never, I wasn't a movement person one way or another. I was genuinely perplexed and trying to

John Dehlin [00:36:53] figure things out and never, so never quite get, you know, so for me, I can just remember learning about the civil rights movement and the, the blacks were lynched and just feeling this sense of rage and sadness or even the church's, the ban, the church's priesthood ban. You know, just thinking like this doesn't feel quite right or, you know, so. Or just feeling like, wow, war is an awful thing, and I can't believe that all these people are dying, you know, and there was just this awakening that I experienced probably while you were one of my professors that's just like, wow, this is a complex world where people have tried to do good but have done a lot of harm, and America's been involved and trying to grapple emotionally with past injustices. It sounds like you're saying that you. You thought about it, but never experience kind of an overwhelming sense of pain or outrage or sadness because you were what, just really, really involved academically and kind of focused on a certain path or.

Ralph Hancock [00:38:10] No, it's more. I think I. I just had this philosophical bent. I always took a step back and saw faults on both sides and was. Well, there is one constant. I mean, I always. I was convinced from my youth that Marxism is not accidentally grounded in atheism. And I was right, and I still am. And so I never. I was always suspicious of the. Atheistic, materialistic dimension of the left. Let me. On the race issue, I should say that I just confess openly that I was. I lived a fairly insulated existence in that respect. Zero racism. That claim will be questioned, but so it appeared to me in my family. My father, who came from a white community but in the south, would not have tolerated any racism or cruelty to less fortunate people. But in Boise, Idaho, where I went to elementary school, where I started elementary school, there probably wasn't a black face one. I think in my junior high school in Portland, Oregon, maybe a couple in my high school wasn't an issue. We were, let's say that I think our basic sensibilities were liberal progressive on the race issue. But it, you know, to be honest, it cost us nothing. It wasn't. Wasn't part of our neighborhoods. It wasn't part of our community. So.

John Dehlin [00:40:01] And that then that might explain a little bit. I mean, how do you emotionally deeply connect with something that you may not be swimming in, necessarily?

Guest [00:40:11] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:40:12] Is that possible?

Ralph Hancock [00:40:13] Yeah. So my. As a visceral awareness of the weight of American sins regarding race, it came later by historical study. It wasn't part of my experience.

John Dehlin [00:40:33] Got it, Got it. That's important. And also for women, you know, what. How was your mom treated? What was your experience about the role of women in Europe in your, you know, was it very traditional? I'm assuming.

Family, Tradition, and Early Views on Feminism

Ralph Hancock [00:40:48] Well, here's where it's going to get harder to. Or even harder not to be very controversial. But my Family was very traditional. My mother was strong and happy and talented and. For that matter, my grandmothers, especially my maternal grandmother, whom I knew best. These were strong women who, as far as I ever could learn, had zero interest in feminism or in the kinds of grievances. Treated by feminism. So that was my experience.

John Dehlin [00:41:40] They were happy.

Ralph Hancock [00:41:41] They were.

John Dehlin [00:41:41] I mean, from what you can see, happy, strong.

Ralph Hancock [00:41:45] My mother had six children, very young, and later a seventh, and pursued, probably gave up some promise as a performing vocalist, but continued, especially when her children got a little older, to take lessons and to give concerts. And so she was. She had her ambitions that she pursued, but one would have to say that they were certainly subordinated to her family duties, which would be far from me to regard as a mistake.

John Dehlin [00:42:17] And you, it sounds like you never got the sense that your mom felt mistreated, felt unequal, felt sad or broken by her experience as a woman in a traditional setting.

Ralph Hancock [00:42:30] No, no. She probably felt that her husband wasn't perfect from time to time. I can distinctly recall that. But no, there was. Feminism was not a visceral issue for any of the women that I knew. Well, I could talk more about my sisters. I have four sisters, one older and three younger and two brothers besides. But. And I think our family was, you know, led by my North Carolina father, had a sufficiently traditional cast to it that there was a bit of a sense that I was the oldest boy and that was a bit of a position of honor in the family. I couldn't, I couldn't deny that or deny that my older sister especially was capable of being rubbed the wrong way a little bit by it. But. And I've talked to my older sister a bit in recent years about our upbringing, and one thing is interesting that she, you know, we had some athletic gifts in the family, but there wasn't, it's true, there wasn't much opportunity for the girls to develop them basketball teams or what have you. I think they might have played church basketball in the old style where girls could only stay at one end of the floor. Wasn't that it? You had an offensive sub team and a defensive sub team. So anyway, so talking to my sister, I realized that, you know, there are some. There are some negatives in the role differentiation as it was defined, but I think there are always trade offs. I don't, I don't think the answer is to try to create a society in which boys and girls participate absolutely equally in all things, the sports or whatever it is we're talking about. So there are always trade offs.

John Dehlin [00:44:43] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:44:43] Sure. And I think when we get to the section about feminism, maybe we'll explore that a bit more. But I just think, you know, I'll be honest with you, too. I think about my upbringing, and even though I wouldn't say that my mother in any way had the perfect experience, you know, my parents were divorced and I was in middle school. And, you know, there was.

John Dehlin [00:45:13] There was.

John Dehlin [00:45:15] You know, there was some tough stuff that went on. I generally remember my mom being very happy. She was a woman feeling very fulfilled in her life. Even though it turns out she was an intellectual. I don't know that she identified as one or that I thought of her as one. But, you know, I had no clue what the feminists were talking about well into my adulthood, probably at least in part because of what I experienced. And so I guess I'm just kind of relating to you in the sense that we really are a product of our experiences in so many ways, wouldn't you say?

Ralph Hancock [00:45:59] Sure. I mean, that's where we have to begin. We have to draw upon our experiences, and then we have to identify, explore and identify as much as we can with others experiences. And there's no question that. Women face distinctive difficulties in. In, how shall I say, in reaching fulfillment and in understanding the kind of fulfillment that they are enabled to reach within our society. More so in many respects today, I think definitely more so than when my mother was raised or even my sisters. So I don't deny it. It's hard times for girls and women in many respects. Just why that is and what it means, and whether feminism has the answers or the right diagnosis is a completely different set of questions, if I may say.

John Dehlin [00:47:15] Okay, so you're acknowledging the existence of problems with. With being female or male in today's society, and for you, it's just a question of what the right path is.

Ralph Hancock [00:47:32] Yeah, exactly.

John Dehlin [00:47:33] Okay, so without us digging too much into it, my guess is that you left Harvard with some sort of probably a pretty decently strong framework for viewing the world, and you can challenge that. But the fact that you went to Hillsdale, I mean, that's kind of Michael Medved. I remember him trumpeting that as like, one of the bastions. Of what? Of conservatism in the United States. So my sense is that.

Ralph Hancock [00:48:04] Well, let's fill in that story just

John Dehlin [00:48:06] a little bit, please.

Ralph Hancock [00:48:06] Because I was right at the cusp of really, in a way, the critical nexus in my intellectual history. And so I had cut my teeth on Rawls and developed my own critique, and I thought I was going to Harvard to study Rawls and liberal theory more in that mold. I had never heard of Harvey Mansfield.

John Dehlin [00:48:34] Right.

Ralph Hancock [00:48:34] But I signed up for a basic class, A Survey of the History of Political Philosophy, Part one. And in the opening lecture, Harvey Mansfield delivered a lecture on the subject of Socrates and the Empty center of Liberalism. Of course, he's using liberalism in the widest philosophical sense. That tradition going from Locke through John Rawls, let's say. And it was in that lecture that I. That really I understood that this is the ground which I had been plowing. This is the seed that needs to be planted in the ground that I had been plowing through my fumbling through my own improvised critique of Rawls.

John Dehlin [00:49:25] What do you remember Dr. Mansfield saying that struck you so strongly in that lecture?

Ralph Hancock [00:49:31] Well, it's in the title, the Empty center of Liberalism. Liberalism. And it relates to what I had said about the Rawls attempt, following Kant, to establish an ethical political theory on the basis of the right and rights rather than the good. And what Mansfield was saying is, no, the question of the good is always paramount and always informs our reasonings, whether we face up to it and engage it or not. And the whole cast of philosophical liberalism keep that distinct from questions of 20th century American liberalism. But the whole cast of philosophical liberalism is to suppress the question of the good, which, you know, we can see in Hobbes and Locke that that is essential to the agenda. We cannot know the good, and therefore we must base our political ethics on the premise of individual rights. And what I heard Mansfield was saying is, no, no can do. The question of the good, the good society, the good community, the good soul, this question cannot be suppressed. And we are not doing our philosophical due diligence unless we engage it. And that's what this is where the history of political philosophy and especially the return to Socrates and classical political philosophy becomes essential. So that's the broadly Straussian, as in Leo Strauss, the broadly Straussian perspective that Mansfield introduced me to. And it's from that moment that I said, ah, so this is the way to study these things. I kind of have to start over to develop some tools and some background knowledge. And that starting point has supplied the tools of a critique of philosophical liberalism that, you know, that I have explored pretty much continuously since that day in what must have been the late 70s.

Moral Relativism and the Search for Truth

John Dehlin [00:51:56] Yeah, well, you know, this rings. This strikes me at my center because, you know, you know, as an American Heritage ta, There was that chapter. I believe it's chapter four. It was chapter four in the American Heritage book, but they introduced this notion of the good. And there was this tree, and I remember graphics in that book about the tree being pruned and ultimately chopped down and then some type of mechanical tree being planted in place of the tree. And this was all representing. And again, this is going to be my sort of very casual, non intellectual way to try and restate what I think you're talking about for my audience that again, some of them may have no exposure to political philosophy. But tell me if this is what you're kind of saying that there needs to be or there is or we need to believe that there is some existence of truth, of goodness, some form of truth that exists independent of people's interpretations and of progressivism. But there's right and wrong and it's something that we can come to know, it's something that we can come to understand. And that, that understanding of right and wrong and what's good for individuals, what's good for society, needs to be the backbone and the soil from which all constructive social movements grow. And that if a social. And I remember you using the example of the French Revolution, that in the French Revolution there was this progressivism where they wanted to get rid of the king and get rid of monarchy, but because they weren't grounded in a true sense of right and wrong. I remember it being taught that, that the French Revolution sort of devoured itself because, because they started chopping off dick, you know, the, the monarchs heads. But then eventually they started fighting amongst themselves and decapitating each other and it all unraveled in a big hot mess because it wasn't rooted in this sense of absolute moral truth. And then I remember it being contrasted with the American experience which the founders were cast as. People who believed in God, believed in the divine, believed in basic Judeo Christian ethics. And because they rooted the founding of America in a belief in a sense of absolute moral truth and right and wrong, that that's been the nutrients that, that that movement needed to grow and succeed and prosper in ways that were beneficial to all. Did I even do a semi fair job at characterizing what you're talking about when you talk about the good?

Ralph Hancock [00:55:10] Well, you've done an excellent job of characterizing a basic line of teaching in American heritage, at least back then, which I didn't write, I mean, for which I'm somewhat responsible for influencing. But I didn't write, so I'd have some reservations about formulations. But it's a simplification which it has to be in a class like that. Let me just say I'M not overly fond of the term absolute in these contexts. It's really the modern revolutionaries who tend to lapse into a kind of secular absolutism. Whereas the argument for some continuity with tradition and with given ideas of right and wrong and religious ends does not require an affirmation that these are the absolute be all and end all. And it's really, rather than saying that we must found political and moral order on an absolute right and wrong, it would be closer to my main point to say that some understanding of right and wrong, and therefore of the good, you know, which is not quite the same thing of the meaning of life, of now. What, what makes life good is always implicit. It's, it's always there, whether explicit or not. Let me just use the example of, of Locke, John Locke, English political philosopher, who was very influential in the American founding, taken to be virtually quoted in the Declaration of Independence, for example. But John Locke, 17th century political philosopher who helped really provide the intellectual foundations of modernizing, liberalizing English constitutionalism. But he wants to base everything not on any shared understanding of religious authority, certainly not on some philosophical notion of a common good, but simply on the rights of individuals as conceived in the state of nature. And then individuals come together and contract to make government to suit their own needs and to protect their rights. All that's very familiar, but the. I think what we learned from the history of political philosophy, the kind of thing that Harvey Mansfield was teaching me at Harvard, is that you look closely, Locke is not exempt from the necessity of arguing from certain premises about what life is about and what sort of ideas of a good life should be facilitated by society. So, for example, we find Locke at one point privileging those he calls the industrious and industrious and rational over the quarrelsome and contentious, who would be philosophers and theologians. The industrious and the rational. Those are businessmen, people who are on the make. And so that's basically the Lockean idea of what life should be about. It's about making more, about acquisition without end, without any. It's about a way of life devoted to more and more acquisition. It's a defense of a. And essentially you wouldn't have had the word back then, capitalist society. But there's also a very, there's a, it's not an absolutist argument, it's a political argument. Harvey Mansfield has a great article on this very question. It's a political argument because he has to show that everybody has a stake in the unleashing of these acquisitive powers. It's basically what's deplored as a trickle down argument. But it's not a stupid argument. You let rich people get rich without limit and the rising tide lifts all ships. So that's the argument that Locke is making. And all I'm saying is that it's not, it's not a neutral argument with respect to our conception of what a good meaningful way of life is. It favors certain ways of life and discourages others. We could go on into Locke and the family, which is a pretty cold utilitarian view of what the family is for sure, children need parents up to a certain point, but then all contractual obligations are off and we're just lone individuals on the make. That's not quite fair to Locke, but that's basically his view.

John Dehlin [01:00:28] And if I can attempt to, I don't know, summarize, in a way it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone who makes an argument about what a social policy or a law or a religious organization or structure or policy should or ought to be, they're going to be. They're unavoidably going to be appealing to some sense of truth or good that underlies their argument that you just can't get away from it.

Ralph Hancock [01:01:12] Bingo. That's what I'm saying.

John Dehlin [01:01:14] Okay. And so because of that, and I remember, I don't remember the book, but there was some book that really swept BYU in the early 90s that was a real critique of moral relativism. And it really inflamed this discussion where you and Dr. Fox were kind of on one side and I remember Matthew Stannard, this sort of bright, young, really progressive thinker, on the other, where there were some real debates and contention about, about. On the one hand, yes, any argument has to have at its center some sort of assumptions about what is true and what is good. And you can't get away from that. But at the same time, a discussion about how difficult it is to really nail down and agree upon what that is. Because, you know, your Ralph Hancock's morality is likely going to be heavily influenced by, by your Christian faith, your LDS faith. Whereas somebody who's from a Muslim or a Jewish or secular background is likely going to, whether they're aware or aware of it or not, their morality, their sense of right and wrong is also going to be informed by their upbringing. And so while we can all claim that there is a truth, you know, that there is a good, we have to, number one, be aware that our perception of what is true and good is rooted in our. Like you and I kind of agreed at the very beginning when we talked about your experiences with women and minorities. You know, our experiences and our views. Our views and our morality are shaped by our experiences. And reasonable people can often disagree on what is truly moral and ethical. And so the trick is coming to a shared understanding of what is good that can transcend experience and cultural particularity. That's where it starts being difficult. And then deciding what to do once you have arrived at a consensus on goodness and morality is even more complex, right?

Ralph Hancock [01:03:34] Well, nobody, nobody said it was going to be easy. That's why they call it politics. And I've never thought, despite impressions some might get from an American Heritage Text, I've never thought that there was just that we could just like package an absolute good and say, obviously this is it. Would you please just take this and share it with others and so we can have this problem settled. No, it's not like that at all. By the way, I'm curious, what on earth would have been the book that caused this stir in the early 90s,

John Dehlin [01:04:07] you say, what was the big book on? A big critique of moral relativism, Dr. Fox, and you both talked about it a lot.

Ralph Hancock [01:04:17] Well, was I drawing on Charles Taylor already? Was it that?

John Dehlin [01:04:20] What would the book be?

Ralph Hancock [01:04:22] Sources of the Self? That would be.

John Dehlin [01:04:24] No, it was a popular book.

Ralph Hancock [01:04:26] A more popular book, huh?

John Dehlin [01:04:27] Yeah.

Ralph Hancock [01:04:27] Well, anyway, I have no memory of that in particular, but look, the challenge is a big one. But falling back on verbal devices like, like rights or for that matter pluralism is just a dodge because I mean, the question is always tending to be settled one way or another. In any case, there is no neutrality. I mean, if you want one mission statement for Ralph Hancock's intellectual existence, that wouldn't be a bad one. There is no. And those who pretend to it are either self deceived or they're deceiving you, or a little of both. But that doesn't mean the alternative of that is not just a kind of conflict of visions in which, as I think Max Weber would have described this early in the 20th century as if like dark ideological forces. Colliding in the night. That comes from Nietzsche ultimately, doesn't it?

John Dehlin [01:05:47] But the.

Ralph Hancock [01:05:48] So we don't need to choose between these two extremes. The fact that there's no final and ready answer does not mean that the question is meaningless or that reason does not play a role in articulating these questions and in moving towards always provisional resolutions.

John Dehlin [01:06:22] So even though it's difficult to arrive at what the moral Truth is, there are truths that can be agreed upon and a discussion of morality has a place. And there's not only progress that can be made to achieve moral consensus, but it's an endeavor worth embarking upon and I guess you would say crucial to embark upon, to first ask what's moral and to then build public and religious policy starting from a moral framework, is that right?

Ralph Hancock [01:07:01] And a moral framework that includes the question of what kind of people do we want to be? What kind of life do we. What kinds of lives do we want to facilitate, to make more likely, you know, rather than less likely, to encourage, to nurture? So once we're talking about that, then we're talking. But as long as we're talking about just, why don't you just let people have their rights? Or you can't impose your views on society. Well, somebody's views will be imposed. That's what makes a political society. We determine priorities and laws reflect them. And we set the conditions and the parameters for a way of life that may have a certain breadth and diversity, but it's not limitless. It has tendency. Some things become more possible, some things less. There are always trade offs. We ought to be talking about them and not imagining that we can be neutral by talking only about people's rights to do whatever they want. Let's say that was a bit of a. Bit of a speech, I'm afraid. But there you get a sense of what animates me.

John Dehlin [01:08:32] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out@sabre-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories logo was generously donated. Donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest [01:08:47] Come, come ye saints no toil nor labor fear but with joy wend your way though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to the San Jo Hearts will swell O all is well well, all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our lot is hard Tis not so all is right why should we think too earn a great reward if we now shun the fight? Gird up your loans Fresh courage take our God will ever us forsake soon we'll have have tail oh, all is well all is well oh, all is well all is well. Sam. Sat for our journeys through happy days all is well we that are free from toil and sorrow too with the

John Dehlin [01:12:04] just

Guest [01:12:06] we shall dwell. But if our lives are spared again to see the sa the rest obtain I will make this chorus well oh, all is well all is well well, all is well all is well all is well oh, all is well. All

John Dehlin [01:13:00] is.

Leo Strauss and the Philosopher's Role in Society

Part 2 of 4 · Ep. 393

Ralph Hancock [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org so Dr. Hancock, we've talked a bit about your upbringing and about some of the main political philosophers like Rawls, Harvey Mansfield, Leo Strauss and others that really influenced you. And so much of what we've just got through talking about is, is fertile ground for us to jump into some of the more meaty and detailed discussions about current events within both politics and culture. But before religious culture. But before we do that, is there anything else that you would highlight as particularly formative experiences between Harvard and Hillsdale and Moscow and BYU that you would say were either really critical events that shaped your philosophies and perspectives, or just interesting stories that would help us understand why you feel like this is something to spend an entire life discussing? Because really, you've spent your life, you could have made millions as a lawyer. You've spent your life talking about Strauss and Mansfield and Rawls and, and Rousseau, and you must feel like it's really important. And I'm wondering if there's anything else in your formative years, whether it's your mission or life experiences, that really speak to why this is so important for you.

Ralph Hancock [00:02:09] Just a word about my mission in terms of intellectual cast. I was in the Paris, France mission and delighted to say that my second son was in that same mission about 25 years later. So it was good to share that experience in a way together. But I would say that in terms of my intellectual formation, of course, missionaries aren't intellectuals. I did probably study more French than I should have, strictly speaking, distributing my study hours on my mission. But I didn't have time to study a lot of French thought. I spent a year in France after my mission. I should mention that I was hired to be a tutor in a private family down near Biarritz, south of Bordeaux on the Atlantic. And so I had a deep experience in France. And I think that really just in a vague but profound way reinforced what I had heard from my mother when she admired her cousin for going to Stanford. Because the French, look, I'm capable of being exasperated by them as much as any good patriotic American, but they respect the life of the mind. There is this culturally embedded respect for the life of the mind that really appealed to me and wore off on me and just contributed to this sense that this was part of living well and fully. So that was. And France has been a huge part of my intellectual formation, partly owing. You mentioned the French Revolution earlier, but I was in the year of the bicentennial of the French Revolution in 1989. I was invited to a number of events, including French scholars, and found that I could still, I could still work in French and converse in French pretty well. And I made some French contacts, including quite eminent writers whom I would eventually translate, Philippe Benetton and Pierre Menant. These have been very important in my intellectual conversation and our mutual friends, friends in America such as Daniel Mahoney especially and Peter Lawlor. So just dropping a few names for people who are interested, but these are part of an intellectual community that I've been very privileged to be part of. And it represents a kind of inflection of the legacy of Leo Strauss in a way that keeps Straussian political philosophy open to the insights and claims of revealed religion. So one writer, Michael Zuckert, in the Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss, refers to us, I think Peter Lawlor, myself, some others as faith based Straussians, which is partly a joke, I don't think really a put down, but faith open Straussiensia, that kind of defines my career. Take what you can learn from Leo Strauss and tweak it, including, where necessary, criticizing Strauss and especially some of his students. Tweak it in a way that keeps open the space for belief in revealed religion and the political importance of that space.

John Dehlin [00:06:01] Yeah, my sense is we've talked a bit about it, but summarize the main points of what Strauss stands for so that we can understand and it may be a rehash of what we've already talked about. But I don't think we've talked about Strauss specifically so well, he's a very

Ralph Hancock [00:06:21] controversial figure, not always for good reason. So we don't need to get into his alleged, the alleged association of his teaching with the Iraq war and so forth. That's all a little simplistic and not really directly related to our concerns. But look, in a word, Strauss offered, I believe, the most searching, profoundest critique of the very bases of modern philosophy, beginning with Machiavelli and going through Hobbes and Descartes all the way through the canon, you know, into the 20th century. Strauss offered the most penetrating and searching critique and he based it upon a recovery, as he saw it, of the basic insights, really the basic questions of the classical tradition of political philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle especially. So Strauss, Straussian is somebody who believes that we can still learn something from Plato and not just for archaic interest or to say, oh, it's interesting, he allegedly had this teaching about the forms or about the philosopher king or so forth. But really that Platonic questions are still a royal road to self questioning and to questioning our society today. That I think is the most important thing about Strauss. And I should mention that I feel it an honor to be called a Straussian when Straussians are attacked. On the other hand, among Straussians I'm regarded as a, an apostate or a renegade in many respects because of this inflection or this modification Religious, the religious part.

John Dehlin [00:08:18] So please, please forgive me. And of course I do remember my, my, my readings somewhat on Plato and Plato's Republic. But, but if, if you see Strauss is important because he, he holds up some of the Platonic ideals as being essential, would you, would you, would you mind just explaining to our listeners what are the ideas or teachings of Plato that you think are so essential?

Ralph Hancock [00:08:47] Yeah, I shouldn't bring up these highfalutin subjects, should I? Because I should know that you're going to ask me then to give a thumbnail sketch of Plato something very hard. It's not about Platonic ideals or Platonic ideas. It's really more about Platonic questions and certain insights. So let me try to look the main, the core question of classical political philosophy and Plato is the most brilliant representative of this. The core insight has to do with the relationship between philosophy or critical thinking and the moral political community. Okay. Maybe it helps to work backwards in a way. And by the way, this is something that I brought, if you want a thumbnail sketch. I brought it out in a somewhat polemical, I suppose, quite polemical Mormon context. Long ago, was it 91. Do you remember this, John? When I wrote what is a Mormon intellectual in the midst of some of that tumult that affected byu,

John Dehlin [00:09:58] I had, I'm ashamed to admit I wasn't even aware or thoughtful enough.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:03] Well, no, that's not to be in

John Dehlin [00:10:05] that conversation at the time.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:07] Nothing to be ashamed of. And maybe I'm wrong about the date, but it was early 90s, I think. But what is a Mormon intellectual raises a key Platonic question in a Mormon context. And the question is how should intellectuals regard their role with respect to society and its moral religious foundations? So to work backwards, I mean the Enlightenment view, enlightenment associated with 18th century philosophy, but it really goes back to Hobbes and Descartes in the 17th century and Strauss, I should say would trace it back to Machiavelli in the 16th century. But the core premise of the Enlightenment is that critical intellectual endeavor, science and critical thinking, let's say as a shorthand, are good because they increase the freedom, prosperity, comfort, the, in a word, the progress of ordinary people, of everybody else. So why should we have intellectual and scientific freedom, notably religious freedom, in the sense of freedom from religious authority? Because we'll make better mousetraps and prolong our lives and develop political institutions that will make us safer and more comfortable for the, as Bacon and Descartes put it, for the relief of the human estate, human condition. So in enlightened thought, or modern thought more generally, the answer to the question

Guest 1 [00:11:56] why

Ralph Hancock [00:12:00] thinking, why philosophy or critical thinking or science is good, is that it pays. Knowledge is power, was the pithy way that Francis Bacon had of putting this. It builds progress. We see this every time we turn on. We're watching a football game, a college game, and for the halftime show, we have the colleges present themselves. And what do we see at these halftime public relations blurbs for colleges and universities? We see, first of all, pastoral settings in which students, attractive students, are lounging on the grass and enjoying great freedom and relaxation. That seems good. But on the other hand, we see bragging about widgets, especially medical widgets, or progress in fighting cancer or creating some new technology. Basically, personal freedom and technology. That's what learning is for. That's the Enlightenment.

John Dehlin [00:13:06] Okay, is it fair to say that there's a heavy utilitarian streak in this philosophy that is most good, which results in the most good for the most amount of people?

Ralph Hancock [00:13:21] Well, sure. I mean, utilitarianism is a later derivation and specification of this. But as long as you grant that the whole question of what is good is suppressed, it's all about prolonging life and making life more comfortable and prosperous, and not about asking basic ethical questions that Plato or Aristotle might have asked about what is good, what a good character is. But anyway, I set up the Enlightenment just because it's the foil against which you can see what for Strauss, and you can see, I think he was very right, is the key insight of classical political philosophy is a question about the relationship between the philosopher and the city. That's Strauss's way of putting it. The philosopher and the city, the life of the mind, of critical thinking in relation to the moral and religious foundations that a society needs. And let's just say that classical philosophy was much more modest about any transformative role or about taking the lead in leading society towards some materialistic Utopia. Instead, The classical political philosophers were very concerned about. How shall I put this? About the inevitable tension between the work of critical reason and the goods of society. They didn't assume, as we tend to now, that. Critical thinking will lead us to ever and ever more open vistas of social peace and material progress and so forth. So in a word, classical political philosophy brackets and puts in question the idea of critical thinking as an engine of. As only an engine of progress. And classical political philosophy raises the question, what about the essential moral religious foundations? Can. Can philosophy. Must it disrupt them? Must it. Must it subvert those foundations? Or can it? Can it buttress them? Can it befriend them? And that is another way of putting a kind of intellectual question that has driven me for a few decades now and continues to do so. It's the. Maybe I might as well plug my most recent book before the opportunity lapses. My book, the Responsibility of Reason, is really all about that. How to reconcile the most critical thinking with a certain solicitude for the goods of practical existence, including political community. Sorry, I'm afraid that's all getting pretty abstract.

John Dehlin [00:16:56] No, no, it's great. And if I'm going to attempt to try and summarize in the crude way that I do and see if I can get you to agree to it. Are you kind of saying that the life of the mind and the life of the intellect clearly has value and it clearly has been an important component of our advancement as a civilization. But intellectualism and the intellect is only as good as two things. It's rooted in what you would say is a superior. A deference to what you would see as a superior import of basic morals and values. And once it's rooted in that, it's most assured to. Then intellectuality becomes a tool upon which to fashion a healthy and productive society. But the moment that intellectuality becomes detached from morality, a sense of morality, it goes astray and can not only. Well, it can cause damage to the broader society or to religion or to culture or the political landscape in ways that can be severely detrimental. So intellectuality is good only to the extent to which it's rooted in morality.

Ralph Hancock [00:18:40] Yeah, that's good. I don't object to anything there. But as long as we admit the proviso that this rooted in is very hard to explain. And that's what I've tried to do in my. The responsibility reason, let me just say that my argument is that for both, not only for moral political reasons, but for the deepest intellectual reasons, truly philosophical reasons, philosophy cannot take for granted that it is that critical thinking is good for society. It must think through that nexus and that, well, that responsibility. Philosophers must learn to see the good of their own activity not as identical with, but as bound up with the goods of humanity, the moral and religious goods that sustain the lives of regular folks, of non philosophers or those whose main thing is not about critical thinking.

John Dehlin [00:19:52] Right. Okay.

Ralph Hancock [00:19:53] We have to keep that, keep that connection alive, and intellectuals must take responsibility for it and they thereby become philosophers, in my view.

John Dehlin [00:20:06] Got it. Okay. So for me, this begs the question then, and you may see it as an unnecessary question or as an obvious question, but. So what do you see as the import or the role of religion in society? Why is, why is religion so important to you? And what, what, what are the main roles that religion plays that. That makes it worthy of the anchor for, for all that we do?

Religion as an Anchor for Liberal Democracy

Ralph Hancock [00:20:39] Yeah, I don't object to the word anchor that as long as we don't. I don't. It's not my view that, you know, there are religious foundations from which we can deduce all policy and legal views or something like that, but anchor is not a bad way of putting it. I guess I would just say briefly that I pretty much sympathize with George Washington. I think he's been, he hasn't been disproved when he says, wasn't it the first inaugural address, we used to read it in American Heritage, didn't we? That we should indulge with caution the view that. What does he say? That you can have a good society without. And morality without a foundation in religious belief. Sure, there are exceptions there. You know, it's easy to say they're very decent and good people who are atheists. Yeah, obviously. But whether you can have a whole society that is wholesome and decent, respectful of rights, attentive to the common good, without any religious. What shall I call it? Foundation, input, religious. Well, anchor, religious substance. We, you know, that's an experiment which, like George Washington, I'd rather not indulge. And allow me to mention, going back to my Cold war roots, that, you know, the first officially atheistic constitution in history was the Bolshevik Constitution of 1917. And I just, I don't think political atheism has a. Has a good record. And so where does that leave us in our, as we like to say, pluralistic world? Well, that's another set of questions. But have I answered whatever you started with me with here?

John Dehlin [00:22:39] Yeah. So you're saying, you're saying that a society that's attempted, that one attempts to build upon a religionless foundation has a poor chance of succeeding, in your view?

Ralph Hancock [00:22:59] Yeah, it won't be without foundations. It won't be neutral. It will be pursuing some. And the vision tends to be not less absolute, but more absolute when it's detached from a religious horizon, because religion is something beyond our power in which the ultimate goods are always deferred, notably to a next life. An a religious secular vision is more dangerous because it always invites. It at least invites the hope. Even if it's not explicitly atheistic and utopian millennialist, like Marxism, Leninism, there's a tendency to invite utopian hopes that we can bring about our idea of the good society by human means. And that's where a kind of absolute, kind of secular absolutism becomes a dangerous risk, in my view.

Tocqueville on Democracy, Virtue, and America

John Dehlin [00:24:01] Okay, and again, this is going to seem, I don't know, pedantic or something, but just list off for you what the important, but some of the main contributions that religion affords to society that a religionless society might not benefit from.

Ralph Hancock [00:24:20] Well, John, I'm not good at lists, so I kind of freeze up as soon as you say list. But no, but I'm basically a Tocquevillean in this respect. I follow Alexis de Tocqueville, one of my. He's one influence, I should mention another French one, along with Leo Strauss, in my intellectual formation. Tocqueville. And at least many of your listeners will be familiar with what Harvey Mansfield called the best book ever written about democracy and the best book ever written about America, that is democracy in America. And Tocqueville's vision is essentially what I would call a conservative liberal vision. American. Unlike his French and European detractors that he was addressing when he wrote in the 1830s, Tocqueville is saying, okay, basically, there's a lot of good going on here in America. There's some risks, some trade offs, some levelings, some lack of cultural elevation. But on balance, these Americans have something going that's pretty good. A lot of individual freedom. But what makes it good is that it is contained by a profound moral consensus, especially concerning the family and sexual matters. A profound moral consensus that is basically exempted from the no holds barred, no holds barred questioning of the democratic mind.

John Dehlin [00:26:04] Did Tocqueville talk about sex?

Ralph Hancock [00:26:07] Oh, sure.

John Dehlin [00:26:08] What did Tocqueville have to say about sex?

Ralph Hancock [00:26:11] He compared American mores very favorably with French. Mainly it took the form of praising the. The democratic nuclear family as it had arisen in America, and especially praising the role of women who were both how shall I say, very knowledgeable, no nonsense, and very chaste. So he has a lot. So the strength of American families grounded in the chastity of women is a bulwark. Oh, there's my word. A bulwark of American democracy. And it's really. And the anchor is an essentially religious conviction that Americans have inherited from their Puritan starting point. That, at least, is Tocqueville's analysis.

John Dehlin [00:27:07] And why do you think did he leave off men when he said the chastity of just people? Why do you think he focused on women?

Ralph Hancock [00:27:16] Because they were more chaste. What else?

John Dehlin [00:27:21] He observed that women were more chaste than men?

Ralph Hancock [00:27:24] Well, he was still very much. He was quite resigned to a double standard that we rightly find offensive on religious grounds, but still sociologically we could recognize as the anchor to the democratic society that he admired, or at least admired up to a point. Let me say we're talking about Tocqueville on chastity and womanhood. If you read. There's a lot more to be said here. Delba Winthrop, the late Delba Winthrop is a good author to consult on this question, by the way. She was Harvey Mansfield's wife and co editor translator of Their Democracy in America. But Tocqueville asks a lot of women, maybe too much. So you can read closely. It's easy to say is not fair what he asks of women, or it's not realistic because women really bear. They are the anchors, you might say, of the stability, the integrity of American society. And it's hard to know to read Tocqueville's tone exactly, but I actually take him to be suggesting the fragility of this, of this solution, women accepting. He admires. He praises the manly virtue of American women for accepting so much of the burdens of social stability, but in the very way that he does it, I think he's suggesting that the Americans are asking a lot, aren't they? I don't know whether this is. You can count on this for the long term.

John Dehlin [00:29:25] Did you say the manly virtue of American women?

Ralph Hancock [00:29:28] Yeah, that's an interesting formulation that Tocqueville uses at one point, which I think is meant to show the tension, if not the contradiction in the American solution, such as it is.

John Dehlin [00:29:49] Okay, well. Well, this feels like. Okay, so I'm going to do something that I. That I occasionally do in a podcast interview, which is sort of lay out a line of thinking that may actually require me to kind of talk continuously for a couple of minutes. But I'm ask your forgiveness because I'm going to lay it out, and then I want to. Then I want to talk about its implications as it. As it relates to many of the difficult questions we're facing.

Ralph Hancock [00:30:23] No need to apologize. Just press on.

The Role of Religion and the Church in Modern Life

John Dehlin [00:30:25] Okay, so here's. You know, I've been having my own evolution about the role of religion and the role of the church. And so this is going to reflect a great deal my own personal experiences. But, you know, I've been in touch with the several thousand people over the past eight or nine years where I don't think that. That the experience that informs this view is purely singular. I think there are many people who share, you know, the perspective of what I'm about to say. So here's how I'm starting to view religion. And it's in the following way that, you know, starting with the spiritual, there's some sense of knowing or transcendence or otherness or some metaphysical thing that clearly for many is at play, that they're called to something higher. I remember you used to play Stevie Winwood's Bring Me a Higher Love. And I remember you trying to articulate that to a group of 900 students in the Joseph Smith Building that there's something that you just can't describe, but there's something higher. There's something calling us, there's something spiritual that we feel that is not perfectly capturable by the intellect, but it is something as real and maybe even as more important than whatever we can arrive at intellectually. And I'm going to just sort of say that religion maybe starts there. And so we're all trying to plug into that sense of goodness or of virtue or of enlightenment or of goodness. And that becomes the pillar for much of what religion does. And various prophets, I would say, have attempted to explore that and tap into the divine and write about how they experience God, how they experience the divine, and encourage others to value that sense of spirituality as well. And. And that becomes sort of a backbone for religion. But then we have the difficult work of setting of the commandments, of having men who lift themselves up as prophets, who say, my particular brand of spirituality or my experience with the divine is privileged, is extra special. And that's where you have Moses or Joseph Smith or others who value the divine and spirituality. And then they say, hey, I've been able to have special access. And I want you to consider that the relationship that I've had with God is actually something privileged or unique and special. And I want to appeal to you to consider the spiritual insights or doctrine or theology or commandments that I've been able to distill from my relationship with God. And this is sort of how religion gets born. And then from that, you know, from these prophets that are raised up, they lay out teachings, doctrine, theology, commandments. And then an institution sort of wraps itself around that, that tries to organize units and groups of people into congreg. And, you know, and that's kind of how religion is born and grows. And when an individual experiences religion, they usually experience it as a young child. And the way that religion, you know, teaches and instructs a young child. A young child isn't capable of advanced thought, and a young child isn't capable of even. Even living in a world of gray. Things are going to be black and white for an individual well into their teen years. And I think we learn in psychology that an individual doesn't develop the ability for advanced, nuanced thinking until early twenties in many cases. So we have these myths in these stories, kind of this simplified version of religion that gets put forth that the world is created. I'll just use what I experienced as an example that the world was created in six days and that the Earth's been around for 6,000 years. And there was a global flood and there was no death before the fall. And there's the one true church and one exclusive brand of truth that comes through priesthood that, you know, started with the Jews and went through Christ was advanced, but then there was an apostasy and then there was Mormonism and there's the scripture that, you know, and these stories that are literally true. Adam and Eve onward, and these people really lived, and it's historical and it's. And they tell these stories about good and evil and God speaking to man. And you build up this sense of a very simplified. I would say. I don't want to say whitewashed to make it. To characterize it in pejorative terms, but as a child and as a young adolescent, you learn these stories, you know, be it Joseph Smith eschewing alcohol for his. The surgery on his leg or, you know, whatever the story may be, you get these simplified versions of doctrinal and theological and historical teachings that, you know, anything more advanced a child or an adolescent mind wouldn't even be able to comprehend. And you learn these things and they work for you because most importantly, they provide the moral and the societal framework for a healthy upbringing. You're taught morals, you're taught right and wrong. You're taught sexual values, you're taught gender roles, you're taught, you know, obedience to authority. And all this stuff is good because it provides a framework that a young child can grow up in a community, culture, values that lead to someone being able to appreciate advanced thought and appreciate a higher way of living, and appreciate spiritual things and live a healthy, clean, moral life. And I see religion as playing a crucial role in the advancement of society over the past six or ten millennia, as being what's taken us out of the caves and into the, the academy and into advanced civilization. And I think anybody who, who, who is unable to credit religion as being a crucial part or component of what I believe we've arrived at, which is an advanced, hopefully semi enlightened civilization, especially as compared with the past, anyone who's unwilling to acknowledge religion's very important role in helping us stand where we stand today is probably not acting from a very fair, objective place, frankly. And so I'm willing to see all of that as true and very good and important. And is there anything that you would amend or change or criticize about kind of the way that I framed it up until now? Because there's a second part that I want to talk about which becomes, which becomes the place where I think you and many others and Daniel Peterson have had a lot of tension. But how do you feel about what I've characterized so far?

Ralph Hancock [00:38:24] So that's all. Oh, there's still a second part.

John Dehlin [00:38:27] No, I'm sorry, I know it's long. I tried to warn you.

Ralph Hancock [00:38:30] No, it's not the length. It's just the. There's a lot going on there and it's not easy to identify the point at which our paths might diverge. In all that, let me just say a couple of things. First of all, sure, this, I think there's an anthropological account of the seeds of religion, this otherness, this higher good, various ways of naming it that I think you have to be willfully blind to ignore, or if not willfully blind, to have a kind of constricted soul or constricted spiritual experience. So that anthropological point is well taken. But then it wasn't clear to me if you were explaining the rest anthropologically, because basically either there are prophets or there aren't either God has a hand in developing, in giving commandments and developing institutional religion. And I'm not saying I would, you know, have to exclude all, certainly I wouldn't exclude all anthropological sociological explanations, but really, at bottom, it's a question of whether the commandments and institutions and practices in some sense come from God or not. And so let me say, just so your listeners will understand where I'm coming from. There's no way that I would think that a Latter Day Saint, some Latter Day Saint view of the world could be constructed from pure rational reflection upon the human condition or upon some philosophical deduction or something like that. No, I'm kind of a simple person in this way. I mean, I think either God has intervened in human affairs or he's not. And I'm convinced that he has. And the Book of Mormon is a huge part of that conviction. So maybe you would find me a naive historical literalist. I don't know. I can. I'm perfectly willing to confess that I don't know just where to. The line gets fuzzy between what's literally true and what can be considered purely figurative and so forth. I don't know where to draw that line. I certainly have no stake in a six day or a 6,000 year creation. But I do believe that a personal God gave Joseph Smith the capacity to translate an ancient record that is the Book of Mormon. And let me say that I don't. When I think about my own testimony, my own convictions, I really, and this is. No, I'm not trying to set the standard for others or to criticize anyone, but I've never been able to make a clear separation between spiritual prompting and spiritual testimony and a kind of intellectual conviction. For me, they're two parts of the same ongoing process. The intellectual and spiritual parts are not separate, they're just two aspects of the same process. And I guess the strongest intellectual part of that is just the sheer existence of the Book of Mormon. I don't think any explanations of it in purely secular terms are at all plausible. I think the more we learn about it, and let me mention a book of which I'm a recent book of which I'm a huge fan, Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon. I think, I know Grant takes rhetorically very cautious posture there, saying you can read this and believe in the ancient record or not and so forth, but to me you can't. I mean, especially not only reading the Book of Mormon, but reading Grant Hardy on the Book of Mormon. You cannot recognize the miraculous quality of this book, just the sheer internal complexity and consistency. Now, I know there's some bugs. I don't complain, I don't, excuse me, I don't claim to have to be able to answer every question, but just the mass of evidence that just hits you right in the face is that this is a remarkable document that there's no better explanation for than the one that's given in the Introduction to the book itself. So, yes, there's a spiritual calling, but that won't bring us to accept Mormon teachings or especially Mormon commandments. You have to believe in the prophetic, the activity of God through prophets and through. As confirmable by personal testimony. And then let me just add that I'm glad you talked about commandments, because that's really where the rubber hits the road. And that's really when people talk about being spiritual but not religious. It has to do with this. You could explain the difference in terms of institutional religion, which may or may not be accepted, but at the heart of it is really the question of commandments. Do you recognize the commandments of a church or authoritative body as binding, as authoritative? That's the mark of a serious religion. So you can always. All kinds of questioning is legitimate, even, how shall I say, even upbuilding fulfilling, but obey first go forth in question. Right? That's the bottom line for me. And that's where I think we're most liable to go wrong. I mean, I haven't lived a perfect life, so I'm speaking from experience. I think if we're really seekers of the truth, prove it by being willing to accept the authority of the commandments and work within that framework there. I think I made a bit of a speech, but how does that intersect with the interest you're trying to bring out?

John Dehlin [00:45:38] No, that's great. And talking about the particularities of Mormonism fits perfectly with the second. Just the final segment that I wanted to go to.

Ralph Hancock [00:45:47] But.

John Dehlin [00:45:48] But what I was only asking you to, you know, sort of express your support for is sort of whether you see in religion as its core value, the fact that it supports spirituality. It supports a sense of connection with the transcendent, whether as a societal role. It supports a sense of structure and morality for. For society, for people through the commandments. It gives people a sense of identity and purpose. And that at least when it comes to a child or an adolescent experience with religion, it often relies on a simplification of history or of story or of myth or of even doctrine or teachings. It keeps things really simple because that's all that a child or an adolescent sometimes, you know, can really appreciate and value. And so necessarily there has to be a. A dimension of interacting religion which is highly oversimplified, you, some would say whitewashed. But. But that, but that in its myth or in its oversimplification provides a very important purpose of being accessible to children and adolescents.

Ralph Hancock [00:47:08] Sure, John, but I would go further. It's not only children. It's human existence in general that requires a certain simplification that we're always bouncing up against the limits of it, even those of us who are practically full time explorers or questioners. So it reminds me, let me bring in Tocqueville again here where he says, it's not only religion, John, it's human existence which is communal and political of necessity and which requires a kind of authoritative frameworks that are inherited, reinforced, passed on. There's no society without. Tocqueville's language is fairly harsh. There's actually no human existence without dogmatic beliefs. We all, each of us gets up every morning assuming a thousand things that we can't prove. That's not religion. That's called human life.

John Dehlin [00:48:03] Yeah.

Ralph Hancock [00:48:05] So religion is just one notable aspect of this broader feature of the human condition. So on the one hand, I would say, yeah, that argues for certain patients with simplifications. I liked it when you mentioned that story of Joseph Smith refusing the alcohol. Are there questions about whether that's true, by the way? I haven't looked into that or I don't remember. But it doesn't really matter, does it? I think when I heard that story, even when I was an adolescent, I didn't really care very much. It seemed maybe a bit of a stretch and. No, even if it's true, I mean, it's admirable, but it's not a pillar of my faith and it seems like a bit of a forced hook to hang the prohibition of alcohol on.

John Dehlin [00:48:51] Exactly, exactly, exactly. Okay, so good. And I think I'm with you in every aspect and I really love how you're putting flesh on, on the bones of what we're trying to talk about. And I appreciate your insight. Here's, here's what I'm trying to do now with the second part because, you know, I, you know, I, and others, let's just say, Joanna Brooks, I remember Matthew Stannard, you know, being, you know, you know, some pretty heated discussions with him just back in our BYU days and, and others, you know, let's just say dialogue and sunstone and progressives within Mormonism. Right. Here's, here's just like I talked, tried to talk to you about race and women's issues early on. I'm going to now frame for you what for me has been and for many others has probably been our experience. That informs a desire or a move towards progressivism. And that can become, I just want to get a sense for your empathy or understanding for that. And then that can become the jumping off point for where you talk about the particularities, if that makes sense.

Ralph Hancock [00:50:06] So, so why you're, you know, you want to. So why one might want to be progressive. And what do I think of that? Is that where we're going?

John Dehlin [00:50:12] Not quite. It's. What, what, what are the life experiences that leads one to feel the desire, the conviction? Yeah. So not, not why I'm making a case for why people should do it. It's more what are the experiences that often lead to that? Does that make sense?

Ralph Hancock [00:50:28] That's a fair question.

Simplistic Mormon Belief and Intellectual Development

John Dehlin [00:50:29] So what happens for so many of us, or what happened for so many of us, is that, you know, we had this sort of simplified version of Mormon doctrine, of Mormon theology and Mormon history that we, that we grew up with, and it served many of us very well. Some of us, you know, if there were some abuse that happened, if there were some other things that might have happened, some might say it didn't serve us very well. But, you know, if you ask me, John Dehlin, you know how grateful I am for my traditional conservative, Bruce R. McConkie, orthodox LDS upbringing, I would say deeply grateful and touched and moved and satisfied with what I got. As imperfect as it might have been. What happened for me, and it happened for me very much beginning at byu, but I've been trying to deal with it ever since, is the notion that at some point you discover some things about your understanding and about your faith. You discover that not only were blacks denied the priesthood for so long, but that many of our early leaders were obviously products of their time, but they weren't as enlightened about matters of race as you would expect. Someone who you understood to have such a direct and intimate relationship with God that you assumed was way more special than your own, you say, wow, how could Brigham Young or Ezra Taft Benson or whoever, or Markey Peterson, how could these men who were apostles who were closer to God, you assume, than anyone else you knew, how could they have been, at the same time, so simultaneously racist? And that's just one example. Or you could find out that our church leaders actually opposed Martin Luther King or the civil rights movement and those who were attempting to allow blacks to overcome the Jim Crow laws in the south and actually have a political voice in a truly democratic sense. You find out that. You find out that science has a whole lot to say about genetics and anthropology as it relates to the Book of Mormon and a lot of these simplistic views that you might have had about who was in America at what time, and you start calculating the probabilities of The Book of Mormon narrative being historical, once you take into consideration for some, the lack of historical or anthropological evidences or whatever, you know, people who start to question the historical underpinnings of the Book of Mormon, they don't do so because they want to tear something down or because they have no regard for the beauty of what brought them to that point that was in so many ways religious. It's sincere questions that they're grappling with. That in many ways, reasonable people would say that there are deep concerns about the historicity of the Book of Mormon or deep moral or ethical concerns about the Church's past positions on race or its utterances about, you know, you know, interracial marriage or its position on women, or, you know, that there are good reasons to question some of the moral pronouncements of church leaders, some of the past positions of church leaders as it relates to race or sex or gender. And especially when you look at the historical claims and when you learn about Joseph's wives and you learn about many of the, what I would say beautiful, but are also complex and in some ways problematic elements of our church history, you know, this sort of, I don't want to say advanced, but sort of a level 2, more complex understanding of history and culture and doctrine as it relates to religion. It doesn't necessarily point one to become secular, but it certainly dashes to pieces that originally oversimplified view of religion. And it causes one to have to do some really deep searching and thinking, thinking as it relates to how one is going to now look at the Church's position on homosexuals, for example, or the Church's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. When you bump up against the complexities of the Church's past as it relates to moral and social issues and its positions on doctrine or theology that seem to in many ways contradict science, it seems to me very reasonable that what we have in terms of scholarship and intellectuals and liberals and progressives, those are all very natural outgrowths of very real moral and scientific dilemmas that people face. And so where it becomes very difficult is I think that these are sincere, incredible struggles that, let's say 21st century Mormon intellectuals will grapple with. And so when a. Boyd K. Packer denounces as three great threats to the church, you know, intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals, or when apologists may attack, you know, me or Joyner Brooks or whoever, pick your person as, as being bad or evil or corrupt or dangerous, what I want to get a sense for is your sympathies for these struggles and that they're not just sort of casual, careless discarding of precious moral, spiritual, religious truths, but instead it's sincere, thoughtful people, for the most part, myself excluded, who are attempting to grapple with very real and significant and meaningful intellectual, moral and scientific questions that deserves respect instead of derision or ridicule. So that's a huge second piece. But now I swear, for the rest of the discussion, I'm going to let you talk most so.

Ralph Hancock [00:57:25] Oh, well, you don't have to. There's a lot there. But I'll still need your help sorting all this out. And you, yeah, you've done an excellent job of depicting the problem from your point of view. And I'm not sure you rightly threw everything in there just to kind of paint the broad canvas that we need to talk about. But obviously we can't talk about all of it. But let me just note this. I mean, there's really. I would want to keep some things separate that you lump together or that I think, that fall naturally together for you. There's all kinds of elements of church doctrine or church history one can have legitimate questions about and wonder about and not be satisfied with and want to explore further. But that's really a separate thing from accepting a whole liberal, democratic, progressive narrative that you just accepted. And my mission in life, here's another statement of my mission is to keep those things separate. John, for you, it all runs together clearly. Like, so we're troubled about Joseph Smith's polygamous practices and what all that means. Yeah, I don't know how to. I mean, I like the way Richard Bushman treats that. But he doesn't claim to have resolved all concerns, does he? But for you, that is just of a piece with. Therefore, how can we not sympathize with the progressive view of the civil rights movement, the Equal Rights Amendment, and now the sexual liberationist agenda? You won't like that formulation of left progressives. You see, you are really, let's say you're questioning what you regard as a. Well, what can well be a simplistic Mormon narrative. But you're following right into a narrative that I regard very simplistic. And of course, 1978, which I'm inclined to regard as the new meridian of time for progressive Mormons, is a linchpin in this. Look, I was there. I was actually at Harvard. I welcomed, I was tearfully joyous for the revelation that recognized the availability of the priesthood to all worthy males. But I don't. It's not the anchor of A whole narrative of progress in the church for me. And I would say that you ought to be careful because it's easy for us to see the moral foibles of I can't remember those you mentioned, but who were guilty of narrow racist views and so forth. It's easy for us to see and to say that, but it's as if, can we be so confident that we're speaking from a completely morally adequate and enlightened framework where we see the moral truth and we can judge all past prophets and other church members by that? That's a bit of a leap too. So I would just caution against leaping from one simplistic narrative to another to flesh that out. I guess we'd have to talk about other elements. And that's partly my answer to your plea on behalf of sincere struggles. Look, I'm willing to grant sincerity and especially if I'm dealing with human beings one on one. I'm. It's hard to claim anything here without seeming very self serving, but I'm, you know, I'm all openness and compassion and interest in the travails of a particular person. But in talking about the, the arguments at an intellectual level, I think that's mainly my job when I'm, you know, writing stuff for a large audience. It's a different job than meeting somebody in church or being somebody's bishop or home teacher or friend. It's a job of scrutinizing the arguments. And I'm not going to be, I'm not going to be intimidated by the argument from sincerity. I mean I'm just. If sure you're sincere but as we used to say that in four bits. We'll get you a cup of coffee. You know, we're not talking. I'm sincere too. Let's talk about the argument. And I think there is sometime this too great facility in swinging from a simplistic view and sort of making that a foil and then embracing some supposedly more sophisticated open minded narrative which is just another form of closure. And it's not critical thinking, it's not neutral, it's another storyline. It's the liberal progressive agenda. But that becomes the counter narrative that I regard as quite simplistic. So let me. You've mentioned Joanna Brooks once or twice. I'm already famous or notorious for criticizing recognizing her. I've also praised her and I've recognized her charm and great ability to do good work for the church in certain public relations aspects. But yes, this is a very prominent feature of her book. She tells you the story of her simplistic Mormon upbringing in which, let's say Cleon Skousen and Marie Osmond are two, two pillars and then she comes to BYU and she's in the basement of which building was it? It doesn't matter. With Jean England, whom I'm not sure would, if he were here would totally approve of this usage. But all the same. And then it's all from. It's all enlightenment Mormonism is actually very open to equality and progress and feminism and it's not that simplistic thing, but it's this other thing. And if you don't agree with my progressive feminist Mormonism, you must be part of those conservative simplistic Mormons who believe in Cleon Skousen and Marie Osmond. Well, that's a little rough and ready, but I just don't buy that. I just don't buy that narrative at all. And sure there's always plenty of sincerity or almost always, but look, the picture of the normal ordinary teachings of the church as simplistic can be very self serving. I mean, I know nothing. I have no independent evidence of Joanna's upbringing or of yours. And if you had a. If you were exposed to a too simplistic teaching, well that's a pity. I hope you can get over it. I counsel you to get over it. I don't know, it's somewhat a mystery to me why I didn't feel that way. I wasn't raised in an intellectual family. I just went to ordinary Sunday school and seminary classes. But I suppose I was a bit of a critical realist from the outset. I mean always sort of brackening a story like that of Joseph Smith refusing the alcohol and saying could be nice story, I don't care. Basically it's not part of my theological worldview or Bruce R. McConkie who was a great man with a great testimony of Christ but probably a little overly ambitious in reducing Mormon teaching to an alphabetical form. But it never would have occurred to me to imagine that was finally authoritative and that there wasn't more to think. Or I guess here again the early exposure, fairly early exposure even in relatively small doses to Truman Manson and Hugh Nibley was maybe very salvific in my case. Well, I'm wondering a bit, but an underlying question is a really good one and I by no means claim to have an answer for it. How do you. We need simplicity and we're not going to teach children in primary or in deacons quorum about problems surrounding polygamy or different questions about the peopling of North America or so forth. That's not what we do there. But it's a very legitimate question how we open up doors or windows to the more able and questioning minds so that they don't meet a rupture at some point. What I'm saying is I never felt a rupture and I don't think that

John Dehlin [01:06:56] one needs to, but I think that that might inform, you know, just like, and again, I don't want to speak for you, and I, I have respect for you, which is the only reason I'd have you come on the program, really. And I actually respect your position and I respect the position of defending religion and the faith because I'm active in the church right now. I consider myself a believer in a different way than before, but I'm actually consider myself committed to the church in many ways now. And, and so I want you to know I respect.

Ralph Hancock [01:07:34] Praise God, I have to say, as we.

John Dehlin [01:07:36] Oh, well, thanks. But, you know, part of that has to do with the painstaking work of my stake president, who's been meeting with me weekly in private council for almost a year. And we've had some marvelous discussions, but

Ralph Hancock [01:07:49] bless his soul, make him a candidate for canonical sainthood.

John Dehlin [01:07:53] He's a good man. But, you know, just like we started by me asking you a little bit about your experience, experiences with other races or with women, you know, growing up, I guess I, you know, sincerity is only one part of the broader, you know, discussion I wanted to have because I, I'm, you know, you say you didn't have this experience of, you seem to be more of an advanced kind of sophisticated thinker, ability to not take things too seriously kind of, you know, early on. And I know that you know enough about the church educational system and the seminary and institute curriculum to know that if someone weren't blessed with your gifts of sophistication at an early age, and instead they were blessed within with other gifts but not a deeper intellectual sophistication. And they were raised by traditional Mormon people and what they had for their religious understanding was just their seminary and institute teachers and their religion teachers at byu. And if you compound that by the fact that the church, obviously, when people have emerged to, you know, when Mormons, Mormon intellectuals have emerged to begin discussing some of these things and treating them and writing about them in public ways, you know, you know as well as I do about what happened in 1993 and September 6th and the church's statements and warnings about symposia and, and sort of the the, you know, the anti intellectualism that went on where intellectuals were actually named as enemies to the church. People are gonna.

Ralph Hancock [01:09:52] Didn't they. They never deserved it. Is that impossible to.

John Dehlin [01:09:54] No, no, no, no, no.

Ralph Hancock [01:09:56] John, let me just mention that I recently had a conversation with a. A graduate student in a highly philosophical field elsewhere who's you? Not an old fogey like me who happened to satisfy his curiosity by going back and reading Elder Packer's talk against the three evils. When was it, was that in the 90s?

John Dehlin [01:10:22] It would have been. I think it would have been 80s, actually.

Ralph Hancock [01:10:25] Oh, okay. But anyway, his reaction to it was. Well, was that prophetic or what? He's right on there.

John Dehlin [01:10:32] Okay, okay, let me, Let me just. Let me just make sure that my point isn't missed. It's. It's not that Mormon intellectuals or the Dialogue crowd or the Sunstone crowd or the Mormon stories. We've all been guilty of sometimes gross oversimplifications or misrepresentations. We've allowed anger and frustration to get the better of us. I know that I have. I would characterize some of my past behaviors as frankly irresponsible. And so I'm willing to own that. And I've listened to Paul Toscano and others and how they were talking in the 80s and 90s. And I don't mean to just single out Paul, but yes, absolutely. Just like Mark E. Peterson or Bruce Armaconki or Brigham Young probably spoke beyond, beyond wisdom in many of their utterances, I, and other intellectuals. I don't want to say I'm an intellectual, but I. And then many of the intellectuals that are out there absolutely, have been guilty of sometimes grave misstatements and hyperbole and all sorts of nastiness. So I grant that. But what I'm trying to get, what I was trying to ask you is, is there any place in you which has empathy or sympathy for what people were thinking and feeling, which is. I'm 30 years old and I was never talked to about polyandry and the fact that Joseph married women who were married to other men. No one ever told me that. And this business about these temple ceremonies that I've been investing in, no one ever helped me understand. It never came up in seminary or institute or Sunday school or anywhere that there was a Masonic origin to many of these rituals that I devoted my life to. And why wasn't that ever part of the discussion? Why weren't they, these things discussed? And then when they were discussed publicly by Sunstone or dialogue or Others, many of these people were punished for it. And even some of the more responsible ones, like Leonard Arrington or Lowell Bennion or Eugene England, feel like they were punished pretty severely for what I would say was a pretty respectful tone and at a pretty deferential approach to many of the truth claims and the authority of the church. Can't you see how many people would come by this sense of frustration or sadness or outrage honestly? And I'm not just talking about sincerity. I mean, there were credible. There's a sense of a credible issue, legitimate issue, with the fact that these issues have not been discussed in any common way. They have not been responded to or answered in any responsible way, and that in many cases, the church leaders in the past have made offensive or damaging statements about various things that deserve to be publicly discussed and criticized. Yet up until, let's say, just say the 2000s, many people have been punished for even trying to have that discussion. And so is there any part of you that can see, not that intellectual Mormon intellectuals have been perfect? We always go to. We always tend to go to polls or extremes. But is there any part of you that can see why people can feel frustrated or sad that these issues haven't been. No. Public discussed and that when they have, those who have been willing to really discuss them openly and honestly have often been punished? Do you have any sense of sympathy for that?

Ralph Hancock [01:14:45] Well, John, yes, I. I do. The range of my soul is not as narrow as you might think.

John Dehlin [01:14:51] No, I don't think it's narrow. That's. Again, that's why I brought you on. I want you to talk about that because it doesn't come across. It doesn't come across.

Ralph Hancock [01:14:58] We have to talk about individual characters. And I don't. I'm not a church historian. I have personal awareness. I've lived through some of these things. I knew Eugene England well. I was very fond of him. Was he punished? He might have been constrained a bit. But look, I don't. There's no reason to say that the church or its authorities have always been blameless in every way that they treated intellectuals. But I'll say at the outset, I don't think Boyd K. Packers was wrong about the three dangers. I think he's being proved more right all the time.

John Dehlin [01:15:33] But enemies. Enemies to the church.

Ralph Hancock [01:15:36] Pardon me.

John Dehlin [01:15:36] I mean, so intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals are dangerous and enemies.

Ralph Hancock [01:15:43] Does he say homosexuals or homosexual activists or. I don't recall what he says exactly. But gay rights, liberationists, feminists, that's more controversial. We'd have to talk about that intellectuals defined as asserting their authority against church authority. Yeah, those are not a bad typology of the dangers. But that brings me to me. What is critical is this having questions, raising questions. Respectfully, a lot would depend upon context and form. But what is your purpose for doing this? I mean, either you are trying, either basically you are trying to contribute to the building of the kingdom, or you're not. And there's always a great risk, however sincere one may be. There's the great risk of being motivated by a desire to set oneself up or one's milieu, one's clique, one's fellow intellectuals, up as the, as the standard, as the guiding light. And that's a motive that is as thick as a brick in lots of Mormon intellectualism. It's not very hard to discern people saying, we're the progressive, enlightened ones, follow us, don't follow the simplistic prophets and authorities, follow us. We can tell you when they're right or wrong. That's where I know I have no sympathy when it goes there now. But I grant you the problem of how to smooth the process for those people who, and it's an admirable quality to have to pursue questions, want to know more, more clearly to exercise their critical reason, how to facilitate opening doors and windows to them in ways that do not set up a counter authority, a counter narrative, a counter intellectual elite. That's an excellent question, and I don't know the answer. I think I'd point out that it's an inherently. It's a tension that exists inherently and that is exacerbated by our media technology age. Exacerbated, if not made practically impossible to solve. But I think I see the institutional church doing more and opening up. Just a couple of things come to mind. The fact that Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling would not only be sold at the BYU bookstore, but, like, featured, like in a massive display that takes a few minutes to walk around in the BYU bookstore, for example. And Richard Busham is very faithful, but there's lots of hard questions and things not taught in Sunday school. So that's significant, it seems to me. I'm not sure that would have been the case 20 years earlier, but I think even, even articles in the Ensign, you know, I was looking at young, and I know this admirable young woman, Melissa Inouye, has an article in the January Ensign on faith and intellect, which, sure, it's not boldly controversial in any notable way, but it's acknowledging Some problems a little more candidly than used to be the case, anyway. So I think the Church is facing this challenge a little more than it used to. But I would just underline that it's inherently a problem that won't be solved and that we'll have to deal with, because these things are both true, that we need to maximize the opportunities for the strongest, most questioning minds to find satisfaction and comfort within the fold. And that's true. It's also true that we need to define the fold by simple and clear teachings that can never take account of all the complexities and questions. How we hold those two together is an ongoing matter of adjustment, it seems to me. But what do you think? Have I.

Authority, Questioning, and Credibility in Mormonism

John Dehlin [01:20:26] No, that's great. No, that's. That's great. And, and I guess. I guess what I'm. I guess if I. If I had to maybe ask the question in a slightly different way when you, you know, when you just sort of read, you know, what you might write or Daniel Peterson or others of whatever flavor that is. I don't know how you would want to describe that sort of approach to apologetics. There's a bit of a. I don't want to. I don't know if the disdains the word or, or hostility towards, you know, us in the sense that you just get this feeling that there's animosity that, that, that we're dangerous, that we're misguided. And I guess what I'm asking is, you know, you've just acknowledged a bunch of areas where the Church has made progress, and, you know, just the simple fact of acknowledging that the Church has made progress, you're admitting that there were areas where the Church wasn't doing as well as it is today.

Ralph Hancock [01:21:35] That's not a headline. That's not a news flash, by the way. The Church is imperfect.

John Dehlin [01:21:39] Right.

Ralph Hancock [01:21:40] That's not a headline.

John Dehlin [01:21:40] Right, but. But I'm just saying, how could it not be. How could it not be the liberals or the progressives, both in the broader society and within the Mormon context, that become an important component to the progress of the Church? Because they're the ones who first get the discussions going. They're the ones who bring the issues to light, and they're the ones who,

Ralph Hancock [01:22:07] I think they tend to bring them to light in a distorted way? Just to be very simple about it. Why do we have to connect the question of the origins of the Book of Mormon with equal rights for gays? There's just no linkage there in your narrative. There is.

John Dehlin [01:22:26] Do you want to Try. Do you want to try and talk about that? I mean, and again, I. I don't find the issue of a historical Book of Mormon interesting anymore. And I've got no interest in dissuading anyone from questioning the historical origins of the Book of Mormon because I see it as sacred spiritual text that's edifying. And for me, I'm not concerned about where it came from.

Ralph Hancock [01:22:51] Good, I'm glad to hear that. I was picking one example out of a hat. A church historical issue as opposed to a progressive politics.

John Dehlin [01:22:58] Okay, but. I know, but I want to explain it because it's really important because, you know, this whole discussion we had about Strauss and Plato and Rawls, you know, what it talks about is the sense that there has to be a pillar for. There has to be a root or foundation for morality and for religion. And within Mormonism, it's truth claims. It's the Joseph Smith claim to have a certain extent experience and that our leaders claim a certain privileged access to the divine and a certain privileged authority. And the only way that we come to understand all that is through the stories that were told. And so the church's credibility, the church's authority is rooted both in that claims of authority and the historicity of the experiences that it claims. And so all of our testimonies, there's a spiritual. There's a spiritual component to it. But that spiritual experience happens after we've been. After a narrative has been communicated to us. We're told the story of Joseph Smith going to the grove and praying, and then we have the spiritual experience. We read the Book of Mormon and we read about Alma, and we read about Helaman, and then we have the spiritual experience. We normally don't have a confirmation about Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon before we've ever heard the name Joseph Smith or heard that the Book of Mormon existed. And so the stories, the history and the historical narratives that are in those things are part and parcel with our testimonies. And so if we come to understand the narrative that Joseph was this shining, squeaky clean, you know, courageous boy who didn't drink alcohol. And then in our 40s or 30s, we learn that he drank alcohol the night before he was martyred, and no one had ever bothered to tell us that before, that isn't just a historical tidbit or something that can be dismissed with sort of the simple, oh, you know, the church leaders are imperfect. It more becomes, for many a question about credibility. It's. Well, I've relied on a certain narrative that the church has told me as the foundation for the authority and the devotion and the obedience that I've given to the church. And for many, what happens is the Church's credibility and the Church's leaders credibility comes into question when you learn that they took horribly offensive racist positions in the past or that the Book of Mormon has serious scientific credibility issues for some, or you know, that even. That the Church's moral stance has changed over time. So another example would be how do we connect the Church's position on Proposition 8 and homosexuality with history? It's when you find out that Spencer W. Kimball wrote a memo forbidding oral sex, but then it was rescinded, or that the Church used to prohibit interracial marriage, but now it allows it and has no problem with it, and even is willing to promote interracial marriages as part of a PR campaign. You see that the Church has. You know, the Church used to be adamantly opposed to birth control and now there's no real opposition to it. And you realize that the Church has changed over time. And so it begs the question, if the Church can get it wrong in the past, and if church leaders can get it wrong in the past, how do we know whether on Proposition 8 they're getting it wrong now and in 50 years they will have changed their view like they did on blacks, like they did on women, like they did on birth control.

Ralph Hancock [01:27:02] First of all, John, I mean, it really comes down to a question of whether, look, the Church is not perfect. It has a certain authority. Do you support that authority? On balance, are we better off with that authority?

John Dehlin [01:27:18] I say yes. I say yes.

Ralph Hancock [01:27:19] It would be that it comes down to that. And you can see where I stand on that.

John Dehlin [01:27:24] Well, no, I think we are. That's my view. That's why I'm in it.

Ralph Hancock [01:27:30] Yeah. And I. Yeah, let me see. I guess, I mean, part of. I am. I am confronting some obstacles in my imaginative powers here because it's. It's almost beyond my imaginative power to be troubled by something. You just told me about that I didn't know that Joseph Smith is supposed to have drunk some alcohol the night before his martyrdom. Is that what you said?

John Dehlin [01:28:02] Yeah. And I'm not saying that's some horrible thing.

Ralph Hancock [01:28:04] It's almost beyond my powers of imagination to take seriously being troubled by something like that. I just. It's just not how I see things. And so I guess I've always had this kind of realistic view of. It's hard to know if I'm just reading my learned self back into my adolescence here. But it seems like I always had like a realistic distance from any claims of absolutism. And it was never about. The details. I mean, at bottom there are. You have confidence in. You're able to reach a point by study and by faith and prayer and confirmation that on the whole and firmly the Lord is in charge of this church or not. And, but see, but the, the part I continue to object to in your narrative is that, and this comes up all the time on the blogs, it's the most predictable thing in the world. So the church was mistaken about X, Y and Z, especially about race. That's the, that's the most familiar one. But therefore, basically, shouldn't we assume that it's mistaken about the great social moral issues today? Well, but that assumes that we actually know the truth of social moral issues ourselves. I mean, that assumes a counter narrative that is very tenuous. And this is the, the frustrating position I've been in as a Mormon counter intellectual, you might say. And I would refer listeners to my little piece in Square two on when following the prophet is too easy. I mean, it's not because I'm a Mormon. I think it's not mainly because I'm a Mormon that I am suspicious of, broadly critical of a certain, what I would call progressive liberationist agenda. But I arrived at that on philosophical grounds. If I weren't a Mormon, I believe just given my political philosophical background, I would have been in favor of our churches and the Catholic Churches and other people's backing of Proposition 8. So I just. To me, the church was wrong about X, therefore trust the progressives and not the church leaders. It just is a non sequitur for me. Am I getting anywhere there and clarifying what's at stake?

John Dehlin [01:31:13] Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think I'm arguing that you should not trust church leaders and you should trust progressives at all. I think what I'm. Well, I think what I'm trying to tease out is I'm trying to tease out some common ground. You know, there was a. There, there have been many changes in the church. And I would, you know, I think we could go back to something that preceded the church in many ways. You know, I think you would agree that slavery was bad.

Ralph Hancock [01:31:50] Right.

John Dehlin [01:31:50] That it's good that we got rid of slavery.

Ralph Hancock [01:31:52] Right? Okay. Yeah, we can agree.

John Dehlin [01:31:54] And it's good that we, it's good that women were eventually allowed to vote. Do you, do you agree with that?

Ralph Hancock [01:32:01] It's more complicated, but sure. I have no objection to women voting.

John Dehlin [01:32:06] Do you Vehemently support it, like. Or you have reservations? Do you have reservations?

Ralph Hancock [01:32:12] It's never been an issue for me.

John Dehlin [01:32:15] Okay. And. And I assume that you think it was. Is it true to say, you would say it was positive that the Jim Crow laws and the other elements of the south that were preventing voting for blacks and equal treatment for blacks, the basic outcome of the civil rights movement in terms of helping to encourage democratic equality and opportunity, that. That's all a good thing.

Ralph Hancock [01:32:43] But the growth. I would only qualify that. But the growth of federal power that was necessary to bring that about has its own. Definitely has its own costs, of course.

John Dehlin [01:32:53] But it's good that blacks can vote in the south now.

Ralph Hancock [01:32:55] Right, of course.

John Dehlin [01:32:57] Okay. So. And. And you're. And I would. I would assume that now you don't believe that birth control is a bad thing. Is that true? I mean. I mean, there should be limits, but you wouldn't be. You wouldn't. You wouldn't take the position that I

Ralph Hancock [01:33:12] don't have a position on that. But actually, that's. That's an interesting area to raise the question of. You know, we assume that the direction of change is always in one direction. We assume we know what the direction is.

John Dehlin [01:33:24] Right.

Ralph Hancock [01:33:25] So why wouldn't. If we really want to be philosophically imaginative and fully open to critical thinking, why shouldn't we think about whether the church, whether an earlier, more, let's say, conservative position wasn't truer and better in some respects?

John Dehlin [01:33:46] Yeah.

Guest 1 [01:33:47] Why?

Ralph Hancock [01:33:49] We think about. We think that. We know that development and doctrine will always go in a certain progressive direction. But what if we needed to become more distinctive as a people and to separate ourselves further? You know, there are many things that are imaginable that I have no reason or inclination to promote, but there's just no reason to assume that there's a directionality to change. Things have changed. I just don't accept a narrative by which. According to which they change all constitutes a direction in which things must keep going. So, yeah, I mean, it's a. I risk alienating 98.7% of your listeners by this, but I have never had any interest in a specific teaching about birth control. I haven't conveyed any such teaching to my children. But I'm familiar with Catholic political thought and arguments about the social consequences of a birth control regime. And these people aren't stupid. You know, we ought to be open to the argument that our society was better before. Birth, before procreation entered definitively into the realm of technological control.

John Dehlin [01:35:23] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out at saber-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories logo was generously donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest 1 [01:35:38] Come come ye saints no toil nor labor fear but with joy when you. Though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to the the San Jo your hearts will swell oh, all is well all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our lot is high Tis not so all is right why should we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fight Gird up your lo fresh courage take Our God will never us forsake soon we'll have let's tell it tale oh, all is well all is well oh, all is well all is well Sa. Sam. And should we die before our journey's through happy day all is well we then are free from toil and sorrow to with the just we shall dwell but if our lives are spared again to see the saints the rest obtain Or I will make this car is swell oh, all is well all is well all is well all is well all is well oh, all is well.

Conservatism, Progressivism, and Mormon Identity

Part 3 of 4 · Ep. 394

Ralph Hancock [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org I guess if I had to summarize what I'm trying to ask, it's the following. I want to say to you, Dr. Hancock, that I have deep respect for somebody who says I want to be a defender of religion, I want to be a defender of faith, I want to be a defender of spirituality. I also have deep respect for someone who says I want to be a defender of conservatism, of not changing too quickly, of respecting the past. I respect the fact that you want to say that not all change is positive progress, that sometimes we can change in a way that harms us. Like I want to say to you that I respect all that and I see a value in it, and I think we need that. And I think you're playing a very important role in discourse. Okay. And what I'm trying to get a sense from you is can you concede and even have respect for the opposition, which is the group of people that say things are. There's things that are wrong, there are things that are need changing, there are things that are problematic, and even though we stand up for those things at risk, sometimes it's difficult. But these are the agents of positive change as well as potentially negative change.

Ralph Hancock [00:01:52] And.

John Dehlin [00:01:53] And is there. To what extent do you see an also important and a valuable role for people like Joanna Brooks and Eugene England and whoever else who's tried to be John?

Ralph Hancock [00:02:07] It would all come down to particulars. And I wouldn't foist Joanna Brooks upon Jean England, for example.

John Dehlin [00:02:14] Okay, but name your own. Like, do you have.

Ralph Hancock [00:02:17] So it all come down to individuals. But I'm not going to. I respect people by taking their arguments on their face and engaging them. That's the way I think I respected Joanna Brooks. I mean, I actually, unlike many of her, well, let's just say many who criticized me, I actually read her book a number of times very carefully and performed exegesis upon it, developed an argument based upon a close reading. I took her book seriously and took it as exemplary of a certain sensibility that I think is that I think ought to be criticized. Does that count as respect or not? Where I come from, that's respect.

John Dehlin [00:03:01] Yes, that is respect.

Ralph Hancock [00:03:03] Yeah. So. But lots of People in the left blogosphere feel disrespected by anyone who raises fundamental questions about their world. They're very surprised by it because there's a lot of homogeneity in the intellectual Mormon blogosphere, so that when somebody comes on with highfalutin intellectual pretensions like me, there's a little bit of self mockery there and actually says no, I think on intellectual grounds, you're actually off base or missing something important or really not alert to your own assumptions. Well, is that disrespectful? I mean, define it for me. But that. That's often what I think my job is. I try to give credit where credit is due. I try to acknowledge lessons learned in conversations. I've had some, I think, sweet. Not meetings of mind, but reconciliations and acknowledgements of what we've learned from each other, with people that I've locked horns with a bit. But I'm a little leery of the argument for respect devolving into a kind of relativistic, you know, don't touch other people's views because they feel disrespected. If you do, people argue in public and I argue back. That's my way of respecting.

John Dehlin [00:04:26] Yeah, yeah, no, that makes sense. And so, and so do you feel like positive progress is in part a result of progressives and activists who either politically or religiously raise important issues in public discourse, get leaders thinking, and prompt them to potentially ask for the revelation to make the change?

Ralph Hancock [00:04:54] You see, John, I think your question's too broad because it really, I mean, it really is still based upon this narrative where progressivism is all one thing. And let's say the liberals of the 50s and 60s who certainly helped raise questions about race in the church, are fundamentally continuous with the, with the liberal progressive activists today.

John Dehlin [00:05:21] So for me, that's not what I mean to ask. In other words, feel free to bifurcate and dissect and disassemble this sort of uniform view of liberalism and just pick pieces of it. But I'm just asking you, is there a liberal you like? Is there a progressive in Mormonism that you value? Is there a dissenter or a questioner in Mormonism that you think really made a positive contribution? Or are there many and it doesn't have to be one uniform block?

Ralph Hancock [00:05:56] Nibley was a great dissenter in many respects. But yeah, on the issues of race,

John Dehlin [00:06:05] let's say on the issues of race, on the issues of race, women or sexuality, are there any that you would respect or hold out as someone who you Admire or think made a positive difference.

Ralph Hancock [00:06:19] Well, give me some, give me some possibilities. But going back to the, to the, the background of the 1978. I mean, is there somebody you would credit particularly with helping to urge the question upon church leaders, or was it not so obvious and unavoidable a question that non Mormons pressed upon us, for example, or help me, historically, what would be your. What progressive intellectual within the church? Well, I mean, played a decisive role there.

John Dehlin [00:06:58] Well, There was the 1973 article in Dialogue that, that, that meticulously.

Ralph Hancock [00:07:05] All right. Showed the history of how this. The history was not as unilateral by any means and.

John Dehlin [00:07:11] Yeah, right.

Ralph Hancock [00:07:12] Well, that's good. I like that article. Sure. Yeah. Let me try to think of a for instance that would be helpful to. You see, I think part of the equivocation that enters in here is that there is in my mind a really a disruption in liberalism between the civil rights movement and the contemporary movement. And that disruption is the 60s counterculture and the radical feminism and gay rights that quite logically followed from it. So that's a rupture that I regard as decisive. So insofar as the progressive left is overwhelmingly characterized, but even defined today by a kind of lifestyle liberationism, then I think, no, that's not going to be helpful. That's not going to be helpful. To, to argue from that position about changes needed in the church is just not going to be helpful. And to try to draw credit from the civil rights movement, this applies to American politics generally and not to the Mormon conversation alone. But to try to sort of to take the moral credit for the civil rights movement and apply it to the gay rights and radical feminist movement, it just, to me, a non sequitur. I just don't buy the narrative that links them together as part of the same story.

John Dehlin [00:09:06] Okay. And by the way, it was Lester Bush who wrote that article on.

Ralph Hancock [00:09:10] Yeah, well, it's good to be reminded of that. That's an excellent example. And what year did you say it was?

John Dehlin [00:09:16] I think it was 73.

Ralph Hancock [00:09:19] So that would be an interesting case study that was in dialogue. Is the tone respectful? Did he receive heat for it? What was that situation like?

John Dehlin [00:09:29] My understanding is he received a lot of heat for it and is no longer active in the church today as a result of the opposition he faced for his. His activities. I know that Eugene England died, as I understand he died a heartbroken man because of his treatment by Bruce R. McConkie and others. I know that Leonard Arrington, going back

Ralph Hancock [00:09:51] to Gene England, what was the Question or the issue or set of issues that divided Elder McConkie and Gene England.

John Dehlin [00:10:01] Oh, there's, you know, if you go to Eugene England.com, there's a whole series of correspondence between them about issues, about a lot of theological issues. And I can't say that I'm informed enough to be able to recite them from memory, but it has a lot to do with how Eugene England was interpreting the gospel versus Bruce McConkie's version.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:22] Yeah, well, it says a lot for Gene that he was heartbroken, that he. I think the highest priority to him was to be in full fellowship with the community of the faithful. And the fact that he had trouble maintaining that was heartbreaking for him and speaks highly of his fundamental loyalties. I would say so. Yeah. But.

John Dehlin [00:10:47] And the other thing I was going to say is Lowell Bennion, who taught at the Institute for so long, was. Was in many ways Eugene England's inspiration. And, you know, eventually he was dismissed from, you know, from the Institute, as I understand it, or even Leonard Arrington's retirement as church historian because many viewed the fact that he was being so open and candid about his history as being dangerous to the church. I'm just saying that there's a lot of believing, faithful, devout people who many would sort of lump in this category, which is very diverse, but we tend to put it in a monolithic category of Mormon liberals or progressives that I feel like have been very responsible, very thoughtful, very heartfelt and insightful and in many ways. Right. But they were treated so horribly at the time by church leaders or apologists.

Ralph Hancock [00:11:42] John, I'm not up on all the. I mean, I have some vague memories of these times in the church, but I would have to study the individual cases. And I'm perfectly capable of sympathizing with. Was it Brother Bush, you said, who wrote the great historical article about race in the church?

John Dehlin [00:12:00] Yeah.

Ralph Hancock [00:12:01] And I found it a great pity, in a way, a tragedy that somebody like that could not be kept within the fold. But I don't know about any details of the story, but we're talking about a generation or two ago here.

John Dehlin [00:12:17] Yeah, that's okay. It's okay.

Ralph Hancock [00:12:19] You see what I mean? But let's talk about. And I don't want to be hard on Joanna Brooks, but she's somebody everybody knows that I've written about. And to me, that's a clear case of somebody not simply saying, I've had these concerns, I've had these issues. But it's clearly, I was enlightened and now I see the way we should go. And here it is. And clearly everyone that's enlightened should be a feminist and an enemy of Proposition 8 and so forth. And to me, that's just again, a complete non sequitur.

Feminism, Gender Roles, and LDS Teachings

John Dehlin [00:12:59] So let's talk about what do you like and dislike about feminism?

Ralph Hancock [00:13:07] John? I think feminism has become such a flabby term, especially as used by Mormons, that I could rehearse what I don't like about Simone de Beauvoir or Betty Friedan. But we tend to use the word feminism almost so innocuously as to mean little more than that. You know, some of my best friends are women, or I'm in favor of good things for women. Well, yeah, I have a sisters, a wife, a mother, daughters, friends. I'm in favor of good things for women. But so you tell me what feminism means and I'll tell you what problem I have with it. If I have a problem with it.

John Dehlin [00:13:47] Well, I mean, it can be very broadly or narrowly defined, and I'm the last person that should be speaking as an expert on feminism, but there's a general sentiment that, that women and men should be tweeted, treated. You know, that there, that there are. That there should be an equality in the sense of how people are treated, treated fairly, treated equally, not in the sense that they are the same, but in the sense that they, they deserve to be treated fairly and have the same opportunities and not discriminated towards.

Ralph Hancock [00:14:21] Just. You just distance yourself from the word shame. But then you embraced it. And frankly, I mean, I think that's a good statement of the essential problem. We want to. Mormon feminists have to want to hold together the imperative of fundamental equality. I mean, and no serious Latter Day Saint questions that God loves his sons and daughters equally or that they have a divine destiny that is equally grand and fulfilling. So that's never in question. But how does that play out in terms of showing respect to them in their roles institutionally and so forth? To me, it's just a complete non sequitur to say boys and girls are alike unto God or have equal spiritual dignity and potential, and therefore why don't girls get to pass the sacrament like boys? But I think there's this. If you don't mean if the imperative of feminism is not sameness, then tell me what it is. That is to say, if the fundamental, eternal spiritual equality is not to be translated into sameness, you said of opportunities, for example. Then what exactly can be the feminist imperative? I have a lot more to say, but you want to. Well, check me at the point.

John Dehlin [00:16:07] You know, I think where it gets difficult is, you know, we have these. And this is a huge topic. So I just want to get a sense for your general position on what concerns you have with feminism. But you know, there have been many opportunities across time available to men that haven't been available to women. Whether it's. Whether it's the glass ceiling in the workplace, whether it's equal pay for equal work, whether it's simply being afforded the same opportunities for education. And my guess is that you would be for equal pay for equal work, that you would be for the right of women to work in the workplace and to not be capped on their potential of position based on their biological sex. And at its very basic core, someone who is an advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment or who calls themselves a feminist today, they might be simply advocating for those types of things, which my guess is that you would be in favor of.

Ralph Hancock [00:17:23] That's wrong. No, I wouldn't. Actually, I wouldn't. I think the church was right about the Equal Rights Amendment and I think that it's a mistake to try legally to mandate so called equal pay for so called equal work. That gives way too much power to government. And there's no way of determining equality in such cases. You end up with a kind of statistical framework and a coercive framework. Here let me raise this question the way it gets raised in the academy and in our political science department. And I see that one of the questions that came in to you brought up this angle. Women are underrepresented in political science generally, but in the BYU department, we've had a couple of wisdom women out of a couple of dozen professors for a long time. And I've had very good women colleagues. I'd be happy to have more. I've never been inclined to affirmative action for women. Let's go out and hire someone in our department because she's a woman. I reject the implication that,

John Dehlin [00:18:47] that

Ralph Hancock [00:18:50] women and men should be equally represented in a political science department or in any profession. What if more women than men want to be nurses or elementary education teachers? What if more men than women tend towards political science or mathematics or. I don't know what. I just don't. I don't find any. I think there's no prima facie grounds for unfairness or discrimination in statistical disparity in numbers of men and women. Moreover, and here's what no doubt gets even more controversial, we haven't mentioned the proclamation on the family yet, so let me start mentioning it. Now, if we accept the broad, I think the fundamental, though flexible, negotiable statement of sex roles and priorities that informs the proclamation on the family, wouldn't we expect it to be the case that in general, on balance, women spent more of their time and energy in mothering and household roles and therefore were less ambitious in terms of professional, including academic attainments? I mean, if we broadly support the basic worldview of the proclamation on the family, wouldn't we expect men have more having men having more time to be professors than women? Wouldn't we expect men to spend more time in professional ambitions than women? I'm not saying anything to exclude women from higher education, graduate education, developing careers that could include a mommy track and so forth. But why would we expect the outcome to be absolutely equal? Why would we expect women to to be equally represented. In the academy as men? Well, it's more and more the case now, but I'm raising the question whether it's good news. So, yeah, I'm willing to say I realize this will be controversial. It would require a lot more discussion. But what passes for feminism, I agree with Elder Packer, on balance, has been more destructive than it has been constructive in the last, let's say in the times since Elder Packer spoke, leaving aside the suffragettes and earlier concerns. And let me say that people are going to say, well, he's a man. That's easy for him to say. I talk to women. I actually have.

John Dehlin [00:21:53] You do.

Ralph Hancock [00:21:54] I won't name. But there are women who feel and they communicate with me because they see me raising an alternative women who feel discriminated against by feminism and the legal, social, cultural environment that feminism increasingly puts in play and dominate because it makes it harder and harder for women to feel praised and fulfilled in what they would want to regard as their primary role as in the household and bearing and raising children.

John Dehlin [00:22:28] Right. Yeah. And I want you to know that I have a really just not that you might care, but I'm just going to tell you, because we're having a conversation, that I have a very soft and tender place in my heart for traditional roles, for traditional families, for traditional morality, for my mother who stayed home with me and never had a, had a career or a job until she was forced to. And for the traditional, my wife has never really had employment outside the home.

Ralph Hancock [00:23:06] Let me just plug this in then. In the name of equal rights, all too often we are forcing women out of the home or incentivizing women leaving their most essential duties in the home. I know that's controversial, but I thought

John Dehlin [00:23:24] I might as well, you know, if I again, I'm the last person to speak for feminists, but I'm just going to say that I'm not as interested in this argument that all political science departments need to be 50% women and 50% men. I'm not as interested in the equality of outcome because of course there's going to be more Navy seals who are men that are women. And, and that's just, that's again, rooted in either biological or social, you know, constructs that are going to have very real, they're going to play out in very specific and predictable ways in our society. But it's also important, I think, in terms of equality of opportunity. They're going, you know, just if you're willing to agree that there's a bell curve of human traits, there are going to be women who are, who are, you know, inclined towards and have an affinity for traditional female roles, motherhood roles, domestic roles. And then there are going to be women who absolutely just aren't well suited or don't have interest in or who, who are happiest if they can have a combination or a hybrid of roles. And, and I think what most of the feminists that I know, especially the Mormon feminists that I try and pay attention to, it seems like what they're saying is we have an obligation when we raise our young women, for example, to encourage the possibility to create an environment where if a conservative, traditional motherhood or domestic role is where they feel most inclined and where their interests lie, that can be supported, but it shouldn't be capped or limited to just that. That for the woman who wants to be a scholar or who wants to be a Navy SEAL or a professional athlete, that society can also get rid of limitations and create, you know, ways of encouraging or supporting alternative routes for people who don't always fit squarely in these traditional norms.

Ralph Hancock [00:25:47] A great statement of a sort of moderate liberal equality of opportunity position that I think is in fact, I mean, it's a pretty picture, but it's kind of utopian. And it's utopian because there will always be rules and exceptions.

John Dehlin [00:26:07] Right?

Ralph Hancock [00:26:08] We're not going to get it. We're not going to get rid of the rule. So we've gone from a rule that depending on the date you pick in our history was no doubt too. High bound, traditionalist, in which, you know, my sister had little opportunity to play sports in the 50s and 60s just because of the way the world was organized. But if we, we are as we Shift our emphases and priorities. We're not making them neutral. We're creating a new rule that then will, you know, be exposed to demands for other exceptions. What I would say is that now we're making it the case that it's becoming the exception. That a woman would regard her main role as being an exception in the larger society. I'm not talking about the church culture right now, but in the larger Western and American society is becoming more the exception than the rule. That a woman would regard it as a natural and fulfilling course of life to get married when she still has lots of childbearing age available and to devote the sort of prime of her life to children and the household. It's not. We haven't. And we can't create a situation in which there will be no rule, but all possibilities will all be equally open. We're shifting the rule from one set of priorities to another. So I think we should be clear about what our priorities are and. And then be open to and compassionate. Concerning exceptions I don't have. I have absolutely no problem. I have nothing but admiration for a young woman who has a special artistic or philosophical. Ambition. Ambition is not the best word. Inspiration, a mission in life. And finds it compelling in her case that to somehow reconcile the importance she attaches to home and family with these other activities, talents that she feels she must develop. Well, this. This is good. If this is my daughter we're talking about, then I want to facilitate and to help. But I begin to question such a woman when she holds herself up as a model of liberation for all women. And that this is what. This is, what this is my way is what counts as being progressive. And other women who are home with their children and relying upon their husbands to bring home the income are inferior in terms of human development and so forth. These are not hypothetical cases. I don't know if your wife has noticed this, but I know young wives in Provo neighborhoods who feel very much looked down upon because they have accepted a traditional role and allegedly are not showing the requisite ambition in becoming mean lawyers or accountants or whatever. End of speech for now. What do you think so far?

Mormon Feminists and the Proclamation on the Family

John Dehlin [00:29:54] So I think this is a really important thing to talk about because I know Joanna Brooks, you know, reasonably well. I've probably spent, you know, I'd say, 15 hours with her face to face. And I've talked to her a lot on the Internet and in email. And I think I know her pretty well. And I know for sure, 100% certainty that she is 100% supportive of a woman who decides that she wants a very traditional role as a domestic mother and as a wife and that in no way does she see herself as superior to that woman who chooses to take that role. I can guarantee you that she does not see herself or her position as superior. And I know for a fact that what she would want is simply that for the woman who is a little bit more thinky or brainy, that she can pursue education as far as she wants to, that she's given the same opportunities to do so, but in no way would she hold herself out as the ideal woman. And I think she has deep reverence and respect for traditional roles and women. And so I don't know where you would get that interpretation of her position because it just doesn't feel at all

Ralph Hancock [00:31:29] like we're, I didn't present that as an interpretation of her position, by the way. So we had been talking about Joanna, I realized, but I wasn't talking about much about her.

John Dehlin [00:31:38] But, but I don't know any, I don't know any feminist. I don't know any feminist. Not Lisa Butterworth, not, not. I, I could name, you know, 20. I, I don't know any feminist that views a working mother as superior to a stay at home mom. None. And so I don't know, I guess

Ralph Hancock [00:31:58] I don't know who you're, they're all over the place.

John Dehlin [00:32:00] I don't know who you're talking about.

Ralph Hancock [00:32:01] In Mormonism, practicing off, you know, they may not be official spokespeople, but within

John Dehlin [00:32:07] Mormonism, not Christine Haglund, not Jana Reese, there's not a Mormon feminist woman I know who would be down in a traditional man.

Ralph Hancock [00:32:16] I know Christine well and I sense the same thing and I'm not surprised and very willing to believe what you say about Joanna. I'm talking about a cultural milieu and a general cultural tendency. And I can tell you without any doubt that younger women who want to put marriage and family first feel looked down upon by those who consider themselves more advanced, progressive, attuned to the, you know, to the ethical views of the higher educational world and so forth. That's a fact of which I have little doubt. I would be interested to see if your listeners would tend to corroborate or to contest that. But that's just my experience and I would go back to. It's not really, it's not necessarily a question of deliberate intention, but there's never going to be a perfectly neutral playing field with respect to an understanding of the role of women. Some story will be privileged, will appear to be more advanced or more authentic or more preferential, deeper, richer and what have you. And the tendency is certainly against. Favoring or supporting traditional feminine mother household role.

John Dehlin [00:33:56] And do you see that within Mormon feminism? Because I think, and Christine Hagland writes this in her comment on Facebook. Do you acknowledge at all or have you even spent enough time to distill the difference between, let's just say Gloria Steinem second or third wave feminism and what is feminist Mormon housewives or Lisa Butterworth, Theresa Edmonds, Christine Hagland feminism, which in my experience very much reveres and respects both traditional moms and women and those who choose to, for example, work or become more highly educated. Is it your experience with Mormon feminism that there is this sort of disparaging of traditional female roles and elevation of, let's say, education or work outside the home?

Ralph Hancock [00:34:53] What, what, what do Mormon feminists want? I mean, you're asking me to confront this sort of diffuse phenomenon that's in favor of all good things. But if Mormon feminists differ from just the general Mormon culture, in what way do they differ? Now, I know that I haven't met Joanna personally, Christine. I do know and respect, admire, like, and certainly what you have said about her sounds plausible to me. On the other hand, I think she has written rather proudly about, helped me with the details here about. Wasn't she one of those who just was rubbed the wrong way at the outset by the deacons getting to pass the sacrament when she didn't? There seems to be what is Mormon feminism if not a movement towards more sameness in the roles of men and women? You can use the language of equal opportunity and having all possibilities open to everyone, but that, again, I say, is rather utopian and pie in the sky. Ish. In fact, do you recognize differences between men and women that justify or help to justify different roles in the church and in society? If Mormon feminists accept that statement, then what exactly are we arguing about? What do Mormon feminists want? Do they want women to hold the priesthood? Well, some of the certainly. I mean, that's been a notable view of some notable Mormon feminists, but I suppose not of Christine or Joanna. I don't know. Do they want. Are they offended by a difference in activities between the Boy Scouts and the young Women's organization? Well, look, I'm not. If girls are interested in hiking and camping, by all means build more hiking and camping into the girls program. But I see there's no ethical presumption, in my view, in favor of the imperative that Boys and girls programs should be the same. Or that. Let me just put it coming back to my sports example. Which sports is something that I have experienced in and I'm fond of, why I think girls should have the opportunity to do sports. Do I think they should have the same emphasis as for boys? Why on earth. Who says. Who says sports should be as important for girls, on balance, as for boys? Just, for example, has that given you enough to be outraged about or to get your teeth into anyway?

John Dehlin [00:37:53] No, I'm not outraged at all, and I think you're. Ralph, I want to tell you my personal view. I think you're holding down an important pole of tension because I think that the degree to which we abandon all the good things that brought us to where we are in society, I think we do so at our own peril. So I love the fact that you're defending traditional roles, that you're defending a difference between. A fundamental difference between men and women, and you're staking a claim that isn't always popular, that basically says that there are differences and we shouldn't ignore that and that in some ways we should even respect and cultivate those differences. I'm not outraged by that, and I appreciate.

Ralph Hancock [00:38:43] Well, I appreciate your patience and your equanimity. And I think we need conversations like this just to hone in on, okay, exactly what are we disagreeing on and when do we differ? I have to say that the. I mean, the caricature of conservatism that is all too current in the media, not only the Mormon media, is a great obstacle to significant conversation.

John Dehlin [00:39:11] And that's part of what I don't want to do. I don't want to characterize conservatives or. Or apologists. And I don't think that it would be helpful for us to character, you know, make caricatures of feminists or intellectuals, because the truth is that that distracts us from the good work that we can do in having a good discourse and coming up with good things. I think I can just list a few of the things that feminists seem to say that they might be wanting. So, for example, more, say, in the development of curriculum. So it's probably reasonable to believe that the curriculum that's been developed for young women over the years has historically been developed, maybe in consultation with women, but probably written mostly by the men who work in the church curriculum department and the males who oversee that curriculum. So one example would be, can't we have more women in roles of developing the curriculum for, you know, for. For our young women? Right, so such that.

Ralph Hancock [00:40:18] So I mean, on that I would just say I'm not sure they haven't been involved and if they haven't, I'm all for more consultation and involvement. That seems non controversial to me.

John Dehlin [00:40:27] Okay, so I think that's a very significant thing that a Mormon feminist would, would want. And I hear you saying that you've got no problem with that. Right?

Ralph Hancock [00:40:36] Right, exactly.

John Dehlin [00:40:37] Okay. And there are thousands of the things. The fact that. I'm just curious, what do you make of the fact that women aren't allowed to pray in General Conference?

Ralph Hancock [00:40:52] You know, that's an excellent example because it's an example of something. If our church leaders want to change that, I'm ready to embrace it. I have no problem with it. I'm even ready to see that it could be a good thing. On the other hand, I'm not. I don't think any injustice is being done. I don't think so. I'm fine if it's not changed too. I mean, from the moment that you admit that males and females are on the whole very significantly different in ways that has, in ways that have cultural and religious significance, then I think a lot of the, I mean the usual short argument of the feminists is undercut. Look, they're all men on the stand and not women. That's prima facie unfair. Something must be done. I just don't follow that logic. So I have no particular attachment to any, you know, definitive and timeless way of defining and institutionally representing the different roles of men and women. But I by no means assume that more sameness is always better, of course.

John Dehlin [00:42:18] But just like the church has made growth and progress in other areas, you know, can you conceive that there's significant and material progress that the church could make in terms of gender, how it treats women?

Ralph Hancock [00:42:32] What are you counting as progress? You see, you're assuming, are you assuming a feminist norm of more sameness? Men and women should be treated the same and that's what equality would mean. Because if that's what progress means, I see no reason to, to sign onto it. I just don't see anything, any logically or ethically compelling imperative.

John Dehlin [00:42:55] Let's say that more women were becoming college educated than in the past. I would, I would call that a good thing.

Ralph Hancock [00:43:04] Categorically it's a good thing with cost. Now I wouldn't. Women are delaying childbirth longer and often finding themselves reaching a crisis well into their 30s because they put off having children in order to be more highly educated. There are always trade offs. Is What I'm saying, John. So it's not, it's not an unmitigated good.

John Dehlin [00:43:31] Right, I agree with that. But it's also good, wouldn't you say? It's generally good for women to get bachelor's degrees. Just.

Ralph Hancock [00:43:39] I would be going against the profits if I disagreed with that, wouldn't I? I mean, I think there's been plenty of pretty official counsel about getting a lot of education.

John Dehlin [00:43:47] But wouldn't that, wouldn't that be true? If the prophets even disagreed with it, wouldn't it still be true?

Ralph Hancock [00:43:54] Yeah, I mean, I think they. Yeah, it's. I mean, that's a part of the general evolution of our society that the prophets have largely endorsed. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

John Dehlin [00:44:12] Right. But there's been an evolution of encouraging education within women more, I'd say, over the past few decades.

Ralph Hancock [00:44:21] I'm not a great church historian, but I'd be careful about exaggerating our enlightenment with respect to even 19th century Mormonism on the question of female education and so forth.

John Dehlin [00:44:31] No, I know that in the late 18th century and early 1900s, we have some excellent examples of women getting advanced degrees and doing all sorts of things. In fact, my guess is there were more women. My understanding is that Utah led the nation in women with graduate degrees or scientific graduate degrees in the early 1900s, and that we actually.

Ralph Hancock [00:44:54] Let me make clear where I'm coming from. I think it's wonderful that women have more opportunities in higher education. I think it's a cost and a downside that needs to be recognized and controlled. That more and more LDS women feel that they are looked upon as not developing their full potential if they are not successful in advanced degrees and professions and so forth, that I regard as a downside.

John Dehlin [00:45:27] Right, right. And for, and for a woman who just felt that for her being a traditional mother or a stay at home mom just wasn't what she was made to do. Would you be, on an individual basis, supportive of her ability and rights and opportunity to pursue whatever she wanted? You just, you just are also saying,

Ralph Hancock [00:45:49] I buy the word rights in that connection. But ability and opportunity and, but there will be, there will always be rules and we will always need exceptions. It's a matter of defining the rule with balance and judgment and then recognizing exceptions with discretion and compassion.

John Dehlin [00:46:11] Okay, good. Compassion, that's important. Okay. And. Okay. Okay, good. And then I think I hear you saying that the extent to which society privileges too much a more modern or progressive position as it relates to something like women and their opportunity, it does so at a potential high cost or risk for giving up some other very important things.

Costs and Benefits of Feminist Influence in Mormonism

Ralph Hancock [00:46:37] I think the cost is not potential. I think we see it all around us. And, you know, if you go back to I won't foist Betty for Dan upon all feminists, but clear, I mean, a founding part of the feminist women was contempt for motherhood and household work. And let me let one bibliographic reference here. There's a very powerful article going back a couple of decades now by called Despising Our Mothers, Despising Ourselves, by a woman with, I guess it's a Greek name, Orania Papa Zoglock. Was it in Commentary or First Things or where was it? Maybe it was in Commentary. Anyway, despising our mothers, despising ourselves. We can't, if in opening up newer opportunities, if we in any way fail to express gratitude for an appreciation of the traditional roles played by our mothers and grandmothers, then we are sending a very, I think, a vicious message that undermines much that is good.

John Dehlin [00:47:45] Yeah. And I would just, I would, if I had to close out this segment, I would just challenge you to consider that Mormon feminism can't be carelessly lumped into necessarily the broader strains of feminism that we see in broader culture. I see, I see a group of women who are working very hard to be respectful and patient and careful and very much wanting to be faithful and who are not in any way disrespectful towards either traditional roles or authority.

Ralph Hancock [00:48:31] I accept your plea, John, except that I'm not sure why you're so sure that it's needed. Except I will confess guilt on this one point. I think there is a tendency, or almost an almost inevitable tendency for Mormon feminists to adapt the style, the vocabulary, to buy into some of the paradigms that are kind of implicit more than they think. So I'll accept your charge, your plea, but I hope you and the Mormon feminists will accept the plea to be critically aware of their sources and of the ambient meaning of feminism and risks involved in it.

John Dehlin [00:49:16] Right, right. And I personally, I hear you and I respect what you're saying and you know, I'll leave it to, I'll leave it to the audience to do, to do their work there if they so choose.

Ralph Hancock [00:49:27] Yeah, but by the way, if, but I want to give me a, give me a text, give me an argument that counts as Mormon feminism, and we'll see if I have anything. We'll see how respectful and, or critical I might be of it. I mean, I've had long conversations with my colleague Valerie Hudson, and we're co editors, as you know, at Square Two, she calls herself a Mormon feminist. I'm not, but we agree on a lot and we've had rich discussions. But basically I think she would consider herself a follower of a French feminist. Very important and subtle thinker. Sylvian Adzynsky I think you say it, but still the difference between me and a faithful and moderate, I suppose feminist like Valerie is still that she is more determined to apply a certain sameness to the roles of men and women in society, in the professions and so forth, than I would be.

John Dehlin [00:50:38] Okay. And to close, are there any have you come to find any positive strains of feminism or teachings of feminism or role models in feminism that you think have done good either in Mormonism or in broader society? Like, do you have anything good you can say about feminism either in particular with people or arguments or what they've done for women or for society?

Ralph Hancock [00:51:08] I'm not so much in the business of finding good things to say about feminism anymore. Surely there are some good feminists who have done some good things, but I take my bearings by the contemporary situation and is feminism on balance a force for good or or a force that undermines good things today? I've just given you my answer. I think on balance it's not a good force today.

John Dehlin [00:51:36] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out@sabre-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories logo was generously donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest 2 [00:51:51] Come, come ye saints no toil nor labor fear but with joy when you're away Though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to listen Jo, your hearts will swell oh, all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our Lord is hard Tis not so, all is right. Why should we think to be earn a great reward if we now shun the fight? Gird up your loans Fresh courage take Our God will ever us forsake soon we'll have still it tells oh, all is well, all is well. Oh, all is well all is well. Sam. And should we die before our journeys through happy death all is well. We that are free from toil and sorrow too with the just we shall dwell but if our lives are spared again to see the saints, the rest obtain Or I will make this glory swell. Oh, all is well, all is well all is well

John Dehlin [00:55:44] all is well

Guest 2 [00:55:47] all is well. Oh, is well, All is well all is away, Sam.

Criticism of Mormon Liberals and LDS Apologists

Part 4 of 4 · Ep. 395

Ralph Hancock [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org so I want to try and just do a little bit more work to come back to something I've been trying to hear from you or get from you throughout this whole interview. Because again, I think my goal, if I had any goal in this interview, it's to build common ground and to create or discover vistas of opportunity for dialogue and better dialogue and collaboration. And this sort of speaks to the broader role of apologetics in. In, let's just say, in our church. If I were to sort of go with, let's just say the liberal stereotype of an apologist, there's just a general feeling in the discourse of some Mormon apologists where there's just sort of hostility instead of empathy towards people who are, you know, some would say are struggling with issues of race or gender or sexuality that are really complex and very difficult. And so it's tough. I'm just going to lay a bunch of things out there and then let you talk as long as you want about it. But I think it's particularly tough for an LDS apologist because the church is named after Jesus. And if you had to sort of reduce Jesus to one thing, I think we could all agree that the one word that you would sort of ascribe to Jesus would be love or charity. And so it's got to be tough to be defending things that you think are important, which I respect. But it's got to be tough to do that in a way that is Christlike, that shows charity and love and empathy. And at times, your work and the work of Daniel Peterson and others, I feel like HEY has run up against a lot of criticism because it's perceived by some as being attacking, as being mean spirited, as being insensitive to what are very legitimate issues. And I'm just curious what you make of that critique of your approach and of Daniel Peterson's approach and of others.

Ralph Hancock [00:02:45] Well, first of all, I mean, we'd have to talk about specific instances here, but let me just say that by and large, that critique is extremely flattering and comforting to the liberal progressives who make it. I mean, that's why it's so prevalent and widespread. Oh, if he were only sensitive and empathetic, he wouldn't be disagreeing with us. So these questions of tone are really extremely subjective and I've been careful and professional. I'm kind of vigorous and I suppose when I jump into an interpretation of Joanna Brooks, maybe I just sort of carry on my usual academic habits of respect by argument pretty straightforwardly. But look, it's really a very self serving argument by the liberationist progressives to say. He's only saying that because he lacks empathy and he's insensitive and he's not Christlike because he doesn't have compassion like we do. So I just. We'd have to look at individual instances. But in general, John, I would say that's using compassion and empathy as a weapon. It works both ways and I would just set it aside. Just consider the argument. You may or may not like me. You may think that I'm arrogant, but that's not what at stake. That doesn't matter. I've tried to make an argument. I've only had so much space, I only have so much ability. It's no doubt imperfect. Could we talk about the argument? So I think falling back, it's interesting that those who consider themselves the intellectual vanguard so frequently want to fall back on emotion and sincerity and empathy. I mean the whole question is how we direct and guide how we reasonably guide our empathy. So it has been assumed, for example, that because I'm firmly against the gay marriage so called movement, for example, well, obviously I have no sympathy because I've not known any gays in my life and I live such a constricted existence that my personal sympathies are very narrow. Well, you know, actually that doesn't follow. But I, I think it better on the whole for society, including for homosexuals, that the norm of heterosexuality be upheld. If you want to dismiss that as insensitive and without empathy, that's just a way of saying that people who disagree with me don't define compassion the way I do and so I don't have to listen to them to have compassion for someone, you, you have to have some idea. We're going back to the beginning of our discussion of the good. How can I really help this person? Do I show compassion for a person by countenancing all their tastes and wants and inclinations? If I am counseling a heroin or for that matter a tobacco addict, which I've had occasion to do, does my compassion consist in saying, well, let us help you buy some cigarettes? No, because I look at their personal development from a standpoint of gospel principles and commandments. And I say to really help you, we're going to need to be tough in these ways. If you want help, we're not going to be able to help you buy cigarettes, for example. So the tone argument is. It's actually, look, there's no reason to argue that I have never slipped in terms of tone or that I could have said some things more reasonably or moderately than I did. I mean, show me an instance and we'll talk about it. I'm ready to confess to any specific instance. And by the way, it's interesting that you lumped me with Dan Peterson, whom I respect, but we're pretty. We do quite different kinds of business, actually, and I guess we both stand out as people who are used to being called conservatives. Other than that, I'm not sure exactly what we have in common. He doesn't really tend to tackle the social ideological issues that I tackle, and I don't have nearly the knowledge or the gifts for Mormon scripture and history apologetics that he has, for example. But the tone question is just another weapon wielded by the. By the self described compassionate progressive left in all too many instances. And let me tell you that just to take the example of my writings where I tried to be careful and respectful and to actually, I based everything I said upon her book, my writings about Joanna Brooks. Well, of course, I don't have to tell you how roundly I was pilloried in many of the more notable LDS intellectual blogs, but a lot of the people who have been run out of that liberal intellectual universe are telling me, well, you went kind of easy on her, didn't you? Or couldn't you be more straightforward in criticizing her? So, you know, it cuts both ways and it's very much a subjective perception, this question of tone or respect or civility. And I've become. I'm not saying I couldn't do better in some respects, but in many instances there are many people who find it just offensive and beyond the pale to question the liberal progressive paradigm. And that's what I'm in the business of doing. So I have a little hope that people who don't want to have the paradigm questioned will find me empathetic and compassionate and so forth, but draw me out, help me explain further.

John Dehlin [00:08:44] No, no, no, it's good. And listen, I want to. I can hear Daniel Peterson's voice in my. Because I've seen how people treat him and you and others. And I would say that. I would say that at times liberals and disaffected or ex Mormons can be the most cruel and vicious and revolting and use the most disgusting forms of discourse that I've ever experienced in my life. Now that's.

Ralph Hancock [00:09:15] John, let me mention here, just in the solicitation of questions for Hancock, that I know many of them are good and respectful questions, but this is when people feel free to pop up and say, Hancock, he was like the worst teacher ever at byu. Now, there's a very compassionate and open minded way of starting the conversation. Right? But I don't, this doesn't, this is what passes for. This does not violate the canons of compassion and empathy in many liberal blogs.

John Dehlin [00:09:45] It does for me. And, and I just want you to know that I, in, in a. In the spirit of trying to find common ground, I, I want to offer that as my own observation that, that progressives, liberals, and especially my experience, sort of the disaffected or ex Mormon crowd, some of them can be revoltingly disrespectful. And I both acknowledge that and I condemn it. Good.

Ralph Hancock [00:10:19] Well, thanks. Well, that's. But let's see. I mean, what have I said that I might have said more carefully or differently or in a way that showed more compassion? I don't know if you want to rehearse the whole Joanna Brooks episode again, but there again I felt like I just engaged a book respectfully by reading it, connecting some dots and saying, here's where I think the dots led. Here's a problem I think I have with that. You'll remember that at the end of the second part, I stuck my emotional neck out a little bit by referencing an interview that she'd given with some Protestant on the East Coast. I can't remember. You can probably point this out to me, but where she had talked about her limitations as a fully practicing Latter Day Saint, Temple wise and Temple marriage wise, and expressed some rather wistful remarks about maybe only being a B Mormon and not an A or an A Mormon or something to that effect. And my heart really went out to her. I wanted to be on the A team and I said that. Well, you see, that's paternalistic and condescending, but you can't have it both ways. If you want me to care about her, my way of caring about her and for you and for all your listeners is to care that you should be in full fellowship with the church and have the benefit of the sacraments and temple ordinances and the commandments. Because I think for all the imperfections and faults and unanswered mysteries, that's the best chance we have of Being happy in this life and in the world to come. And that's what I sincerely wished for her, and that's my way of being compassionate.

John Dehlin [00:12:04] And I think that's beautiful. And I think it comes from a very sincere place, and I think it comes from a valid place. Did you say you stuck your neck out in doing that?

Ralph Hancock [00:12:18] Yeah, I got some heat because I was, like, violating her personal religious space or something by wishing something on her for her. Yeah, I was pilloried to some degree.

John Dehlin [00:12:30] That that's paternal, that that's paternalistic to be doing that. Well, I, I, I can get a sense. I know you, I know you well enough to know that that comes from a heartfelt, sincere, loving place. And so, but, but I guess if I, you. So you asked me to kind of respond, and here's what I want to say. I, I think that it, let's just say there's, there's one thing to have a goal, which is to win an argument or to, to come across as, you know, scoring points or being witty. And I'm not saying that that's what your goal is, that you're just in this for some purpose of a game. I don't think that.

Ralph Hancock [00:13:18] But, but it enters into the general practice of academic training. And what I do. No doubt.

John Dehlin [00:13:24] No, of course. And some of that's going to happen. And that's, but that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is let's assume that you and I and Joanna and Daniel Peterson and whoever else, that we all have the same goal, which is, you know, to both alleviate unnecessary suffering in the world and to help mankind and womankind achieve that, their highest levels of enlightenment and joy and fulfillment. Like, let's just assume that we all share that goal. Right. And let's say that this discourse that we're involved in is important because there are souls at stake and where people go and what allegiances they have and what models they hold up as good. Those things are strong influences that pull people in one direction or another and that those directions can really matter. Like, I think you would agree with that as well, right?

Ralph Hancock [00:14:23] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:14:24] And so definitely. And so what I'm trying to, what I'm trying to get at in my conversation with you is, is this question about, and you and I talked about this at lunch when we had lunch in Logan a month or two ago. It's, it's, if we all want the same thing, what is the most effective means of getting people there? And so while I don't think that. I think that liberals can often be disingenuous in their usage of tone and discourse as a way to avoid important arguments or bludgeon or neutralize the other argument. In that same spirit of scoring points in a debate which I have no respect for at all, I do think that it's important that there are two things that I always wish for every apologist like I want apologists to be successful. I want the church to be successful. I want every human institution to be successful in achieving the mutual goals that I think I just laid out that we share. But. But. Because I think we all want human fulfillment. But I think that I wonder if the if, if we're going about it the right way, I wonder if we worked harder to so I'd say to you, Ralph Hancock, what if you worked harder to be more understanding and empathetic for what a gay or lesbian, man or woman experience? What if you worked harder to read about Lowell Bennion and Leonard Arrington and Eugene England and to understand better where they were coming from? What if you spent more time with dialoguing with Joanna Brooks and Christine Hagland, not just on the blogs, but like face to face and in person. And what if you spent more time with these gays, feminists and intellectuals, not just to the point of having some witty intellectual discourse, but actually to the point where you had some aha moments where you could really almost represent their point of view better than they could themselves.

Ralph Hancock [00:16:46] John, what makes you think that that hasn't been a large part of my life? I mean, I live in an academic milieu. I'm constantly interacting with people to my left and sometimes many cycles to my left. So it's not as if I have a paucity of interlocutors. And Christine Hagland and I made it a point when she was in town to have lunch with her, which was extremely enjoyable and I think mutually enlightening. And I'd be delighted to do the same with Joanna, but I gather she doesn't want to.

John Dehlin [00:17:22] Right?

Ralph Hancock [00:17:23] So I'm not avoiding. But there is always going to be a difference between these personal face to face engagements and what takes place in the realm of intellectual abstractions. And I grant the premise of your question in that there is a tension and it's a difficult thing. And I wonder myself a lot what's best to do. I mean, if we're in the business of saving souls and making lives richer and better in the long run. So to what degree are these intellectual arguments helpful towards that end? It's a very legitimate question. I wonder about it all the time. On balance, I must think that there still might be some good that I'm accomplishing because I keep trying to do it. And part of what sustains me is that even though I take a lot of heat, I also have people, sometimes publicly on the blogs and et cetera, but mostly by private communication, saying, wow, that is really helpful. Now that gives me an alternative I didn't have before. You have really opened up some possibilities for me. You have made things better for me. So you have to keep in mind, John, that there's different audiences. You might say there's the homosexual person with his or her own travails and the intellectual spiritual issues that relate to those that I need to have compassion for and to address. But that's not the only person. At the same time, I'm talking to someone who is looking for some evidence that to be smart you don't have to be progressive liberationist. And you tend to notice that maybe I'm not striking quite the right tone or adopting quite the right tactic in order to win over those on the more dissident side or progressive side of the scale. But they're not the only people who matter to me. And a lot of the people who matter have been pretty much silenced in the electronic media. But I know they're there, and I'm telling them, here's an alternative. One can speak with confidence from a position of support for the essential postures of the church. And in a word, to be smart, you don't have to be progressive liberationist. So I see myself as representing that possibility which opens up or clarifies an extremely important option for a lot of people, and not the people you're likeliest to hear from on the blogs or on your site.

John Dehlin [00:20:11] And I totally see that and I respect it, and I value that. And I guess all I just want to say is that I think that both sides, and I think there's signs of this happening as I look at the emerging, you know, the folks like Matt Bowman and Terrell Givens and Richard Bushman and others. I don't know that it's easy to put them on any side, frankly. But I think what I'm making is a call for more empathy and more compassion and more careful discourse on both sides. But because. I feel like the more we understand the other's position, the better we have at winning over their heart and the more that we're willing to speak in compassionate, empathetic ways while still maintaining our position. I Think I believe that that's been the secret to Richard Bushman's success. You know, some could argue that, that he was exalted for what Fawn Brody, you know, some would say was punished for. And I know that there's very difference in their work. But I also know that Richard Bushman quotes a lot from Fawn Brody, a lot, and that he has deep respect for her. And I just think that. I think that tone and empathy and compassion actually matter a great deal. And I would like to see a spring or a new movement of, let's just say, conservatives and liberals within Mormon discourse getting together and learning to understand each other's positions more and developing the discipline of discourse that really does communicate both empathy and love and compassion instead of characterizations or taking extreme positions or characterizing the opposing side in extreme ways. Because I do think sometimes we, for example, might whitewash Mormon feminism, when in reality there's some textures and some subtleties and some beauties there that we would do well to highlight and even complement.

Ralph Hancock [00:22:53] Well, I accept all that, John, and I appreciate. You know, I welcome your help in moving that way. And I've mentioned my very rewarding lunch with Christina Hagland, and we talked about developing a dialogue on that basis. It's partly just a limitation of time and strength, you know, to get things done, but that's an example of something that. That could be pursued nonetheless. I can't promise to be completely inoffensive. That's partly because I have a job. I conceive myself of having this job to do, and it's different from Richard Bushman's job. I have great respect for him, but I have a job that's inevitably more controversial in a certain respect than his work, and that is that I am convinced that a certain progressive liberalism has more and more kind of invaded the doctrinal heart of the understanding of the gospel of many Mormons. And I think that's a problem. And I think it's my duty to call attention to that. And I, because I don't think, in a word, I inevitably, what I'm doing has more of a political edge than what Richard Bushman or Matt Bowen, let's say, are doing. But can it be done better, more delicately? Part of the problem is that this conversation is new. So. And I've learned from it. I've realized that I was kind of naive. And because naive may be a little brusque, crude in some respect, because I didn't see. I didn't see where other people were coming from. But when they responded to me and I was able to engage them, give me credit. I have answered critics and attended to arguments even when many people have been abusive. I've taken a deep breath and I've said, okay, somebody here has made an argument, let's talk about it. So I've tried my best to do this, but. But the political edge will not go away because we face a situation that is different from America in the 50s or 60s and liberalism and conservatism are configured differently from then because the sum and substance of contemporary liberalism tends to be radical feminism and lifestyle liberationism, which shows itself most clearly in the pro gay marriage so called movement. And I just, I think to confront the state of Mormon culture and Mormon belief, it's indispensable to see the LDS confrontation with this liberal progressive mindset that is more and more taken for granted or considered to be simply the way that smart people think by so many young, academically or intellectually ambitious Mormons. So, so here in the last couple of years I've sort of jumped into the fray and I've. I can't say I don't want to be melodramatic or attach too much importance to myself, but there's not a lot of other people doing what I'm doing. Jumping in and saying no. Actually, to be smart intellectual does not necessarily imply being a progressive liberationist. I'm the one who's out there saying no, that doesn't follow. And that has been unpopular and I think will continue to be unpopular now. The argument can be more developed, more nuanced. I mean, you're talking to somebody here. I might have a couple of hours on Saturday to try to make a difference in a couple of hundred words. So one does what one can, if you see what I mean, totally and necessarily. One falls back on, on broad brushstrokes. But I've never shied away from exchanges from responses and I continue to welcome them. And I recognize that there are hard questions and legitimate concerns.

Conservative Loneliness and Same-Sex Marriage Debate

John Dehlin [00:27:35] Do you feel like there. Why aren't there legions of you, where within Mormon culture did I hear you say that you feel a little bit alone, that there aren't many people doing this? And if I did hear you correctly, why is it that you're a bit of a voice in the wilderness versus there being a hundred or a thousand like you, defending and standing for the things that you stand for and believe in?

Ralph Hancock [00:28:04] Well, I'm curious about your answer to that question. Don't, don't I seem. Again, I don't want to be Melodramatic and my life is good. I'm not suffering. But is not my endeavor just a little bit lonely? I mean I've gathered a few friends to help at the John Adams Center. Dan Peterson sympathized with what I'm doing. I sympathize with him. But we're not doing the same kind of thing. This sort of critical social theory with some conservative substance. Is there any other Mormon doing this? Can you shake a stick at one?

John Dehlin [00:28:43] It's it. I don't think I can name any,

Ralph Hancock [00:28:48] to be honest, so. But you're raising it. Why is that? So it's because the intellectual universe has been divided up into. There's a kind of drift towards the conservatives are fundamentalists and non intellectuals and so the liberals get to be the smart people and the intellectuals. And that's precisely the dichotomy that I want to confront and help at least to mitigate it. To mitigate. I want to open up and hold open the possibility of being smart. And you can say conservative if you want, but that's. That means so many things to so many people. Liberal, excuse me, intelligent and not progressive. Liberationists. Let me put it that way.

John Dehlin [00:29:37] Yeah. And I can just tell you honestly that I would not want to live in a world where there weren't thoughtful people on both sides of the political and religious spectrum. And so I want there to be vociferous and strong advocates for both preserving and changing. And so I'm really glad you're there. And I really don't quite understand why there aren't more people like you. Although I would say that Richard Bushman and Terrell Givens and Grant Hardy sort of represent a wing, your wing, just more towards the moderate end.

Ralph Hancock [00:30:27] Yeah. Well, I'm happy to be in a wing with them. They're people I admire. But I do have a different job in some respects a more vexatious and culturally socially difficult job. And that is pointing up the political dimension of our understanding of Mormonism. And it's. I would, as far as possible, I agree with the common sense view that we ought to keep our religion out of our politics and certainly our congregations have to be welcoming to people across the political spectrum and so forth. All that's very nice. But it remains the case that

John Dehlin [00:31:11] a

Ralph Hancock [00:31:12] certain broadly political philosophical agenda has become more and more invasive of our basic assumptions, religious, moral. And one can see this in the fact that this was a discovery of mine. This is one evidence of my naivete when I started to bring up the proclamation on the family in Some of these discussions of contemporary society on the Internet. Then I found lots of people telling me, oh, you're still into that? The proclamation on the family. Didn't. You know, we're all over that. I mean, I mean, that's okay, but it's clearly just a relative for art. But you're laughing, but you've noticed this. I mean, these people are. Well, I was naive. I didn't know this. I thought that if people are claiming to be LDS believers, then they accept the proclamation on the family. And then I can use that as a basis of argument. But I tried that. Then I found out, no, no, they don't buy that at all. That's just. That's going to go the way of all flesh, like the. Like the prohibition on blacks holding the priesthood. And to me, I mean, that's an indication of how. Why must we relativize the proclamation of the family? Because clearly all intelligent people now know that all this talk about role differentiation between men and women is a vestige of patriarchy, and we need to. And we need to get over it. So I'm the one in the business of saying I don't think we should get over it. And I don't see anything, any rationally compelling motive or argument for relativizing the proclamation on the family. Look, when people ask me whether I think Mormonism is more aligned with liberalism or conservatism, these are vague terms and there's a lot of imperfections on both sides, not to mention Democrat, Republican and so forth. And so there's no prevailing definition of conservatism that I would be completely happy with, not to mention the positions of the Republican Party. That's a separate question entirely. But I often just say this. Read the proclamation on the family. Now tell me, where are you likely to get a. Just to get a hearing or to find some sympathetic minds and hearts for the basic propositions of that proclamation, would those people more likely to give that a hearing, would they be called liberals or would they be called conservatives? Conservatives, John, that's not a hard question, is it? No. What's so complicated about this? So am I a conservative in that sense? I am a conservative, and I. And since liberalism has become aggressive, pervasive, invasive in sort of. Sort of taking over the citadel of our basic moral convictions, which we assume are the basis or aligned with our original convictions, since this is the case, I think it's not optional to be. To have that political reflection should be part of our attempt to understand our Mormonism and what it means and what it requires of us.

John Dehlin [00:34:27] Sure. Of course, there's no way to separate it in some ways. And yet do you understand people's concern. Could you even articulate people's concern with the proclamation of the family?

Ralph Hancock [00:34:44] Well, I know what a feminist's concern with it would be. Sure. From the. From the standpoint of a conviction that there should be no definitive distinction between male and female roles. Sure. I see how all that follows. I can see what you're. I could be more patient and more sympathetic. What makes me a little impatient is just the assumption that reason is on the side of equality interpreted as sameness, or that reason is on the side of equality interpreted as liberation from traditional definitions of the family. You can make the argument, but. And it could be long and developed and let me acknowledge, I mean, the argument, a rational argument for the proclamation on the family would require volumes and never be finished and always be debatable, certainly around the margins. So my intention has always been to say, not that I have a final rational and logical proof for revelations on the family. That's an impossible ambition, or not a wholesome one, for that matter. My point has always been to say, you who think that you have a knock down rational argument against it, haven't examined your own premises and don't know the own. The narratives that you are presupposing. And I'm sure a little impatience comes out in my voice, my authorial voice, when I undertake this. Try to sympathize with me a bit, you know, because I'm working for decades in an academic environment where the assumption is so thick that smart equals liberal, that it gets a little wearing to have to contradict it all the time.

John Dehlin [00:36:51] Sure. No, I think. I think in some ways I could frame what you've done as very heroic and courageous.

Ralph Hancock [00:37:00] Well, there you go. Let's dwell on that a moment. I'm just kidding. Sorry.

John Dehlin [00:37:04] No, I mean it. It seems like the tension that we keep bumping up against in this conversation is just going back to what you talked about, how creating a standard, a standard for the masses and for the norm, which, you know, who would want to live in a world without high standards and in some ways expectations for people, because that's how we achieve higher heights, by having standards for the masses. And I think that where liberalism seems to want to stand up is to say all that stuff for the masses is great, but there's a group of people in the minority for whom those standards have been experienced as oppressive or destructive. And how do we both reinforce some standard and some Norms and encourage some of these for the masses while still not having that mean that those who are in the minority intellectually in terms of their feminism or their sexuality, that is not deathly in some instances for them. And this is where my, you know, my research and my dissertation comes into play because it's very easy to parade the proclamation of the family around and talk about a mother and a father in a traditional home. But as I've come to get to know, you know, gays and lesbians there, you know, there may be a certain percentage of people who experience same sex attraction, who, who are more on the bio, who are more on the bisexual end, who have the flexibility of, of considering, contemplating and even successfully entering into, you know, a mixed orientation marriage. But, but there's a whole category and probably a large percentage of the same sex attracted population for whom, you know, for example, for a gay male for whom the idea of having sexual intercourse with a woman is likely as aversive and as repulsive to them as having sex with the male probably is for you, I'm guessing. And so, and so we can champion the proclamation of the family all we want, but what is a, what does a gay person do who, you know, for whom being with a woman is repulsive? Are they, should they just leave the church altogether? Should they have to face a life of complete loneliness and solitude where they'll never know intimacy and love? And what if for them, their composition isn't such that it's only a matter of sex, but the way that they experience intimacy in attraction towards men is not just a matter of sex, but they're intellectually attracted to men, they're emotionally attracted to men, they're spiritually attracted to men and women. And it's not a matter. You use this term lifestyle liberation, as if it feels disrespectful. Because if you really get to know these people, and I believe you when you say that you have, you'll find that really all they want is love and companionship and the same type of emotional, spiritual and intellectual intimacy that you, I'm assuming, share with your wife. They just want that. It just so happens that the way that they're wired, not by their choice, but by the same God that you appeal to, somehow they got wired to only be attracted spiritually, emotionally and sexually to someone of the same gender. And there's no, you know, they have three options. They can either they can either enter into a relationship that for them is completely repulsive, or they can choose a life of solitude, never knowing the type of intimacy that you enjoy. And that our own doctrine says is against this core belief that it is not good for man to be alone. Or they can choose to pursue a relationship of love. We won't just call it sexual lifestyle liberation, but we'll call it love and basic human intimacy. But if they pursue that, then they. They need to be excommunicated from the church and rejected in many ways by their host culture. And I'm just wondering if we can talk about it in more respectful terms than calling it, you know, extreme lifestyle liberation or whatever it is, the terms that you use to characterize what they would characterize as just a desire for love and basic human companionship.

Ralph Hancock [00:42:17] Well, I mean. You really want me to solve that problem, do you?

John Dehlin [00:42:21] No, no, no. I would love.

Ralph Hancock [00:42:25] We run into. First of all, on the rhetorical question, John, I think the motivation may be compassion for individual cases, for people who have very understandable and even, some respects, admirable desires. But the effect of what they're often asking for, a regime of gay rights understood one way or another, homosexual marriage is. I mean, the tendency is towards lifestyle liberation. It's towards breaking down of heterosexual normativity. So. So that's a shorthand I use, which maybe is a little abrupt sometimes, but I think that, I mean, that's what is at stake. But, I mean, you raised the question extremely well, because, as you see, we're back to the problem of the rule and the exception. Are you saying that we should change the rule or have no rule? I mean, my point is that there will always be exceptions, and some of them are hard, even harsh, and may even seem cruel. But to get rid of the rule would adopt a new rule of no rule, or a rule according to which sexual expression is completely at the discretion and the definition of individuals according to their needs and their propensities. Society will always convey and support an authoritative rule and understanding of what human life is about. And if heteronormativity is no longer at the center of it, then personal expression and liberation will be at the center of it. And for all the costs of the rule and the exception. What I'm saying is I think the former is healthier and better. Now, what do we do about exceptions? I recognize, acknowledge it's a very hard question. And part of the dilemma is that somehow. A certain universalism of democratic normalcy, if I can put it that way, makes it harder for us to recognize and to tolerate and to leave open some implicit space for exceptions. I feel like I'm on the territory of Michel Foucault here, but I can't go very deep into that. But there's the. We are less and less. I mean, Tocqueville is good on this, too. In talking about democracy, we like to think of ourselves as very individualistic and each defining the good for himself. But in fact, we're more resolutely, more rigidly dependent upon shared, authorized social norms than ever. So if I could push society in a certain direction, it would be towards a stronger, firmer, more confident norm of traditional marriage and family, heterosexual and so forth. At the same time, a general recognition that normalcy is good fortune and it doesn't always happen. And so how do you deal with the. How do you deal with the exceptions? First of all, I would caution you that by reaching out to and creating space for exceptions, you risk encouraging them, multiplying them, making them more prevalent.

John Dehlin [00:46:35] But doesn't that assume that homosexuality is a choice instead of a fixed.

Ralph Hancock [00:46:41] No, not at all. It assumes that it's partly a social construction, just like, I mean, the whole idea of gay as we now entertain. It would have been mysterious to, I don't know, Walt Whitman, who I gather was homosexual but had nothing to say about being gay or about defending gay rights or anything like that. So in creating space for exceptions, you're also. You're sort of redefining the social space that invites that space to be occupied where it wasn't before. But look, the heart of the matter is this. You're asking me to solve a problem that not everyone can fully. Not everyone is born with the endowment or the psychological constitution, fully to embrace and live out the highest familial norm that we aspire to. And in a way, what's interesting is that we should think this is an argument against that norm. I mean, it's always been the case, You know, people are born or developed impotence. They're not able to. Men are not able to be fathers in the traditional way, at least. Well, that's a pity. It's not a moral outrage. I mean, I'm arguing against the modern view of society, according to which every. You can see the deep egalitarian, universalist premise behind what you're talking about. Namely, that if you have a social norm that not everyone can fully participate in, then it must be altered or abolished. But that's an impossible standard.

John Dehlin [00:48:48] Okay? And I. So this is. This is important ground that I'm not sophisticated enough to break. But I want to at least make an attempt at starting, at least in this conversation. And that's just that why can't you simultaneously encourage and promote and support, for example, heteronormative relationships, traditional families, and acknowledge that being gay or lesbian for many is not only not a choice and not teachable or encourageable, but it's also not reversible. You know, we've got decades now of research on sexual orientation change efforts where, where every medical institution that I'm aware of has denounced because, you know, same sex attraction cannot be in most cases gotten rid of. It doesn't go away. And it's sort of an innate characteristic for many people that just isn't going to change. So why can't we simultaneously hold up traditional marriage, encourage it, promote it and say. But we also acknowledge that there's going to be exceptions. And for those people, here's a path. You know, let's take the law of chastity and say if you're going to be gay or lesbian, live the law of chastity. If you're going to be gay or lesbian, have a traditional marriage, get married, be monogamous, you know, live in fidelity. There are foster children out there who need raising or kids that can be adopted. And let's allow that because they can contribute and they can live happier, healthier lives living the parts of, let's just say, the gospel that they're able to. And for the parts where they're not able to, let's find a way to support that. But that doesn't have to mean encouraging people to be gay or lesbian or devaluing the traditional family. And, and the point that I want to overlay on top of all that is as I, everyone's going to interpret Christ probably in the way that's most convenient. But notice that, yeah, yeah, it's true, and I'm acknowledging that from the outset. But I'm also going to say that I think a fair reading of what Christ Christ represented can be summarized in this parable about leaving the 99 to go after the 1 or the good Samaritan. It's that if Christianity is about anything, it's about the underprivileged, it's about the socially marginalized, it's about the ostracized. It's about saying those of us who are privileged need to give and to support and to develop empathy and love and compassion for those who fall on the margins. And I can't contemplate any version of Christianity or Mormonism that isn't squarely rooted in feeling that there is a huge moral mandate to understand and love and embrace people who fall on the margins.

Ralph Hancock [00:52:06] Well, I just. We're talking about the rule and the exception. And by the way, I keep using that moniker. Interested listeners might want to see my post at Postmodern Conservative Part of the First Things blogs about the rule and the exception, I think in two parts. And about how Christianity and liberalism relate to the rule and the exception. Because I think it's one thing on religious grounds to reach out to the one, but if you try to do it politically and in a way that has a transformative ambition on society, in effect you are remaking the rule in view of the exception or you are forcing the 90 and 9 to accommodate the. The lifestyle orientation or what have you of the. Of the one. So there will, you know, there will be a social rule society. There is a kind of political, philosophical and anthropological premise that you can see that I'm falling back on a lot. And Tocqueville is one author who would help to sustain it into articulate it. But we don't make up the meaning of our own existence from all by ourselves. We are born into societies, into families, and we're dependent upon what we inherit and what conditions us in our earliest years and the standards and assumptions and paradigms that inform our society. And there will be such assumptions and paradigms one way or another that will influence the way we think about sexuality and the family and so forth. So my view is that we need a strong heterosexual norm. And that will have what may appear to be harsh consequences for people who are unable to live by this norm. And I think we need to have compassion and understanding towards people struggling with those consequences. But I don't think we should change the norm. I think we need the norm. I think let's just think about how you get men to be real fathers. This doesn't happen without social norms, approvals, laws that back them up. It's happening less and less, as you may have noticed. I was just. I just happened to see the end again of that quite thoughtful, if sometimes vulgar Hollywood movie. Is it a couple years old, knocked up? So is it Seth, what's his name? Who's the father?

John Dehlin [00:55:09] And I've never seen it, but. Oh yeah.

Ralph Hancock [00:55:12] Well, it's worth seeing. You might want to watch the clean flicks version. But. So he becomes a father accidentally, but then he, he gets into it and really takes it to heart and to sort of begin to discover the meaning of life in fatherhood at the very end of the movie, which is sweet, but it's kind of accidental and lucky. And we need to think about what Is it in what kind of society is it that we maximize the chances that young men will take on, fully, take on the full responsibilities of fathers as providers and teachers for their families? And I would suggest there's a. I'm painting with very broad brushstrokes here, and this is a difficult argument, I grant you, and one that I'm still trying to work out. But. For men to be proud of their manhood and associate that manhood with the duties of fatherhood is a social accomplishment that depends upon social roles and norms. And anything that you do to throw a loop around exceptions risks undermining, weakening that norm, that vision, that understanding. In a way, what I'm talking about is already, I might say, water under the bridge because so much that the norm has been already weakened to such a great degree. But to teach young men, I'm just focusing on the male side of it for now, to teach young men to teach through explicit teaching at home and Sunday school, but really more fundamentally, through images, exemplars, basic premises that sort of ooze into us from our social framework. To teach young men to praise and honor and be inspired by this role and these duties. It seems to me it's really not finally compatible with granting full authority to all possible exceptions. I mean, however compassionate that may seem. So maybe manhood is partly a natural fact, but fatherhood and husbandhood are social roles that need to be reinforced and buttressed. Those are the rules. The exceptions will always come at some cost. And again, to come back to your premise, I just don't think we can accept the premise that any, truly any true religious principle is one that every human individual can fully, realistically aspire to in this life. So I maybe have a more tragic, otherworldly view of the meaning of life. And by the way, we probably, In our heterosexual normalcy, we've probably gone a little overboard and maybe lost touch with some of the. Some elements of a praise of celibacy that our Catholic brethren developed over the centuries. We probably need to flesh out the holiness of the exceptions a little better. But you can see that, essentially, I don't grant your premise that by asking people who can't be heterosexual to be chaste and celibate, we are imposing a horrible and meaningful life on them. It must be hard. And I'd be the first to admit I could never have seen myself as being good at celibacy. But being good at repenting and recommitting is another way of looking at.

John Dehlin [00:59:38] Just so happens that one of the papers from my dissertation is on the psychosocial ramifications or impact of choices like a mixed orientation marriage or celibacy. We have a sample of over 1,600 same sex attracted Mormons. And it turns out that living a celibate life for those who filled out our survey is comparable in quality of life to having lupus. At least, at least again in our sample. And so while someone who chooses that path, there's probably a lot of noble intent and high ideals that are being performed. I'll just say that the consequences of that choice appear to be very profound in terms of the, the quality of life that you're sort of consigning yourself to. So I, I know that there's too much, there's not enough time to dig into that, but I just want to say that, that that's a problematic choice. But, but you know, for some it's, it's going to be that choice and we should honor and respect those who make it. I certainly do the, the thing that I wanted to come back to though, and I hope you'll forgive these historical

Ralph Hancock [01:01:00] examples, but are you still recording, by the way? You had to start a new tape or something?

John Dehlin [01:01:05] Yeah, yeah, this is all recorded for sure.

Ralph Hancock [01:01:07] Okay.

John Dehlin [01:01:08] Okay. No worries.

Ralph Hancock [01:01:08] Okay.

John Dehlin [01:01:10] But, you know, historically, there were people who defended slavery. There were people who defended women not voting. There were people who defended the legal prohibition of interracial marriage. And all throughout our history, there are reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people who defended things that I again hope, but I'm not always sure, things that you and I both would agree with. Ultimately, we're on the wrong side of history or indefensible. And the challenge that I have with people who oppose gay marriage is that they like to make this connection between preserving and protecting and strengthening traditional families, which I actually share that desire and value. But there's this implication that somehow, number one, that being gay or lesbian can somehow be encouraged by society, which I don't see how that's possible with the data that I have and the experiences that I have. I think that for the most part that's. Those are genetic hormonal factors that determine that long before anybody has any conscious choice. But most importantly, I don't see inherently how encouraging the law of chastity with gay and lesbian Mormons, encouraging monogamous marriage with gay and lesbian Mormons in any way threatens or undermines traditional marriage. I think that we can do both. I think that we can strengthen and encourage and promote traditional marriage. And for those who are gay and lesbian, say, you know, you've always been with us. This is something that God has clearly programmed into his creation that, you know, 2 to 5% of his creation are going to be gay and lesbian. It's not something that we've manufactured as a recent phenomenon. 6,000, 10,000 years of human history show that gays and lesbians have always been with us and probably will always be with us. And so for them, why can't we simultaneously promote monogamous chaste unions with them where they can also enjoy the full benefits of religious participation and simultaneously uphold and defend and strengthen traditional marriage? And I would just say that those who defended slavery, those who defended women not getting the vote, those who opposed the civil rights movement, my understanding is that they all did so claiming that changes would threaten the status quo. But I go back to your original philosophical assumptions that there is a moral good out there and some things need to be done just because they're morally good to do or right. And, you know, I think.

Ralph Hancock [01:04:23] John, I just don't.

John Dehlin [01:04:25] I'll just finish. There's a good argument to be made that it's just the moral thing to do to let a gay or lesbian woman who cannot have a heteronormative marriage, but who chooses to enter into a monogamous homosexual union, that they morally deserve the same tax benefits, inheritance benefits, hospital hospital visitations, the basic same civil rights benefits that heteronormative marriages get. Just because that's the right moral thing to do.

Ralph Hancock [01:04:59] Because you're convinced that it's the right moral thing? No, no, because. And because good people used to defend the tradition of slavery, therefore.

John Dehlin [01:05:06] No, no. Okay, I'm not. I don't know that I'm right. I don't know that you're wrong. I could be wrong, and I am not convinced of anything. But. But I think it's fair to question what. Whether there really is a connection between supporting gay or lesbian marriage and the destruction of the heteronormative, you know, traditional family. I think it's fair to question that and are reasonable to make sure that we don't end up on the wrong side of history, defending things that ultimately history may show, like slavery, like denying people the vote, like other things that are like holocausts, that we don't end up on that wrong side.

Ralph Hancock [01:05:57] So you raise some questions and I follow you up to a certain point. But then you start bringing in this progressive narrative of the right side of history, and that's all. I just don't accept that at all. I don't believe there is a right side of History, I don't think history, I don't worship any God of history.

John Dehlin [01:06:19] But I know that you are glad that women can vote. I know that you're glad that we no longer have slavery. I know that you're glad that Hitler was defeated and that we're no longer putting Jews in concentration camps.

Ralph Hancock [01:06:31] What follows from that? John, you keep making this assumption that you know that progress connects these things with what you're now arguing for. But to me it's a complete disconnect. I think so. I mean, again, you raise some good questions that we should talk about without bringing in the whole progressive narrative. Again, people were once wrong about X, Y and Z, but nothing follows from that. We could be wrong as progressives or as traditionalists today. And history, the right side of history is not going to decide any of that for us. We have to use the powers of our own reason and intimations we have about the good from our own experience and from philosophy and literature. But the right side of history is. Okay, okay is a dodge.

John Dehlin [01:07:13] I see what you're saying. So, but, but so I'm just. So I've made a case for a consideration that we can do both. That we can strengthen family, traditional family.

Ralph Hancock [01:07:23] You can see that. I don't think we can. I think there are trade offs because if you. To grant full authority to exceptions is to despoil the rule. But let me just put it this way. You're just. You're proposing and you're not alone, of course. I mean it's nothing could be more in the progressive era these days. But you're proposing a radical redefinition of what marriage is that completely severs its ties with the biological difference between men and women and the fact of normal old fashioned procreation or reproduction. And I want to reinforce or to preserve or to recover the link, the cultural bonds between our understandings of ourselves as men and women and our basic biological constitution and reproductive function. So you are just attributing much more mutability and transformability to our human, to the constitution of our humanity than I believe is possible. I grant it's a hard question. And you think, well, people thought that ending slavery was radical and they were wrong. Or people thought that giving women vote was radical and they were wrong. So people can be wrong today about fearing the consequences of completely cashiering a traditional understanding of marriage. We're not getting rid of traditional. But it doesn't settle the argument one way or another to say that people were once wrong about slavery. I think that liberalism Aggressive contemporary liberalism has become much more ambitious and transformative than in any earlier age. So, yes, I think there's something distinctive and particularly momentous about the definition of family question or the social normativity of marriage and sexuality question. I think in a way, we're reaching to human fundamentals that go much deeper than the question of race or the question of women voting or anything like that. I think we're playing. We're kind of dealing with the nuclear center, the nucleus of our humanity, in. In potentially very dangerous ways. And I realize there's no purely logical mathematical proof of that. So you've asked me to consider certain possibilities, and now I'm just asking you to consider those. And we could all, you know, develop and share reading lists that would help pursue these arguments. But I think heteronormativity lies much deeper in our humanity than anything regarding race or women voting or anything comparable to that.

John Dehlin [01:10:58] I think I agree with that. But I also. I think it's a worthwhile pursuit to question the assumption that supporting morality and monogamy and fidelity and spirituality for gays and lesbians is not necessarily contradictory to supporting and promoting and encouraging traditional families. I think that's a question that's worth pursuing, and for me, that's informed by the mandate that I interpret from my faith, which is to seek after the One, to have compassion for them and to try and find a way to love and support all of God's children, not just the ones who meet the norm.

Ralph Hancock [01:11:50] Okay, yes, John, I followed you up, and I recognize these are hard questions, and I've only started to develop a side of the argument that needs much more development. But you once again seem to be assuming that to be compassionate is to go in a certain direction. I guess I don't like to fall back on the standard formula of tough love, but I get compassion is not necessarily exclusive of tough love and asking people to accept difficult challenges and conditions.

John Dehlin [01:12:29] Sure, sure.

Ralph Hancock [01:12:31] And so it's a wrenching difficulty that we face. And I think, and you know much more about the question of the sources of homosexuality, biological or otherwise. I just emphasize that there is a socially constructive dimension as well. But I don't deny that there's a biological base that may be more or less constant throughout history. But where was I? Well, just how we should love people who suffer from one limitation or another with respect to our highest ideals is a separate question from whether we should love and have compassion for them.

John Dehlin [01:13:20] Sure, sure, I understand. And this is a tough issue, and I appreciate you being willing to. Wow. To support so many questions and to stand up for your perspectives. I mean, it's really.

Ralph Hancock [01:13:37] Well, these are very difficult questions that I've only. Some of which these last especially, that I've only begun to try to answer. And I'll keep working on it. And I would just ask those more on the side of transformative compassion. I mean, transforming, you know, traditional familial norms and laws and so forth. Just to ask them to consider the possibility that when church authorities take another stand, it's not obvious that this is because they're benighted or prejudiced. It may be that they're guided by reason and revelation to take take into account important considerations that aren't necessarily the most visible to your audience.

John Dehlin [01:14:26] I totally, totally agree. And I think the gaysandmormons.org website that just came out, if you particularly see Quentin Cook's testimony there, you know, Elder Cook, it's very, very clear that he feels very deeply in his. Considered very deeply many of these issues.

Ralph Hancock [01:14:50] Well, it's wrenching and it's difficult, but I guess I just stand by the brethren on the church's position, and I'm not inclined to militate for change. And that is not only out of regard for tradition or revelation, but on rational grounds that I'm still trying to articulate and work out.

John Dehlin [01:15:12] Sure, but you're saying at the core it's a spiritual devotion to the gospel that sort of is probably at the core of all you do, Right?

Ralph Hancock [01:15:22] Yeah, that's true. Although, as I said earlier, I've never been able to make a neat distinction between my spiritual and intellectual lives or convictions. So, I mean, there's always a kind of back and forth in a dialectic. You get guidance from prophecy and revelation, then you must make sense of it integrated into a larger worldview. Make it compatible with rational evidences that seem clear to you, and the two sides can affect each other. Your rational inquiry can cast revelations you accept into a new light. I mean, ever since I was a youth at BYU when I was asked by some more, how shall I say, conservative, not to say fundamentalist leaning fellow students, why would you study philosophy? It's about all these questions, but the gospel has all the answers already. And my somewhat too tidy answer that I'm still somewhat fond of, as you can see, was that, well, there may be the answers there, but we don't have the questions we need to keep. We need a rich intellectual, literary, philosophical life to appreciate what we've got and to know what the questions are to which the gospel provides answers. And certainly this whole sexual marital area is one in which this dialectic is sorely needed and sorely tested. Tested to the extreme in terms of being able to compose the questions, I suppose.

John Dehlin [01:17:11] Right. Well, I think. Well, you've been a marvelous sport. I have so much appreciation and respect for the fact that you'd be willing to enter into a dialogue with me and take so many questions and talk for. I think we've gone four or five hours now.

Ralph Hancock [01:17:30] It's getting close to five hours here, I think. John so that's not a record, by any chance?

John Dehlin [01:17:36] It's close.

Ralph Hancock [01:17:37] I mean, if we need to go 90 more seconds to get the record, I'm willing to hang on here. Although my wife is getting a little impatient.

John Dehlin [01:17:43] Always the overachiever. No, let's. Ralph Dr. Hancock, let's conclude, you know, if I had a goal for this whole thing, it's always to help people see. Help people understand someone's positions better and to help them see a different side and hopefully a more human and compassionate side. And I think you have been unfairly characterized and maligned in the blogosphere and elsewhere at times. And I think. I think someone who listens to you is going to have more understanding about the positions from which you come and also a better sense for your heart and soul in these matters. And so I just want to say thank you for doing it and for being such a good sport about it.

Closing Reflections and Farewell

Ralph Hancock [01:18:35] Well, you're the really good sport entertaining my observations for this long, and I hope I do achieve some understanding among your listeners. I make no claims to being the most complete Christian or the kindest and gentlest person. I try to do my duty. I care about people. There's probably an edge to my personality that I try to control and use for good purposes, but the control is not always perfect, certainly.

John Dehlin [01:19:05] Sure, sure, sure. But let's end. I want to end, as I always end, with just you sharing. I hate to sort of reduce it to saying your testimony, but, you know, for the ages, for posterity, for our listeners. I know that you operate from a position of faith and conviction, and I always love to hear how people articulate their belief and their convictions. And so what I'd love to do, if you don't mind, is you can close by summarizing however you want. I will give you the last word, of course. So summarize however you want. And then I would love to just have you share with the listeners your testimony and conviction of the gospel, such that you have an opportunity to make an appeal or reach to somebody who maybe they're on the fence, maybe they're considering or doubting or have concerns. And in a heartfelt way, you can make an appeal to them to have them maybe consider another approach or some proposition that you think might lead to their benefit.

Ralph Hancock [01:20:20] Well, that's a great opportunity you give me. I'm not sure I can come up with my best stuff after five hours here, but I do appreciate the opportunity in any case. And let me try to sort of give some sense of where I'm coming from at a deep level by A couple of scriptures come to mind. And one is the great psalm of Nephi in 2 Nephi 4, which has always resonated with me because of the. The vexations of life and the uncertainty that we all face. And I think Nephi is talking there partly about his vexed relation with his brothers and his worries about his own mission and so forth. But there's that passage in which he says, finally, but I know in whom I have trusted, and that's what I would like to say, that my mind and my views have many limits and my strategies, maybe even my own sense of my own mission. But I am upheld by this sense that I trust in Christ and am suspicious of the arm of flesh, even though we all fall back on it frequently. But I feel that I have been supported and sustained by the Lord and that he's given me enough knowledge and understanding to press on and to see my way and to bring good things to my family and to myself, and so trust in the Lord so that you will be able to have this gratitude in saying, I might have made mistakes, I didn't understand everything, I might have wandered off the path in one way or another. But ultimately I know in whom I have trusted in Christ and not in the arm of flesh. The other scripture that comes to mind. And I don't even have the passage ready to hand here. Isn't it in the Gospel of John where at one poignant interval Christ says to John, like you've noticed, lots of people are leaving me, right? Are you going to leave me too? Isn't it something like that? And Peter rather, and he says that to Peter. And Peter says, like, where would I go? Isn't that the essence of it? I haven't done a good job of paraphrasing the Scripture, but that's basically my attitude towards the church. And you see how this relates to my intellectual critique of the contemporary. Not only contemporary, but in a sweeping way, the modern intellectual mindset. That's nowhere to go. There's I'm profoundly grateful for the church and its teachings as an anchor and as a portal to understandings of goodness, which I'm only barely starting to grasp, but which I've tasted enough of to guide my life. And now I'm thinking. Speaking of tasting of Alma 32 about the growth of faith from a seed. Is this not real? Can you not taste it? So I've had that experience and it's something real and discernible. It's not distinct from our intellectual quest. It's not just like a blind emotion that prompts or confirms some course of action, although that confirmation is important. There's light involved. It's always partial. It's often very fleeting. But we need to keep seeking out and dwelling in that light. Is this not real? Is this not discernible? That's the way I feel about what the restored gospel offers us. It's real and it's discernible. It's not just a feeling or a commandment, although those things are involved. It is light. Light that only is possible through the keeping of commandments and covenants. And my wish and prayer for you and all our listeners is that we may embrace that light and taste the light ever more acutely and not in any way forsake the light available to us for a mess of pottage offered to us by the arm of flesh. There's my little preachment. Is that something along the lines? Does that count as a conclusion?

John Dehlin [01:25:34] Beautiful. Loved it, really. I really do. And I want you to know that you've taken a lot of heat. And I don't always love the way the tone of the discourse on either side of some of these difficult issues. But I'm really glad that you're there and that people like you are holding down your position. I think that it would be like one of the posts of the tent sort of coming loose if there weren't so shot. I don't know if vanguard's the right word, but just people in society who are willing to hold down one end of the continuum to help provide the tension and the perspective to ground us so that we don't fly away in the whims of man. And I'm glad you have the courage to be there. I'm glad you have the courage to stand up for it. I do. Especially for a higher level of empathy and respect on both sides of the equation. But I'm grateful you're there. I'm inspired by your commitment and courage. And I really am grateful that you would share with us your perspectives and stand for what you stand for. And I think we're all better for you standing where you stand. So thank you, Ralph Hancock.

Ralph Hancock [01:26:54] Thank you, John. And I fully expect that this conversation will help provide some foundation and fertile soil for still more adequate, intellectually adequate and truly loving discussions, which I look forward to.

John Dehlin [01:27:11] Brilliant. Well, just to close, I want to thank listeners for listening. Those of you who want to check out Dr. Hancock's work, we'll put some links on the website, but the johnadamscenter.com is the website. The Bulwark is the name of the blog. You can see his writings there. There's a podcast, it looks like. And send your children to BYU so that they can be instructed by Dr. Hancock and others if you so choose. But the discussion continues@mormonstories.org if you want to go up there and post your comments, critiques, or praise for Dr. Hancock, I would encourage you to. We might even be blessed with Dr. Hancock's appearance from time to time to respond to questions or critiques or concerns. I'll moderate the discussion so that people don't get disrespectful. And I just want to thank our listeners for listening. Thanks to Dr. Hancock for participating. And we look forward to more good, good stories and good discussions in the future. So thanks so much. Thanks, Ralph.

Ralph Hancock [01:28:22] Thank you. And if any listeners have actually listened to these five hours, they deserve some kind of certificate, if not an actual degree.

John Dehlin [01:28:28] Absolutely. So ice cream. Ice cream by Dr. Hancock if you made it to the full five hours. Right?

Ralph Hancock [01:28:36] By all means. All right. All right.

John Dehlin [01:28:37] Thanks, Dr. Hancock.

Ralph Hancock [01:28:39] Thank you. Bye bye.

John Dehlin [01:28:44] Thank you for joining us today on Mormon Stories. Music today was provided by the Saber Rattlers. Check them out@savor-rattlers.com the Mormon Stories logo was generously donated by StudioCase.com thanks for listening.

Guest [01:28:59] Come, come ye saints no toil nor labor fear but with joy lo wend your way though hard to you this journey may appear Grace shall be as your day Tis better far for us to strive Our useless cares from us to drive to the San Jo Hearts will swell oh, all is well all is well. Why should we mourn? I think our all is hard Tis not so all is right why should we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fight Gird up your lo fresh courage take Our God will never us forsake soon we'll have tale of tales oh, all is well all is well oh, all is well all is well. Sam. And should we die before our journeys through half a day all is well we that are free from toil and sorrow too with the just we shall dwell but if our lives are spared again to see the same the rest obtain I will make this chorus well. Oh, all is well all is well all is well

John Dehlin [01:32:52] all is well

Guest [01:32:55] all is well oh, is well. All in the way. Sa.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.