Hancock writes:
Progressive liberalism claims the authority of reason and of openness to a “diversity” of views and ways of life. But the Love Wins mantra reveals the sacred dogma that underlies the pose of open-minded rationalism: “love” understood as boundless acceptance and empathy, excluding all moral judgment, is the new, unquestioned standard of moral judgment. And the prestige of this secular love, impatient with all boundaries and standards, is clearly a residue (however distorted and misapplied) of the very Christianity that secularism must overcome. Secularism is the secularized residue of Christianity. And this residue, in the form of the ideology of “love,” wields amazing dogmatic authority in our supposedly free-thinking secular age. Question every authority, progressive liberalism entices us, but do not even think about questioning “love,” meaning absolute acceptance and non-judgmental empathy, as the sole standard of human goodness. Never in the darkest of Christian “Dark Ages” did an ideological authority envision such a total domination over the human mind and heart as that asserted by the post-Christian humanistic religion of “love.”
Per Hancock, we're entering a new, retrograde "Dark Ages" via a secularism that is masquerading as Christianity. Is it true that the "Love Wins" crowd embraces "boundless acceptance and empathy" as the "unquestioned standard of moral judgment"? Well, is the Maxwell Institute still publishing "negative apologetics"? Hancock contradicts himself scarcely a page later when he notes that "I realize that just by asking what “love” means I am already taking a position that some find troubling or annoying." I guess the "acceptance" isn't so absolutely after all, eh?
The meat of the talk is a long series of deconstructions of "Liberal" LDS writers, all of whom are advocating Christlike discipleship: treating others with kindness and respect; being open to alternative points of view; and perhaps most pointedly, not seeking to drive people out of the Church. At heart, it seems to me that this is what is most at stake for the Mopologists at this point in time. Though they loathe having to admit it or having it pointed out to them, the truth seems to be that the view their ability to kick people out of the Church--the ability to ostracize--as one of the principal things that they are in danger of losing. Elsewhere, discussing a piece by Craig Hairline, Hancock cites this passage from Tom Spencer (Hancock notes that Spencer "see through the specious rhetoric"):
This is a frustrating passage, because it expresses a sentiment (“hey, let’s find a way to help everybody fit in”) that is obviously good on a general level, but then gives that sentiment apparently unbounded disruptive authority
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hancock's penultimate subsection is entitled, "Counterfeit “Love”: the Anti-Christ." He says in the end that the views espoused by Hodges, Hairline, et al. can be traced back to a predictable source: "Amoral universalism always has been and always will be the work of the Adversary." Korihor had a new press; "Sodom and Cumorah" don't get along; and now, the new "Liberal Mormonism" is a tool of the adversary.
In the end, what seems clear about all else is that Hancock and the rest of the moribund Mopologetic enterprise don't care about any Christian "content." There is never really anything that they are advocating: How should one honor one's faith? How should one act and behave? What are "good works"? What is "grace"? Instead, Hancock's presentation is yet another case of "negative apologetics"--a project based on attacks, on tearing down others. It says what others are doing wrong, rather than advocating a way forward.