Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm still not sure what you mean by a conservative in this context or what you mean by taking the Essays as normative.  I'm merely pointing out that they have an official stamp of approval that prior LDS scholarship didn't (you say there has been a long list of statements commissioned by the brethren, but I can't think of any.)  In a correlated Mormon world this approval by church leaders makes a difference.  I imagine prior to correlation that this stamp of approval wasn't as important.  But deference to authorities has always been a part of Mormon culture, especially when leaders are officially recognized as prophets.  Its not on the same level as canon in my opinion.  .....................

You are merely restating what you and I have repeatedly said about what faithful Mormons believe about their faith, as though correlation and the immediate statements of the Brethren are normative forever more -- Not!!  You are giving permanence to evanescence, and do not even seem aware that such is the heart and soul of conservative religion.  You give a force and power to the Essays which they do not in fact have, which is not at all unusual among TBMs.  You are unable to extricate yourself from that box, and seem puzzled when someone calls you on it.  You remind me of Churchill's "riddle wrapped in an enigma," in which the riddle doesn't know its wrapping.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

You are merely restating what you and I have repeatedly said about what faithful Mormons believe about their faith, as though correlation and the immediate statements of the Brethren are normative forever more -- Not!!  You are giving permanence to evanescence, and do not even seem aware that such is the heart and soul of conservative religion.  You give a force and power to the Essays which they do not in fact have, which is not at all unusual among TBMs.  You are unable to extricate yourself from that box, and seem puzzled when someone calls you on it.  You remind me of Churchill's "riddle wrapped in an enigma," in which the riddle doesn't know its wrapping.

Church doctrine is what the church teaches today, and it's pretty clear that nothing is set in stone forever. I wrote a piece years ago about how Joseph Smith had no qualms about completely rewriting revelations. That would tend to freak out the most conservative members, but to Joseph, apparently, even the scriptures are tentative and subject to revision or "further light and knowledge." This is one of the strengths of Mormonism, that it isn't wedded to a fixed text or meaning of text but is fluid. The impulse to see past statements as "normative forever" is behind the repeated attempts by members to justify past teachings such as the priesthood ban, despite the church having moved on and dismissed such speculation.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Church doctrine is what the church teaches today, and it's pretty clear that nothing is set in stone forever. I wrote a piece years ago about how Joseph Smith had no qualms about completely rewriting revelations. That would tend to freak out the most conservative members, but to Joseph, apparently, even the scriptures are tentative and subject to revision or "further light and knowledge." This is one of the strengths of Mormonism, that it isn't wedded to a fixed text or meaning of text but is fluid. The impulse to see past statements as "normative forever" is behind the repeated attempts by members to justify past teachings such as the priesthood ban, despite the church having moved on and dismissed such speculation.

A simultaneous strength and weakness, just as you say, John.  You are a true liberal, just like me.  😎

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are merely restating what you and I have repeatedly said about what faithful Mormons believe about their faith, as though correlation and the immediate statements of the Brethren are normative forever more -- Not!!  You are giving permanence to evanescence, and do not even seem aware that such is the heart and soul of conservative religion.  You give a force and power to the Essays which they do not in fact have, which is not at all unusual among TBMs.  You are unable to extricate yourself from that box, and seem puzzled when someone calls you on it.  You remind me of Churchill's "riddle wrapped in an enigma," in which the riddle doesn't know its wrapping.

I'm not giving it permanence, this is where you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, although I think I've been clear about my perspective, let me try again.  I'm just acknowledging how endorsement of the brethren acts in a very real and practical way in correlated Mormonism.  The Essays have force and power because of how the members view them. 

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that I view as existentially permanent, certainly not Essays, or scriptures or doctrinal pronouncements of any humans.  The only things that I think might have some universal permanence that I can think of are love, life, death, good and evil.  

Try to get specific about those broad concepts and immediately you make those specifics contextual to time and environment.  I'm pretty relativistic, much more so that conservative Mormons.  

Edited August 8, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Church doctrine is what the church teaches today, and it's pretty clear that nothing is set in stone forever. I wrote a piece years ago about how Joseph Smith had no qualms about completely rewriting revelations. That would tend to freak out the most conservative members, but to Joseph, apparently, even the scriptures are tentative and subject to revision or "further light and knowledge." This is one of the strengths of Mormonism, that it isn't wedded to a fixed text or meaning of text but is fluid. The impulse to see past statements as "normative forever" is behind the repeated attempts by members to justify past teachings such as the priesthood ban, despite the church having moved on and dismissed such speculation.

I agree that this concept of change could be one of key theological strengths of Mormonism.  Unfortunately, in our contemporary church, the potential of this concept is significantly muted.  Two things that contribute to this are firstly, the precedent that has been set for finding consensus by the top 15 leaders.  This makes it very hard for any significant changes to take place.  Secondly, the frequent statements by certain leaders that particular doctrines "will never change".  They don't recognize the irony in those pronouncements of certainty on their part, and the fact that just about every doctrine has changed and will continue to change as humans respond to their environment.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not giving it permanence, this is where you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, although I think I've been clear about my perspective, let me try again.  I'm just acknowledging how endorsement of the brethren acts in a very real and practical way in correlated Mormonism.  The Essays have force and power because of how the members view them. 

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that I view as existentially permanent, certainly not Essays, or scriptures or doctrinal pronouncements of any humans.  The only things that I think might have some universal permanence that I can think of are love, life, death, good and evil.  

Try to get specific about those broad concepts and immediately you make those specifics contextual to time and environment.  I'm pretty relativistic, much more so that conservative Mormons.  

I realize that you are blind to your own acceptance of those false notions about LDS theology.  I didn't say that you are a TBM, but only that you accept the same premises that they do -- perhaps not only for the sake of argument.  Even worse, you say that you are only using the TBM version of reality (permanence of Essays in their minds) in order to use it as normative, failing to understand that a false version of reality does you no good in making a coherent argument.  Of course a lot of Mormons have particular opinions, but that does not make them correct.

Moreover, it is not at all established as fact that any of us understand "love, life, death, good and evil."  Each of these is very much a matter of opinion and taste -- not fact.  Were you an authentic liberal, you would apply relativism to the Essays at the outset -- the disjunctures as normative in the long LDS tradition -- rather than taking the hopeless synchronic view you are defending.

Try setting the version of Mormonism of Bruce McConkie over against that of David McKay.  If you do not see that they are at loggerheads, then you completely misunderstand what is at stake.  Judaism too, at one time, had a long list of rabbinic pairs at loggerheads with one another (Hillel versus Shammai).  An excellent teaching tool.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Church doctrine is what the church teaches today, and it's pretty clear that nothing is set in stone forever. I wrote a piece years ago about how Joseph Smith had no qualms about completely rewriting revelations. That would tend to freak out the most conservative members, but to Joseph, apparently, even the scriptures are tentative and subject to revision or "further light and knowledge." This is one of the strengths of Mormonism, that it isn't wedded to a fixed text or meaning of text but is fluid. The impulse to see past statements as "normative forever" is behind the repeated attempts by members to justify past teachings such as the priesthood ban, despite the church having moved on and dismissed such speculation.

Out of points,so very well put.

There might be stuff that is actually set in stone, but until we are dead or can look back 500 years or more on church teachings, how could we know for sure (outside of a personal spiritual witness which turns out to be different for different people)?

I think if we can point to something that hasn't changed since the beginning, we can say there is a high probability that it won't change.  I think if prophets say it won't change, it more likely won't, but there are still somethings that have appeared to change that were seen as unchanging at a previous time.

add-on:  I personally think God allows church doctrine to be fundamentally a little wishy washy or unsettled if you don't like that term to get people turning to him for an anchor rather than being totally dependent on church leadership (after all if they were perfect in knowledge, what would we need to ask God once he confirmed to us they were his prophets?).

Edited August 9, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are merely restating what you and I have repeatedly said about what faithful Mormons believe about their faith, as though correlation and the immediate statements of the Brethren are normative forever more -- Not!!  You are giving permanence to evanescence, and do not even seem aware that such is the heart and soul of conservative religion.  You give a force and power to the Essays which they do not in fact have, which is not at all unusual among TBMs.  You are unable to extricate yourself from that box, and seem puzzled when someone calls you on it.  You remind me of Churchill's "riddle wrapped in an enigma," in which the riddle doesn't know its wrapping.

A rep point is not enough for this- I agree completely.

[mfbukowski]

I just want to point out the strength of our position as Mormons who understand the humanity of Christ better than anyone else- and the similarity of our beliefs with others moving in our direction while seeing themselves as "progressive"

This is from a Facebook group called "Christian Humanists".

Most of the content is your usual "progressive" politics but this statement is quite interesting considering the source

 

Quote

 

Admin · July 23, 2014

The Christian Humanists group exists to champion a positive view of humanity from a Christian perspective. We believe that Christ saw intrinsic value in human life, and his death on the cross was a refusal to play favorites among God's children. He saw the faith of the Roman, the kindness of the Samaritan, and the goodness of the woman and those deemed unclean. He did so while flying in the face of religious convention.

When confronted with death, Jesus wept for the dead. He took joy in bringing life to this world. His eyes were never so focused on the horizon and the afterlife that he could not find value, joy, and loss in the present, in the material world.

Christian humanists adopt this viewpoint and believe that they, like Christ, can make a positive impact on this life, not just evangelize for the next. There are valuable things that exist here and now: love, compassion, excellence, virtue, and so forth. We strive to embody these principles in our lives and, by our example, we hope to inspire others to do the same.

This group exists in part to take a more concrete stance on issues raised by the emerging "Christian progressives" movement. Rather than take up a wishy-washy "anything goes" attitude when that is clearly not the case, Christian humanism advocates specific values while sharing many characteristics of the progressive Christian movement, such as disavowing Biblical infallibility, advocating social justice, and promoting an academic understanding of Christianity, science, philosophy, and so forth in informing our faith and values.

 

 

[williamsmith]

In my view FairMormon should be about the Faithful Truth, still the truth, but 100% in line with the Restored Gospel.

There are other organizations out there which allow the "being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine", promoting whatever "opinion" as if it's of worth when it's frankly not.

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/6/2018 at 9:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

I personally believe there were  Nephites, but it still does not affect the philosophy. In Sunday school we study the Book of Mormon. What do we study? The relevance of the Book of Mormon in our daily lives.

If you believe there were Nephites, do you also believe the resurrected Lord visited them? Or is that simply allegorical or irrelevant? It seems to me that if there were Nephites and the resurrected Christ really visited them and truly said and did the things the book describes, this would necessarily and profoundly raise the importance of the philosophy, historicity and relevance of the book in our daily lives to the very highest level. Mormon insists this is the purpose of the book:

Quote

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.

Would we have a problem with my use of the words really and truly in the above question?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Meerkat]

On 8/8/2018 at 10:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

This group exists in part to take a more concrete stance on issues raised by the emerging "Christian progressives" movement. Rather than take up a wishy-washy "anything goes" attitude when that is clearly not the case, Christian humanism advocates specific values while sharing many characteristics of the progressive Christian movement, such as disavowing Biblical infallibility, advocating social justice, and promoting an academic understanding of Christianity, science, philosophy, and so forth in informing our faith and values.

My beloved Mother was a public health nurse in Alaska.  Every Thanksgiving, my conservative brothers and I would bash with Mom over the evils of liberalism and the virtues of conservatism.

Here we are, years after her death, and I now realuze (too late) that her argument stemmed from a deep love for her fellow beings.  Why couldn't my brothers and I acknowledge that? She felt that many of the problems the Eskimo (and Indian populations in Washington State) faced with alcoholism and other issues, could be best served by the government since churches weren't stepping in at the time, and many also had difficulty finding employment.

Everyone has their reasons for looking at issues from a different perspective.  That doesn't make them bad people.  The main thing, imo, is our individual behavior.  How our love manifests itself may be better or worse informed.  If we are trying to move in the direction of changing for the better, I think we are on the side of the angels, in my opinion.

[Daniel Peterson]

On August 3, 2018 at 9:40 AM, stemelbow said:

I wasn't there, obviously, but someone else indicated that when Gee said, "Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars"

someone, presumably Midgley, shouted out "BOKOVOY" in derision, and that garnered some laughs.  If so, that's pretty disgusting.  

Any confirmations of that from the attenders?  

I can't confirm it.  I didn't hear it.

 

[Daniel Peterson]

On August 3, 2018 at 9:42 AM, jkwilliams said:

I heard that, too. If true, that's really strange. David is one of the good guys, and I've never understood why some people have such disdain for him.

Speaking for myself, I have no disdain for David Bokovoy at all.  Sadness, yes.  Mostly because he's cut off a lot of his old friends, including me.

[Duncan]

Other than cutting off old friends, what happened to David Bokovoy?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Other than cutting off old friends, what happened to David Bokovoy?

I suspect it's an allusion to the Maxwell Institute vs. The Interpreter falling out.

 

Edit: This post by Bill Hamblin might be relevant too. It suggests David Bokovoy has adopted a modern fiction view of the Book of Abraham. (I've no idea if that's fair or not - just that it probably highlights the tension)

Edited August 21, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you believe there were Nephites, do you also believe the resurrected Lord visited them? Or is that simply allegorical or irrelevant? It seems to me that if there were Nephites and the resurrected Christ really visited them and truly said and did the things the book describes, this would necessarily and profoundly raise the importance of the philosophy, historicity and relevance of the book in our daily lives to the very highest level. Mormon insists this is the purpose of the book:

Would we have a problem with my use of the words really and truly in the above question?

As I have said numerous times, I believe there WERE Nephites historically, and that a historical Jesus lived and died and was resurrected.

I confirm those historical beliefs through faith and testimony in the same way I confirm the significance of those beliefs: that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that the atonement is a real force in my life,- also through faith and testimony, the ONLY way they can be confirmed.

How many "reallys" would you like ?

Yes I really believe what I really believe.

I really know what I really know. 

But do you understand that we can never know what really happened just what we really believe?

Physicist cannot even tell us what reality really is. And you expect me to be able to?

For all practical purposes it really is what you believe it is. Yes the sky really is blue and you really can fall off cliffs and you really can stub your toe.

You really can be happy and the gospel really can set you free and because of that is really true. What more could anybody want?

That's all anybody really has anyway, their own beliefs confirmed to them through experience.

Everything you know is in that category. Everything anyone knows is in that category.

And yes that precisely is what science also knows.

And what it knows changes daily.

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

As I have said numerous times, I believe there WERE Nephites historically, and that a historical Jesus lived and died and was resurrected.

I confirm those historical beliefs through faith and testimony in the same way I confirm the significance of those beliefs: that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that the atonement is a real force in my life,- also through faith and testimony, the ONLY way they can be confirmed.

How many "reallys" would you like ?

Yes I really believe what I really believe.

But do you understand that we can never know what really happened just what we really believe?

Physicist cannot even tell us what reality really is. And you expect me to be able to?

For all practical purposes it really is what you believe it is. Yes the sky really is blue and you really can fall off cliffs and you really can stub your toe.

You really can be happy and the gospel really can set you free and because of that is really true. What more could anybody want?

That's all anybody really has anyway, their own beliefs confirmed to them through experience.

Everything you know is in that category. Everything anyone knows is in that category.

Thanks for the reply. Although I understand and agree with your exposition on knowledge, belief, and faith, it went in a direction I was not anticipating, that is, with a critique of the term really. So, with all the debate about the relevance and non-relevance of the historicity of the BoM and its importance in actual impacting our daily lives, it seems to me that this aspect (historicity) of the BoM is not negotiable as far as the LDS faith is concerned. Of course it is a matter of faith and belief since there were no YouTube videos of the event.  Even if there were, that would not be unquestionable evidence. 

If Jesus really did not appear as a resurrected being to a non-existent people, then there is no point to it all. We become just another “faith community” with a strange message that someone made up to help some along their “faith journey.” If he really did appear to those people as described, then it becomes a matter of paramount importance. If the book is not historically true, then there is no reason to have a Mormon....excuse me....CoJCoLDS. I see it as an either/or proposition. While others would disagree with me, I truly do not understand their point. 

On the other hand, the book teaches that God is mindful of all his children and gives them knowledge based on their language and understanding. So then how is the book relevant to them? I suppose that is why we are obligated to flood the earth with the BoM....it is the knowledge of a higher truth, that is, Jesus is the Son of God.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the reply. Although I understand and agree with your exposition on knowledge, belief, and faith, it went in a direction I was not anticipating, that is, with a critique of the term really. So, with all the debate about the relevance and non-relevance of the historicity of the BoM and its importance in actual impacting our daily lives, it seems to me that this aspect (historicity) of the BoM is not negotiable as far as the LDS faith is concerned. Of course it is a matter of faith and belief since there were no YouTube videos of the event.  Even if there were, that would not be unquestionable evidence. 

If Jesus really did not appear as a resurrected being to a non-existent people, then there is no point to it all. We become just another “faith community” with a strange message that someone made up to help some along their “faith journey.” If he really did appear to those people as described, then it becomes a matter of paramount importance. If the book is not historically true, then there is no reason to have a Mormon....excuse me....CoJCoLDS. I see it as an either/or proposition. While others would disagree with me, I truly do not understand their point. 

On the other hand, the book teaches that God is mindful of all his children and gives them knowledge based on their language and understanding. So then how is the book relevant to them? I suppose that is why we are obligated to flood the earth with the BoM....it is the knowledge of a higher truth, that is, Jesus is the Son of God.

But you see there is no way to know if it is 1 historically true or 2 spiritually true.

As we say we do not have videos which could have even been doctored over the centuries, if even theoretically possible.

All we have is faith that it happened and acting on that faith that it happened.

We walk by faith.

Since it is all unknowable in any way except by testimony that has to be good enough for us.

And if it is not then we have no faith. Welcome to the line of critics, waiting to tell us how impossible it all is.

Yeah we know it's true. And We Know by testimony.

And testimony is a perfectly valid way to justify statements about religion, thereby making them true.

So we even have philosophical justification for calling our beliefs true. 

And we have arguments Glory if people wanted to take us on on that point. Anyone who tries is just philosophically uninformed. As I have said a million times positivism is dead.

In short that means that you don't have to prove that God exists objectively in order to be justified in the belief that he does.

And our faith even teaches us that we are here to walk by faith. God does not want us to have objective evidence of his existence. That was the other plan.

Long story short we have absolutely nothing to fear from critics who do not understand philosophy. They can either get educated or persistent in ignorance.

I try my best to help with the former but many times end up face to face with the latter.

We get a lot of that around here.

 

 

[Daniel Peterson]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Other than cutting off old friends, what happened to David Bokovoy?

I can't really say with any confidence or authority, but I've heard that he's left the Church Education System (and, possibly, academia) and that he's now coordinating education programs at the Utah State Prison or some other correctional facility.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I can't really say with any confidence or authority, but I've heard that he's left the Church Education System (and, possibly, academia) and that he's now coordinating education programs at the Utah State Prison or some other correctional facility.

He posted about this on his Facebook page awhile back if someone wants to get details...I'm too lazy to link tonight.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[Peppermint Patty]

54 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I can't really say with any confidence or authority, but I've heard that he's left the Church Education System (and, possibly, academia) and that he's now coordinating education programs at the Utah State Prison or some other correctional facility.

My husband and I are Facebook friends with David. David just started a new job as Managing Director of Salt Lake Community College's 10 campuses and over 60,000 students.  Financially, it was a job he couldn't pass up.  He's uncomfortable discussing it, but he is now one of the highest paid State employees. We couldn't be more happy for him. He has several duties now and one of the most important is that he is also the Director of Prison Education for the State of Utah.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Peppermint Patty

[Duncan]

Just now, Peppermint Patty said:

My husband and I are Facebook friends with David. David just started a new job as Managing Director of Salt Lake Community College's 10 campuses and over 60,000 students.  Financially, it was a job he couldn't pass up.  He's uncomfortable discussing it, but he is now one of the highest paid State employees. We couldn't be more happy for him. He has several duties now and one of the most important is that he is also the Director of Prison Education for the State of Utah.

is he active in the Church? 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Duncan

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But you see there is no way to know if it is 1 historically true or 2 spiritually true.

Certainly not. I do not believe there is a way to prove such things....except maybe when every knee bows and every tongue confesses. I have agreed with you from the start. In fact, I have said several times it is a matter of personal faith, belief, and testimony. Given the primacy of agency and personal accountability, I don’t think it could be any other way.

Prather, I’m speaking to the question of why one would reject the historicity of the BoM and remain in the Church. If the foundation crumbles, it’s time to evacuate the building. Of course there is always the possibility of rekindling the testimony. That is the hope.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Certainly not. I do not believe there is a way to prove such things....except when every knee bows and every tongue confesses. I have agreed with you from the start. In fact, I have said several times it is a matter of personal faith, belief, and testimony. Given the primacy of agency and personal accountability, I don’t think it could be any other way. I’m speaking to the question of why one would reject the historicity of the BoM and remain in the Church. If the foundation crumbles, it’s time to evacuate the building. Of course there is always the possibility of rekindling the testimony. That is the hope.

Well just to come up with an answer, there are people who subscribe to a certain philosophy of life that has no historical basis and they find it very beneficial.

I personally think that the idea that God is a human is a valuable idea for Humanity simply imagining God as a role model, or as a projection of the best that is within us as humans.

The idea of forgiveness and repentance also works pragmatically. After you have stopped doing wrong and done everything you possibly can to correct your previous wrongs, one should be able to forgive oneself for past wrongs which have been committed.

That parallels the idea of being saved from sin after all that we can do.

The idea of following the Holy Ghost parallels notions of many religious disciplines that say that your intuitive and spiritual abilities get better through righteous living, fasting Etc.

None of these ideas that some people find give them purpose in life necessarily need to have a God or some historical event which supposedly justifies the religious view. Again no one looks to events in a philosopher's life to judge his philosophy. As long as the philosophy makes sense and gives good results in one's life it can become sweet in an Alma 32 kind of way.

To benefit from the philosophy of  Kant, one need not believe in a historic event happened which justifies his philosophy.

And so one could imagine that could be the way it is with the church as well. One admires the philosophy and decides to live by it regardless of whether or not is historically justified.

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by mfbukowski