Literal And Liberal Mormons

[Sky]

I came across this great article, and I thought this would be of interest to some of you. Enjoy.

It also explains why the "TBM" acronym can be considered objectionable.

Like the author, I'm pretty sure I fit comfortably in the "literal" or "TBM" category.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just for the record:

I've frequently criticized the proposed dichotomy between "Chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons," and I have to point out, in this case, that Kathryn Skaggs seems -- the details are a bit sketchy -- to be drawing the distinction differently than its proponents normally do.

Granted, she says that "Internet Mormons tend . . . to be more educated" and more "knowledgeable." So far, this tallies with the typical portrayal of "Internet Mormons," who are, in that typical portrayal (which originated with an apostate critic of the Church, and which is principally advocated by ideological soulmates of his), the sorts of people affiliated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute. Moreover, she says that "Chapel Mormons" are "known as 'clueless' to the Internet/liberal Mormon who knows the 'real truth'," and that "Chapel Mormons" are relatively "apathetic, unknowing, naive, and/or less intellectual" -- which, although it's rather harshly stated, does seem consistent with the fact that, on the average, those who follow Maxwell Institute publications and/or attend FAIR conferences almost certainly are more familiar with the details of Church history, etc., than are those who don't. (I think it's highly likely, though I can't prove it, that a significantly higher percentage of Maxwell Institute followers also read BYU Studies, the Mormon Historical Quarterly, the Journal of Mormon History, and the like than one would find in the Church membership -- or even the American Church membership -- as a whole.)

But when Sister Skaggs says that "there are two types of us Mormons -- literal and liberal," it's not at all clear that she has in mind FAIR/Maxwell types and non-FAIR/Maxwell types. John Sorenson, who hypothesizes that the City of Nephi was Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala, is no less literal a believer in the Book of Mormon than somebody who locates the City of Nephi somewhere within the boundaries of today's United States. Both are real locations, with real rocks and dirt, that were inhabited by real people. Cerro Vigia is no less real or literal than is the glacial drumlin just south of Palmyra, New York. Is Jack Welch's belief in the restoration of the priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John somehow less "literal" than the average Church member's belief? I've known him for almost half my lifetime, and, unless he's a truly superb actor, he seems very plainly to take it quite literally, as do I. Is David Paulsen's faith in the resurrection of Jesus non-"literal"? If so, he's never given any clue of it. And I, for one, am absolutely convinced that Jesus rose physically from the dead just outside of Jerusalem in or near 33 AD and that he appeared, quite literally, to Joseph Smith in 1820 in the Sacred Grove.

Rather, the distinction that Sister Skaggs appears to be making focuses mostly on reactions to the social teachings of the Church. She is, she says, "a strong advocate for traditional marriage," and she observes that "the legalization of gay marriage seems to be one of the divisive issues upon which you can differentiate between a liberal and literal Mormon."

There's that word liberal again. She seems to intend it more or less in a political sense.

But is John Sorenson a "liberal" on gay marriage? I don't know. Though I've known him very well -- both socially and as a fellow "apologist" -- for at least twenty years, I can't recall the topic ever coming up. Is Bill Hamblin a political "liberal"? Not to read his e-mails. Is there any reason whatever to believe that people affiliated with FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute are, to any exceptional degree, out of sync with Church leadership on issues related to marriage and social values? None that I've ever seen. In fact, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn that they're more in line with the Brethren on these matters than the Church membership at large.

Sister Skaggs describes "Internet Mormons" as "prideful," and this is often a part of the critics' depiction of those associated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, though it seems more hostile slander than demonstrable fact. Moreover, she says that "Internet Mormons" are "rebellious" and "oppositional to many Church policies and leaders," which also accords with the critics' use of the distinction to attack FAIR and the Maxwell Institute. But does it actually fit those affiliated with those two organizations? I'll take the Maxwell Institute as a test case: Men who have served or are serving as officers of the Maxwell Institute have also served and/or currently are serving as members of the Church's curriculum-writing committees and on scripture-translating teams and as bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents and temple presidents. Yet the Brethren don't generally call "rebellious" men who oppose "many Church policies and leaders" to such positions, which seems to suggest that the leadership of the Church doesn't view the leadership of the Maxwell Institute as being "rebellious" and "oppositional." And, just to be clear once again, there is absolutely nothing in Sister Skaggs's article to suggest that she has the leadership of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute even remotely in mind when she writes of "Internet Mormons."

In other words, although Kathryn Skaggs has picked up the terms Chapel Mormon and Internet Mormon, she doesn't seem to be deploying them in the same way that their originator and his imitators do. Hence, I submit, she offers those critics little or no actual support.

Whether or not the critics who love to wield the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy as a weapon against believers are crowing with delight at Sister Skaggs's article, I don't know. I've tried, with considerable success, to ignore them for quite a while now. But I expect that they will, if they haven't already. This little post is, I suppose, a kind of preemptive shot across their bow. Not that it will do any good.

.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

I can't decide if I'm liberally literal, or literally liberal.

[stemelbow]

Just for the record:

I've frequently criticized the proposed dichotomy between "Chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons," and I have to point out, in this case, that Kathryn Skaggs seems -- the details are a bit sketchy -- to be drawing the distinction differently than its proponents normally do.

Granted, she says that "Internet Mormons tend . . . to be more educated" and more "knowledgeable." So far, this tallies with the typical portrayal of "Internet Mormons," who are, in that typical portrayal (which originated with an apostate critic of the Church, and which is principally advocated by ideological soulmates of his), the sorts of people affiliated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute. Moreover, she says that "Chapel Mormons" are "known as 'clueless' to the Internet/liberal Mormon who knows the 'real truth'," and that "Chapel Mormons" are relatively "apathetic, unknowing, naive, and/or less intellectual" -- which, although it's rather harshly stated, does seem consistent with the fact that, on the average, those who follow Maxwell Institute publications and/or attend FAIR conferences almost certainly are more familiar with the details of Church history, etc., than are those who don't. (I think it's highly likely, though I can't prove it, that a significantly higher percentage of Maxwell Institute followers also read BYU Studies, the Mormon Historical Quarterly, the Journal of Mormon History, and the like than one would find in the Church membership -- or even the American Church membership -- as a whole.)

But when Sister Skaggs says that "there are two types of us Mormons -- literal and liberal," it's not at all clear that she has in mind FAIR/Maxwell types and non-FAIR/Maxwell types. John Sorenson, who hypothesizes that the City of Nephi was Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala, is no less literal a believer in the Book of Mormon than somebody who locates the City of Nephi somewhere within the boundaries of today's United States. Both are real locations, with real rocks and dirt, that were inhabited by real people. Cerro Vigia is no less real or literal than is the glacial drumlin just south of Palmyra, New York. Is Jack Welch's belief in the restoration of the priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John somehow less "literal" than the average Church member's belief? I've known him for almost half my lifetime, and, unless he's a truly superb actor, he seems very plainly to take it quite literally, as do I. Is David Paulsen's faith in the resurrection of Jesus non-"literal"? If so, he's never given any clue of it. And I, for one, am absolutely convinced that Jesus rose physically from the dead just outside of Jerusalem in or near 33 AD and that he appeared, quite literally, to Joseph Smith in 1820 in the Sacred Grove.

Rather, the distinction that Sister Skaggs appears to be making focuses mostly on reactions to the social teachings of the Church. She is, she says, "a strong advocate for traditional marriage," and she observes that "the legalization of gay marriage seems to be one of the divisive issues upon which you can differentiate between a liberal and literal Mormon."

There's that word liberal again. She seems to intend it more or less in a political sense.

But is John Sorenson a "liberal" on gay marriage? I don't know. Though I've known him very well -- both socially and as a fellow "apologist" -- for at least twenty years, I can't recall the topic ever coming up. Is Bill Hamblin a political "liberal"? Not to read his e-mails. Is there any reason whatever to believe that people affiliated with FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute are, to any exceptional degree, out of sync with Church leadership on issues related to marriage and social values? None that I've ever seen. In fact, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to learn that they're more in line with the Brethren on these matters than the Church membership at large.

Sister Skaggs describes "Internet Mormons" as "prideful," and this is often a part of the critics' depiction of those associated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, though it seems more hostile slander than demonstrable fact. Moreover, she says that "Internet Mormons" are "rebellious" and "oppositional to many Church policies and leaders," which also accords with the critics' use of the distinction to attack FAIR and the Maxwell Institute. But does it actually fit those affiliated with those two organizations? I'll take the Maxwell Institute as a test case: Men who have served or are serving as officers of the Maxwell Institute have also served and/or currently are serving as members of the Church's curriculum-writing committees and on scripture-translating teams and as bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents and temple presidents. Yet the Brethren don't generally call "rebellious" men who oppose "many Church policies and leaders" to such positions, which seems to suggest that the leadership of the Church doesn't view the leadership of the Maxwell Institute as being "rebellious" and "oppositional." And, just to be clear once again, there is absolutely nothing in Sister Skaggs's article to suggest that she has the leadership of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute even remotely in mind when she writes of "Internet Mormons."

In other words, although Kathryn Skaggs has picked up the terms Chapel Mormon and Internet Mormon, she doesn't seem to be deploying them in the same way that their originator and his imitators do. Hence, I submit, she offers those critics little or no actual support.

Whether or not the critics who love to wield the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy as a weapon against believers are crowing with delight at Sister Skaggs's article, I don't know. I've tried, with considerable success, to ignore them for quite a while now. But I expect that they will, if they haven't already. This little post is, I suppose, a kind of preemptive shot across their bow. Not that it will do any good.

.

You described many of my main thoughts when reading her piece.

[thesometimesaint]

Front seat of the Chapel liberal Mormon.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I make it a policy, whenever I introduce myself, to hold out a welcoming hand and say "Hi! I'm Jeremy! I'm a Pridefully Liberal Literal Educated Chapel-Internet True-Blue Maxwell-Institute-Reading Sunday-School-Teaching Mormon! Pleased ta meetcha!"

[Sky]

I think Sister Skaggs brought up valid points, and that there is a lot of truth in what she wrote.

When Sister Skaggs used the term “liberal Mormon”, I interpreted it is basically meaning an unorthodox member of some sort – whether that means you support gay marriage, or don’t accept a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon, or rejecting the previous practices of polygamy and withholding the priesthood from black men, and rejecting the sole authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, or believing that Joseph Smith was something less than the prophet of the restoration, etc. Heaven knows there are lots of online posters with these viewpoints, and some still identify themselves as Mormon in a loose sense. I don’t think she had in mind the folks at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute when she described “Liberal or internet Mormons.”

Of course I also believe that you can be a “literal Mormon” or “TBM” and still be knowledgeable and even a serious intellectual. But of course that is something that most critics will never allow themselves to believe.

[volgadon]

I make it a policy, whenever I introduce myself, to hold out a welcoming hand and say "Hi! I'm Jeremy! I'm a Pridefully Liberal Literal Educated Chapel-Internet True-Blue Maxwell-Institute-Reading Sunday-School-Teaching Mormon! Pleased ta meetcha!"

I bet you can't say that seven times fast.

[Daniel Peterson]

When Sister Skaggs used the term “liberal Mormon”, I interpreted it is basically meaning an unorthodox member of some sort – whether that means you support gay marriage, or don’t accept a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon, or rejecting the previous practices of polygamy and withholding the priesthood from black men, and rejecting the sole authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, or believing that Joseph Smith was something less than the prophet of the restoration, etc.

I entirely agree.

I don’t think she had in mind the folks at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute when she described “Liberal or internet Mormons.”

I don't either.

But I'm confident that, somewhere on the Web, some critic has already claimed that she had FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute and/or yours truly in mind -- despite the fact that we don't support gay marriage, that we accept the Book of Mormon as literally true, that we don't reject previous practices of plural marriage and priesthood restriction, that we accept the sole authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, and that we believe that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the Restoration that he claimed to be -- and that her supposed criticism of us validates the critics' accusations against FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute and/or me.

I know how such critics play the game.

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL. A friend who still watches such things tells me that my Malevolent Stalker is assuring his credulous disciples that, in this very thread, I've accused Kathryn Skaggs,of "hostile slander" -- presumably against me and/or FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute. My first reaction was that the Stalker is crazy (which is pretty much my general diagnosis of him). But he's not simply crazy. There is -- I now recall -- this passage:

Sister Skaggs describes "Internet Mormons" as "prideful," and this is often a part of the critics' depiction of those associated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, though it seems more hostile slander than demonstrable fact.

I was, of course, saying that the charge, leveled by critics (not by Sister Skaggs), that those affiliated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute are "prideful" appears to be hostile slander rather than demonstrable fact. (I have no basis for judging whether some unidentified group of others are or are not "prideful." Since I don't know who they are, how could I possibly say?) It doesn't seem to me at all obvious that the folks associated with FAIR and the Maxwell Institute are significantly different from comparable people elsewhere in the "pride" department.

But the Stalker, as is his wont, exploits an ambiguity in the sentence -- whether deliberately or, fueled by his signature malice, reflexively -- in order to spin it in a way that he hopes will make me look bad and make it seem that I'm attacking a "Chapel Mormon" rather than . . . well, a small handful of people who associate with my Malevolent Stalker.

I leave it to readers here to judge whether there is anything in the context surrounding the sentence to justify any claim that I'm attacking Sister Skaggs -- and then, if they're still inclined to say Yes (which I would find surprising), to decide whether there's enough to persist in that view given the fact that I flatly deny that the thought ever occurred to me.

It's going on six years, now, that the Stalker has been twisting virtually everything that I say and do in such a fashion. This latest specimen is, by his standards, a pretty minor league effort.

[Tarski]

I entirely agree.

I don't either.

But I'm confident that, somewhere on the Web, some critic has already claimed that she had FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute and/or yours truly in mind -- despite the fact that we don't support gay marriage, that we accept the Book of Mormon as literally true, that we don't reject previous practices of plural marriage and priesthood restriction, that we accept the sole authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, and that we believe that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the Restoration that he claimed to be -- and that her supposed criticism of us validates the critics' accusations against FAIR and/or the Maxwell Institute and/or me.

I know how such critics play the game.

Occassionally I am accused of being a fundamentalist in my interpretation of what Mormonism ought to mean.

But I wonder which parts I would be allowed to chalk to metaphor or opinion etc.

As far as I can tell, the following are not negotiable:

1) Jesus was literally and physically resurrected.

2) The modern LDS church has unique and sole preisthood authority.

3) Joseph Smith was a prophet

4) Full tithing

5) Climate change denial. (LOL)

Edited February 3, 2012 by Tarski

[cdowis]

I remember "back in the day" that someone wrote an article on the "iron Rodders and the Liahonas". You follow the iron rod on a strict path while the liahona allowed a great deal of flexibility on interpretation of the Gospel. I think those terms are very apt today, and gets rid of some of the implications of chapel vs internet mormons.

[Peppermint Patty]

Thanks Sky. Interesting article. I personally have no problem calling certain LDS members Internet or Chapel Mormons (at least not to their face ). I certainly have noticed there is a divide among LDS based on their knowledge of Church history and various issues.

From personal experience, I have met and know many LDS that are completely unaware of the many issues/history that exist in the Church. I guess Chapel Mormons is an appropriate name for these people.

On the other hand, I have met and know many LDS that have learned of the issues/history and have restructured their belief system to fit with the new evidence. Evidence to support the Church is kept while evidence against it is discarded. I guess Internet Mormons is also an appropriate name for these people.

I think both are vitally important to our Church.

[Pahoran]

Thanks Sky. Interesting article. I personally have no problem calling certain LDS members Internet or Chapel Mormons (at least not to their face ). I certainly have noticed there is a divide among LDS based on their knowledge of Church history and various issues.

From personal experience, I have met and know many LDS that are completely unaware of the many issues/history that exist in the Church. I guess Chapel Mormons is an appropriate name for these people.

On the other hand, I have met and know many LDS that have learned of the issues/history and have restructured their belief system to fit with the new evidence. Evidence to support the Church is kept while evidence against it is discarded. I guess Internet Mormons is also an appropriate name for these people.

I think both are vitally important to our Church.

You should know that the "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy was invented by an Internet apostate on a forum that has largely atrophied since then. The purpose of the dichotomy was to allow him to marginalise anyone who effectively rebutted his anti-Mormon arguments. I've seen him do it. He would say things like "Sure you believe in a limited BofM geography, but you're an Internet Mormon. All the Chapel Mormons believe in a hemispheric geography, so your arguments don't count."

IOW, it had no other function than as a kind of sophisticated "poisoning the well" technique.

I once proposed an alternative use of his labels: a "Chapel Mormon" is a Latter-day Saint who attends Sacrament Meeting in a chapel; an "Internet Mormon" is someone who merely pretends to be a Mormon, for polemical purposes, in internet discussions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

5) Climate change denial. (LOL)

I'm an apostate again for the third time this week. I guess I have to repent.

[Daniel Peterson]

As far as I can tell, the following are not negotiable:

1) Jesus was literally and physically resurrected.

2) The modern LDS church has unique and sole preisthood authority.

3) Joseph Smith was a prophet

4) Full tithing

Those are, certainly, non-negotiable. There are other non-negotiables, too. But there are also many peripheral matters (e.g., Book of Mormon geographical details, the manner of the conception of Jesus, etc.) for which no revelation has been given and whereon members may freely differ and/or that they may freely ignore altogether.

I remember "back in the day" that someone wrote an article on the "iron Rodders and the Liahonas". You follow the iron rod on a strict path while the liahona allowed a great deal of flexibility on interpretation of the Gospel. I think those terms are very apt today, and gets rid of some of the implications of chapel vs internet mormons.

That was Richard Poll, and his was a far more nuanced and far less tendentious distinction.

The inventor of the bogus "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy used to push it to even more ridiculous lengths than he apparently does now. He used to claim, for instance, that the two supposed classes of Mormons constituted two entirely distinct groups, forming two utterly different religions. It was not only noxious and offensive, but a transparently obvious bit of agenda-driven propaganda.

The fact is, as I've pointed out above, that the very people he sought to disqualify as "Chapel Mormons" are absolutely devoted members of the Church, deeply committed to worship and service in both chapels and temples. They are, as I am, dedicated, committed believers.

You should know that the "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy was invented by an Internet apostate on a forum that has largely atrophied since then. The purpose of the dichotomy was to allow him to marginalise anyone who effectively rebutted his anti-Mormon arguments. I've seen him do it. He would say things like "Sure you believe in a limited BofM geography, but you're an Internet Mormon. All the Chapel Mormons believe in a hemispheric geography, so your arguments don't count."

IOW, it had no other function than as a kind of sophisticated "poisoning the well" technique.

Precisely. Disingenuous to its core.

[Calm]

You should know that the "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy was invented by an Internet apostate on a forum that has largely atrophied since then. The purpose of the dichotomy was to allow him to marginalise anyone who effectively rebutted his anti-Mormon arguments. I've seen him do it. He would say things like "Sure you believe in a limited BofM geography, but you're an Internet Mormon. All the Chapel Mormons believe in a hemispheric geography, so your arguments don't count."

IOW, it had no other function than as a kind of sophisticated "poisoning the well" technique.

You forget, it had one other function....to promote the idea of a schism in the Church.

[maklelan]

Poll's article is here, by the way.

[Kevin Christensen]

I liked Poll's article more before I actually read it, over thirty years ago. For distinguishing different kinds of Mormons, I find schemes like the Myers-Briggs types, particularly the contrast between SJ and NT types, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth far richer (16 types in Myers-Briggs versus two from Poll, and 9 stages of cognitive growth in the Perry Scheme) and much more helpful.

Incidentally, in re-reading the Wikipedia article on John Boyd, I was struck by some of the implications for the most appropriate sector of the membership to provide apologetics:

http://en.wikipedia....y_strategist%29

Boyd's key concept was that of the decision cycle or OODA Loop, the process by which an entity (either an individual or an organization) reacts to an event. According to this idea, the key to victory is to be able to create situations wherein one can make appropriate decisions more quickly than one's opponent.

SNIP

Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

• Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
  
• Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
  
• Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
  
• Action: the physical playing-out of decisions
  

Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes.

This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: Command...Control...in the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

There are of course, people who only trust headquarters, and who want everything personally handled, stamped and approved by Moses. Jethro encouraged Moses to delegate. Richard Bushman has argued that Joseph Smith's genius as a leader appears in his organization of independent councils, which meant that the functioning of the church did not depend on his presence or charisma, but delagation and stewardship. The reliance that the headquarters has given towards FAIR and FARMS, and the scholars doing the Joseph Smith Papers project, and the Mountain Meadows books, is, in this context, healthy and appropriate. It shows the most helpful delegation and trust.

I see a lot of people waiting for The Church to settle all questions, assuming that "The Church" means the hierarchy and the formal teaching units of Sunday School, priesthood, manuals, and CES One of the things I learned early on in my mission was that even having me for up to 14 hours a week, the formal teaching units and materials did nothing to prepare me for certain questions. But I avoided the same kind of bitter, life-definining disillusion and resentment that John Dehlin spotlights at Mormon stories because I also quickly found that there were church members wrestling with and answering those questions, and who were capable, able, and eager to share that information. And as time as gone on, what I could find in Nibley, Anderson, BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Mormon Miscellaneous, the occasional helpful book, has become much more abundant and easier to find with FARMS, and FAIR, and the growing group of committed scholars.

I see "the church" as the assembly of members as a whole, and not just the officials and bureaucracy. With that perspective, I've found "the church" fantastically responsive and informative. When I find something particularly helpful in an official publication, I'm pleased to find it there, but I haven't depended on it or expected it for over 35 years. Organizationally speaking, that is not where I expect to find those answers. Hence, I'm not vulnerable to disillusion. I have a much more tolerant and robust set of expectations. And that is, I think, what the revelations would lead me to expect. "Seek out of the best books words of wisdom,... by study and by faith." It says "seek," not "sit and wait" and it says "best books," not "official publications."

And this:

In Destruction & Creation, Boyd attempts to provide a philosophical foundation for his theories on warfare. In it he integrates Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to provide a context and rationale for the development of the OODA Loop.

Boyd inferred the following from each of these theories:

• Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: any logical model of reality is incomplete (and possibly inconsistent) and must be continuously refined/adapted in the face of new observations.
  
• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: there is a limit on our ability to observe reality with precision.
  
• Second Law of Thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system always tends to increase, and thus the nature of any given system is continuously changing even as efforts are directed toward maintaining it in its original form.
  

This underpinning to Boyd's approach, is, I think consistent with the description of D&C 1, which says, "only true and living church with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking of the church collectively and not individually." In parsing D&C 1 as an organic whole, and D&C 1:30 carefully in the context of that whole, the picture is not of a static "only true church", something exclusive, static, complete, and necessarily unchanging, but an "only well pleasing church, distininguished as such relative to what "true and living" means. D&C 1 should not be read as defining an exclusive source of truth, because it not only says that God spoke to Joseph, but to unspecified "others", and goes on to say that God is no respective of persons, and wants to provide knowledge to all. The expectation for doctrinal perfection from leaders cannot be correct because the Lord bluntly says, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." The expectation for doctrinal completeness cannot be correct because the Lord bluntly says, "And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

chastened, that they might repent;

humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

The theoretical unpinning of that Boyd relies upon is also present in the Lord's description of how the LDS church represents "mine authority and the authority of my servants."

The church depends on continuing revelation, and therefore, ongoing change, not an unsustainable stasis.

From this set of considerations, Boyd concluded that to maintain an accurate or effective grasp of reality one must undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with the environment geared to assessing its constant changes. Boyd, though he was hardly the first to do so, then expanded Darwin's theory of evolution, suggesting that natural selection applies not only in biological but also in social contexts (such as the survival of nations during war or businesses in free market competition). Integrating these two concepts, he stated that the decision cycle was the central mechanism of adaptation (in a social context) and that increasing one's own rate and accuracy of assessment vis-a-vis one's counterpart's rate and accuracy of assessment provides a substantial advantage in war or other forms of competition. The key to survival and autonomy is the ability to adapt to change, not perfect adaptation to existing circumstances. Indeed, Boyd noted that radical uncertainty is a necessary precondition of physical and mental vitality: all new opportunities and ideas spring from some mismatch between reality and ideas about it, as examples from the history of science, engineering and business illustrate.

Those who wait on official channels may eventually get the good stuff, but the natural course of things is that they will always be behind in responding to changing situations. The edge is where things happen much more quickly. The difference between the faithful scholars and the skeptics is often found in the difference between those who demand certainty now, to simply and finally "know" as Alma 32 puts it, and those who can find faith in the face of uncertainty on grounds that Alma calls "cause to believe."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

PIttsburgh, PA

Edited February 3, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent post, Kevin.

Incidentally, to my shame, I succumbed to temptation and went and took a look at the thread on his board where My Malevolent Stalker has criticized me for my remarks here. There I found that, yes indeed, several participants are -- just as I expected -- reading Kathryn Skagg's article as a criticism of apologists (including, naturally, me). One, even, of the less irrational posters there, for example, says that Sister Skaggs "is conflating apologists with ex-Mormons. Because they're all picking on Mormons like her."

Can anybody, though, point out to me where Sister Skaggs does this? Or identify a passage in her article where she plainly mentions "apologists" at all? I simply can't see it. I suspect that true believers in the original version of the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy are viewing her piece with "the eye of faith."

[stemelbow]

Excellent post, Kevin.

Incidentally, to my shame, I succumbed to temptation and went and took a look at the thread on his board where My Malevolent Stalker has criticized me for my remarks here. There I found that, yes indeed, several participants are -- just as I expected -- reading Kathryn Skagg's article as a criticism of apologists (including, naturally, me). One, even, of the less irrational posters there, for example, says that Sister Skaggs "is conflating apologists with ex-Mormons. Because they're all picking on Mormons like her."

Can anybody, though, point out to me where Sister Skaggs does this? Or identify a passage in her article where she plainly mentions "apologists" at all? I simply can't see it. I suspect that true believers in the original version of the "Chapel Mormon"/"Internet Mormon" dichotomy are viewing her piece with "the eye of faith."

I'm glad I took your lead and left that joint. What an endless pursuit of banging their head against the wall in hopes it will make it feel better. All while not trying to address what the "it" is.

Edited February 3, 2012 by stemelbow

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm glad to hear that you've left.

It's pretty much an echo chamber. Beyond providing gratifying targets for mockery and derision and personal hostility, the few believing LDS who continue to post there primarily serve to keep the illusion alive that it's actually a place of serious discussion. If they were to ask my advice, which they haven't, I'd be happy if they all left it, so that it could be, even more obviously, what it already essentially is.

.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[fox_goku]

I love Kevin Christensen's comment above concerning academic dilemmas:

"I see 'the church' as the assembly of members as a whole, and not just the officials and bureaucracy. With that perspective, I've found 'the church' fantastically responsive and informative. When I find something particularly helpful in an official publication, I'm pleased to find it there, but I haven't depended on it or expected it for over 35 years. Organizationally speaking, that is not where I expect to find those answers. Hence, I'm not vulnerable to disillusion. I have a much more tolerant and robust set of expectations. And that is, I think, what the revelations would lead me to expect. 'Seek out of the best books words of wisdom,... by study and by faith.' It says 'seek,' not 'sit and wait' and it says 'best books,' not 'official publications.'"

Church authorities do not have time to resolve academic dilemmas. They have a hard enough time keeping the trains running on time within the organization.

For the big issues that one often encounters at the university level, we need to realize that there are OTHER Mormons out there that are dealing with the same issues. Many have written and published. Seek them out. (Of course, I am NOT suggesting limiting our reading to Mormons).

Mormonism, contrary to the thoughts of some, is about individualism. The Church is trying to teach us to acquire insights without losing faith and testimony. Mormons should seek expanded minds. To do so often means that we cannot wait for the stamp of approval from "Moses" (or the equivalent thereof).

[Storm Rider]

I have concluded that I really dislike all of this silly labels: liberal, literal, TBM, etc. I am a Latter-day Saint and all that name entails. I am a man that is a sinner and has never stopped sinning. I have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He is my Savior and Redeemer and Master. All that I know and believe comes from the guidance of his gospel and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. I still struggle every day to be a good husband, father, friend, brother, uncle, and man. Some days all I have to do is drive on the road to remind me of how much I can hate other humans and I feel bad for having those thoughts. Other days I am filled with love for each and every person that I see and wish that I could love more like the Savior loved.

I have problems with the leadership of the Church. They are men and I keep wanting them to be Godly and lead perfectly by the Spirit in all that they do. Even while I type that I rebel with how illogical that is. I cannot be lead perfectly at all times by the Spirit and why should they be? They are just men called of God. I don't think that the Church has a perfect history and I am pretty confident that things could have been different...had God been on earth to lead his Church. However, he has entrusted his Church into the hands of men and he knows they will err. I also know that he is aware of all the wrongs and he will right them and bless all those harmed by them.

At the end of the day it is our challenge to live by faith. Some will hoe to the end of the row; many others will stop midway and give-up. Throw their hands up in disgust with their faith and assume the arm of flesh is the only intelligent way to live. The scriptures are full of warnings about making this choice and it still does not stop these individuals from making this poor choice. The scriptures also tell us that they seek to destroy those people of faith for they want them to be in the same misery that they have found themselves. They have abandoned themselves to the buffetings of Satan and the evil one has wrapped their minds in the chains of both forgetfulness and ignorance. They are anything but free. May God have mercy on them as much as I depend upon that same mercy. From this point forward, just call us Later-day Saints. No need for embellishment or anything else.

[Mark Beesley]

Just for the record:

. . .

Sister Skagg's writings should probably simply be read as her personal musings, and not as an attempt at a sholarly analysis of a social construct, inviting "peer review."

I quite enjoyed her musings, perhaps because I'm sometimes somewhat muddled in my thinking as well.