Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I thought Derrida was all about grafting things in new contexts. That is there is no originary sphere, whether paradigm, language game or context. To write is to graft and thus to create. Or, put an other way, every writing, every glyph, is a new sphere.

Yup. Derrida was about différance, the rejection of the "transcendental signified," which would be the source of meaning, in favor of an acknowledgment that all meaning is negative and deferred. 

Quote

Différance is not only irreducible to any ontological or theological—ontotheological—reappropriation, but as the very opening of the space in which ontotheology—philosophy—produces its system and its history, it includes ontotheology, inscribing it and exceeding it without return. 

So, yes, any "sphere" is a creation not grounded in anything other than the creation itself.

Edited August 3, 2018 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Just my two cents, but I would add that who are we to say that the people who were present at the crucifixion or Gethsemene didn't "understand" it.  They understood it just fine, they just understood it differently of course than a 21st century person understands something through the lens that we are looking at things.  

Mark, I don't understand how you're making a claim here for some universally correct understanding of historical events.  If paradigms are the way we view the world, why would your paradigm be any more "correct" than the paradigm of a first century Jew?  

First tell me where my claim is for a universally correct understanding of historical events

And roughly I'd say that modern paradigms tend to be better then ancient ones in many areas. Of course if you want to use first century science of healing as your Paradigm it's okay with me.

In the first century they did not think in terms of paradigms. But that's okay that was still their paradigm

People who are not used to thinking this way don't understand that relativists understand perfectly that  their relativism is only relatively true anyway.

It's a different way of thinking where one does not see things in black and white, and so " correctness" doesn't matter only utility.

Is a screwdriver more correct than a pipe wrench?

What does the job better? 

It depends on the results you want.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I thought Derrida was all about grafting things in new contexts. That is there is no originary sphere, whether paradigm, language game or context. To write is to graft and thus to create. Or, put an other way, every writing, every glyph, is a new sphere.

I would say that Derrida's work it's not easily summarized in one paragraph.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, churchistrue said:

This is why I hate labels. No matter what you call it or try to define it you end up offending people. Robert De Niro looking in the mirror. "You think you're better than me?" No, I don't think I'm better than anyone. Just different.

 

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Who is your target audience? LDS members in real, honest faith crisis or old, conservative, white members with not a single doubt the Church is everything my dad taught in the 1980's?

 

 

For one who hates labels, you seem quite disposed in the above post to use them (“old, conservative, white members” placed in contrast to those with “real, honest” concerns). 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

First tell me where my claim is for a universally correct understanding of historical events

And roughly I'd say that modern paradigms tend to be better then ancient ones in many areas. Of course if you want to use first century science of healing as your Paradigm it's okay with me.

In the first century they did not think in terms of paradigms. But that's okay that was still their paradigm

People who are not used to thinking this way don't understand that relativists understand perfectly that  their relativism is only relatively true anyway.

It's a different way of thinking where one does not see things in black and white, and so " correctness" doesn't matter only utility.

Is a screwdriver more correct than a pipe wrench?

What does the job better? 

It depends on the results you want.

Well this point in particular seems to claim that there is something not just relatively true about the historic event of the crucifixion.  How are you not asserting that there is something universally correct about the spiritual dimension of the crucifixion.  You're claiming a superior perspective to that of first century Jews.  How is it superior and not just different.  

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Surely you understand that eye witnesses to  the crucifixion did not understand that that historic event could forgive their sins.

They had absolute visual evidence before their eyes of the crucifixion of Jesus and never understood its spiritual dimension.

I also preference my contemporary informed beliefs, especially when it comes to practical issues and the sciences.  But aren't you claiming more than just a personal preference choice, but a more true "understanding".  This seems to apply differently to theological and religious assertions than whether a screwdriver would perform a task better than a pipe wrench.  

 

 

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I agree with this opposition. Testimonies can be rather rigorously rational after all.

I don't know if you saw the reply to churchistrue where I expanded on that a bit. When I speak of leading with my testimony, I evaluate everything related on the basis of that first, then intellectually second. When it comes to things like Book of Mormon scholarship I realize there are questions that are not currently answered by the research, etc. by LDS scholars, but I am much of the same in my beliefs as Heber J. Grant when ridiculed by a colleague concerning the then supposed anachronism of cement. He said in effect that it was not a problem for him because he believed that evidence of cement use would eventually be found (and it has). Although LDS scholarship has identified a lot of things especially in MesoAmerica that provide a plausible backdrop for narratives in the Book of Mormon,  any direct evidence of a people that called themselves Nephites has yet to be found along with a host of other things. I believe that those things will be uncovered in time. I approach the Book of Abraham the same way. I really do not have the educational background in the several disciplines such as Egyptology, Hebrew, anthropology, linguistics, etc. to be able to either confirm or refute what LDS and non-LDS scholars state about this or that area of contention, although I can follow logic and reasoning pretty well (at least in my opinion). Therefore there is a limit to the intellectual rigor I can apply to any one area of concern. I have modified my paradigms about this or that thing as more information has come to light over the years, but none of those paradigm shifts have modified my testimony.

   That is something that I have observed among people that I characterize as leading with their intellect. One poster now believes that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction written by a man in the 1600's based upon his intellectual ventures on the matter. He does not believe that it is an ancient Hebrew/Egyptian document. There are others that seem to have similar characteristics. They have modified their testimonies based upon what their intellect is telling them but remain in the church. Others have let their intellect completely override their testimonies and have left the church.

I hope this is a little clearer than mud.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would say that Derrida's work it's not easily summarized in one paragraph.

I'd say Derrida's work is that work resists summarization.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say Derrida's work is that work resists summarization.

But lots of folks have imitated him. 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

But lots of folks have imitated him. 

Yeah but they imitated him by being opaque not reflective.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Yeah but they imitated him by being opaque not reflective.

Indeed. I defy anyone to wade through Spivak’s introduction to Of Grammatology. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Who is your target audience? LDS members in real, honest faith crisis or old, conservative, white members with not a single doubt the Church is everything my dad taught in the 1980's?

 

 

Anyone who comes to talk with us with concerns or interests as far as I am concerned.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

On 8/2/2018 at 4:09 PM, churchistrue said:

 

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS?

Thoughts?

 

edit: I know this is not the official FairMormon board, but many people here are tightly integrated with FairMormon and most of the long time posters here have strong overlap with the perspectives of FairMormon

 

Did you listen to the Women's conference on Wed? There was an entire day that was not exactly by the book conservative. Conferences are a mixed bag. Talks are not prescreened. Maybe if you looked at it over than time rather than expecting everything to be included in each conference it would give a better perspective. 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your positions are on the edge of what an apologetic focused organization will tolerate.  Your positions are threatening to the more conservative and orthodox types.

Mindreading is so helpful, isn't it?  Saves us from actually having to listen to others tell us how they feel and think.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Considering the content of Gee's speech, it fits.  According to what was said not only is there no room for a perspective like Bokovoy's but any such people should be identified and treated with scrutiny if not completely tossed out of the community.  Maybe I took the message a little more to heart than most, and therefore am misunderstanding to some extent but that's about what I got out of it.  

Bokovoy treats Abraham as inspired midrash in a way I suspect Gee and Midgely object to. I think Gee is still holding out for a missing papyri with a text fairly like Abraham. While I don’t go as far as Bokovoy - or rather I probably treat midrash differently - I think we have what I’d call a deconstructive translation. That is whatever was on the 1st century papyri (and I’m completely open to it including something about Abraham) Joseph is inquiring about the references and getting information. That is I suspect the translation is more akin to a mix of how the BoM went and how the JST and D&C revelations arising out of the JST occurred.

I’ll confess I’ve not read as much Bokovoy as I’d like (although I've enjoyed what I've read) but I believe he’s more in the midrash/pseudepigrapha camp than the pesher/expansion camp. Although I could well be wrong in that.

I suspect part of the issue is how much of FAIR is working out these ideas and how much of it is answering peoples perspectives from a particular stance. I can't speak for what FAIR has become. It's been years since I had time to volunteer much. But back in the early days it mostly consisted of a mailing list where emails were sent around and anyone could answer them. Quite frequently the answerers disagreed. That is the emphasis wasn't on one correct answer or even a single strategy for dealing with doubt. I suspect many consulting FAIR weren't in faith crises at all but were learning things and utilizing it as a way to get answers for questions they have. As I said earlier I think that's where FAIR is most valuable - showing people wrestling with the questions but also showing there's not one way to think about it.

Now occasionally things got testy. I recall disagreeing vehemently with some peoples answers. In hindsight now more than 15 years later some of my answers were quite good and some I'd disagree with now. I'm sure some asking the questions were satisfied and some people were completely dissatisfied. I can recall a few people I knew who left the Church but others stayed and had their testimonies strengthened.

As I've often said ultimately all that apologetics can do is provide a space for people to wrestle with the problems themselves. And the only real satisfying answer is a spiritual one from God. There's intrinsically a limit to what apologetics can do.

My qualm, I fully admit, to the "it's inspired fiction" approach is that it reduces scripture to literature. But it's not at all clear that scripture has the same instrumental value for everyone. Put an other way, it's not clear what the Gospel According to Nephi gives that the Gospel According to King Lear doesn't if it's all fiction. Ultimately it comes down to how enjoyable it is. I'm glad for some people Scripture is so enjoyable they continue to work from it even if they don't buy the history. But I just suspect that's not true for many people.

Edited August 4, 2018 by clarkgoble
Tons of typos due to typing on my phone

[flameburns623]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:10 PM, Glenn101 said:

Was there ever a time in your life when you were zealous in your testimony and believed in the claims that the Book of Mormon makes for itself, and the rest of the story?

Glenn

You were not addressing me.  However, I will note that my own approach to the Book of Mormon is sort of like the joke about the teacher of Judaic Studies,  who approached a Jewish teacher of Talmud:

A gentile professor of Judaic Studies in Iowa finds out that to really learn the Talmud he must go to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn and find himself a teacher. The professor flies over and knocks on a basement door and this little Jew comes out. Upon seeing him, the professor asks to be taught the Talmud, but the little Jews says, “I can’t teach you Tal-mud, you got a goyeshe kop, you just don’t think Jewish.”

The professor insists. The little Jew says, “OK, solve this problem, and I’ll teach you:

“Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig, filthy. Which one washes up?”

The professor eagerly answers, “The dirty one, naturally.”

The little Jew wails: “Goyeshe kop, goyeshe kop! I told you I can’t teach you anything. Listen, the schmutzig guy sees the clean guy. Schmutzig doesn’t see any problem. But the clean guy sees the schmutzig guy and figures he must be just as dirty, so he goes and washes. I told you, you got a goyeshe kop. I can’t help you.”

The professor begs for another chance, and the little Jew gives in, suggesting a new problem to solve:

“Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig. Which one of them would wash up?”

The professor says, “Sure, I know this one, it’s the clean fellow.”

At this, the little Jew wails, “Goyeshe kop, the clean one takes a look at the dirty one and says, Moishe, you’re all schmutzig, go wash already! Enough. I really can’t help you, mister, you got a goyeshe kop.”

The professor begs for one last chance, and the little Jews says, “Fine, one last chance, I’ll give you a completely new problem, then you’ll leave me alone:

“Two people go down a chimney. One stays clean, the other gets completely schmutzig. Which one of them washes up?”

At this point, if you’re telling this joke, it’s all physical stuff, as the poor professor from Iowa freezes, unable to decide which of the two conflicting solu-tions to choose. The little Jew can’t stand it anymore and interjects, “Goyeshe kop, who ever heard of two people going down a chimney and only one of them gets schmutzig?” 

====================

I am a Freemason.  The founding stories of Masonry are, first that we evolved from an ancient actual guild of stonemasons who used the tools and implements of their trade to instruct apprentices not only how to build but also how to live an ethical and meaningful life.  Second, we are taught to emulate one Hiram Abiff, ascribed as the chief architect and builder of Solomon's Temple. Specific stories are told of Master Hiram, almost certainly stories which are not historically true. 

The historicity of Hiram Abiff is not really relevant to the lessons which Freemasonry extracts from the stories told of him. 

When I first became LDS, and when I elected to return, it was with this same sort of understanding of the Book of Mormon.  By the time I returned,  I had come to believe, largely, the same about the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) as I did and do about the BoM. 

I honestly no longer feel great concern or distress over whether or not there were ever a literal Adam or Eve, a Noah or Abraham,  a Saul, David, or Solomon.

In fact, recognizing that much in the Bible is allegory, parable,  mythologized history,  can be liberating.  I no longer have any obligation to stone adulterers or gays or burn witches and the implements of their witchcraft.  I no longer need to trouble myself with the question of whether to chastise my wife, my children, my servants, with few stripes rather than many.

As morality has evolved, refocused,  how Scripture is read can adjust. There are risks in accepting some degree of fluidity in morals: the thought that NAMBLA wants to argue for special rights for pedophiles is distasteful.  I hope the trajectory of change does not veer in that direction.  But, the general motion of change seems to have been upwards and positive.  

 

[churchistrue]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I don't know if you saw the reply to churchistrue where I expanded on that a bit. When I speak of leading with my testimony, I evaluate everything related on the basis of that first, then intellectually second. When it comes to things like Book of Mormon scholarship I realize there are questions that are not currently answered by the research, etc. by LDS scholars, but I am much of the same in my beliefs as Heber J. Grant when ridiculed by a colleague concerning the then supposed anachronism of cement. He said in effect that it was not a problem for him because he believed that evidence of cement use would eventually be found (and it has). Although LDS scholarship has identified a lot of things especially in MesoAmerica that provide a plausible backdrop for narratives in the Book of Mormon,  any direct evidence of a people that called themselves Nephites has yet to be found along with a host of other things. I believe that those things will be uncovered in time. I approach the Book of Abraham the same way. I really do not have the educational background in the several disciplines such as Egyptology, Hebrew, anthropology, linguistics, etc. to be able to either confirm or refute what LDS and non-LDS scholars state about this or that area of contention, although I can follow logic and reasoning pretty well (at least in my opinion). Therefore there is a limit to the intellectual rigor I can apply to any one area of concern. I have modified my paradigms about this or that thing as more information has come to light over the years, but none of those paradigm shifts have modified my testimony.

   That is something that I have observed among people that I characterize as leading with their intellect. One poster now believes that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction written by a man in the 1600's based upon his intellectual ventures on the matter. He does not believe that it is an ancient Hebrew/Egyptian document. There are others that seem to have similar characteristics. They have modified their testimonies based upon what their intellect is telling them but remain in the church. Others have let their intellect completely override their testimonies and have left the church.

I hope this is a little clearer than mud.

Glenn

I've done the same thing. ie modifying my testimony based on intellect but remaining in the church. I have not let my intellect completely override my testimony.

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I've done the same thing. ie modifying my testimony based on intellect but remaining in the church. I have not let my intellect completely override my testimony. 

 

That I believe. I am not making any moral judgments about anyone here, whether TBM, progressive neo-apologist, or anyone that has left the church entirely, just making some observations. And it is really possible for people who question the historical validity of things like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to sit side by side in spiritual peace and harmony with one who believes fervently in the truth claims concerning those same scriptures. However, that depends upon how the one who has a less literal approach handles the situation. I believe that if you will think upon this you will agree.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I honestly no longer feel great concern or distress over whether or not there were ever a literal Adam or Eve, a Noah or Abraham,  a Saul, David, or Solomon.

I never have stressed over that. Nor whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be or not, etc.

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

As morality has evolved, refocused,  how Scripture is read can adjust. There are risks in accepting some degree of fluidity in morals: the thought that NAMBLA wants to argue for special rights for pedophiles is distasteful.  I hope the trajectory of change does not veer in that direction.  But, the general motion of change seems to have been upwards and positive.  

 

I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not believe that fluid morality has been mostly upwards and positive. Your point with NAMBLA is on target. It is distasteful to you right now, and probably always will be. But where will society defined morals be in a decade from now? Society is casually accepting adultery now. There was the recent episode where the owner of an NBA basketball team made some racist remarks (not the first time, I understand) and had a mistress on the side as well. He was forced to sell the franchise because of his racism. Committing adultery was not even in the discussion. Intolerance is also on the rise. Not just racial intolerance, but intolerance of other people's viewpoints. Of course, that is my opinion.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say Derrida's work is that work resists summarization.

I think I found a pretty clear 2 minute summary, which also explains the inevitability of the fall of literalism as an unnatural system.

 

 

[juliann]

On 8/2/2018 at 4:09 PM, churchistrue said:

 

A couple years ago Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason gave presentations that were very friendly or conciliatory to Progressive Mormons or "Neo Apologists". I know that term is loaded because John Dehlin popularized the term. But let's not focus on that for this thread please. Let's just allow that to represent faithful Mormons who hold non-literal views of one or all of Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament, First Vision, etc.

That term is loaded because it is a cynical attempt to avoid labeling them as [LDS] scholars. That is how they would label themselves and how the academic world would label them. Dehlin has a lot to lose by allowing that because he tends more towards anti-intellectualism than the world of these scholars. So it is not about who made it up, it is about why. And I think it would be wise to give them the appropriate label if there is any expectation of communicating with anyone outside of these contentious circles. 

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I've said, the issue fundamentally isn't literalism. Even literalists are selective about where they're literalists. The question is over whether it's all fiction or whether there is some historic truth to scripture. To say "it's inevitable" is just to presuppose it's all historically false. To presuppose that all scripture is false seems demonstrably false. After all while the historic sections of the Bible aren't always historically accurate, neither are they fictional. (I'm here excluding Genesis but rather Chronicles and 1 & 2 Kings and perhaps Acts) 

Literalism will inevitably fall because it IS an alleged "Mirror of Nature" and presumes, wait for it....... the correspondence theory of truth, which is untenable.

It is an unnatural system unable to evolve- it is inorganic and presumes that reality conforms to language while pretending that language conforms to reality

THAT goes with the Derrida video above - it is what is lurking in the corner of the system which will itself bring the system down.

Literalism in religion just cannot survive- and we see the reasons right here, in this thread,  in its opposition.

Religion is dynamic and personal and subjective and beyond clear definition which is precisely the opposite of literalism, cast in stone in the false temple of TRVTH.

What is odd is that literalists take the Tower of Babel literally which shows that language is confounded, yet literalism is the presumption that language is perfect and that words written thousands of years ago are the WORD of God- in natural language.

Go figure.  It is a mass of confusion .

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:57 PM, churchistrue said:

Yes. Up until about 10 years ago or so.

What happened afterwards?

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I found a pretty clear 2 minute summary, which also explains the inevitability of the fall of literalism as an unnatural system.

 

 

Not bad. Of course, it’s not just literalism that falls but metaphor, subjectivism—all expression that collapses on itself. By Derrida’s conception, even the “raw experience” of the spirit is in its very experience already working at deconstructing itself. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2018 at 2:49 AM, clarkgoble said:

You should note that the issue isn't whether the flood is literal but whether it was historically accurate to say it covered Mount Everest.

Well, whatever else is going on in this thread, there is no way for the flood to have covered Mount Everest. That amount of water would have been many times the current volume of water in all the world's oceans.  So, where did it all go when the dry land was revealed?  Another problem is that there would be no fresh water left upon the surface of the earth.

I can accept the flood as a literal event, but unless there's some special (and unrecorded) post-flood supernatural handling of all that water, it wasn't the world-covering event some literalists want to insist upon.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2018 at 7:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

The key word is "hope"  And I share that hope.

I really do not for one second understand why no one on this board could comprehend that a statement can be both historic and metaphorical of something else at the same time.

For me the second coming maybe when I die.

Or maybe I will see Christ come with my natural eyes.

I see both possibilities. But it seems no one else here is capable of that. I totally don't get it.

If one is true the other must be false.

Who thinks that way?

Am unclear how you can think no one else here is capable of seeing both possibilities.  Do you know everyone here so well?

After many years I have come to certain conclusions.  The most important is that God lives and Jesus is the Christ.  In addition to this is the strong conviction that in my great knowledge I know very little.  I seek to know everything, however, and in the finding out I expect to discover that many of my assumptions will prove to be incomplete or even be completely wrong.  There is a Universe of possibilities out there, and I hope to know all about them in due time.  Alma 12:9,10.