Kevin Christensen

Do you understand the difference between normal science operating within the assumptions of a paradigm, and concious paradigm testing? Have read and understood The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I find specificity in which examples a person uses to generalize from is an essential starting point. I have actually read all of Nibley's Book of Abraham apologetics. He does not pretend that he does not have a point of view. He is explicit that he has a perspective, and that no one is required to uncritically accept his arguments, nor does he presume to offer the last word. Indeed, Will Schryver and Tim Barker have offered important observations that Nibley did not make. Nibley read Kuhn and understands paradigm debate. All Nibley was trying to do was to make an argument that belief in the Book of Abraham is reasonable. Not on the basis of objective proof that coerces belief or unbelief, but on the basis of broad explorations that in his view invite belief, and that have not in fact been fully accounted for by skeptics. I recently pointed to Jeff Lindsay's observations that Vogel's survey of Book of Abraham apologetics failed to mention or address One Eternal Round, Will Schryver's FAIR presentation, or Tim Barker's Under the Head presentation. Indeed, I have noticed and called out in print several critics of LDS claims for premature ideological dismissal of Latter-day Saint scholarship. All scholars begin with a perspective. Some have the self consciousness and wit to be self aware and self critical, and are willing to openly state that they have one. Some are so pleased to be able to state that other people have an ideology that they don't stop to reflect on the implications of their own I can think of some Latter-day Saint writers who do not consciously in engage in paradigm testing, but who just present their puzzle solutions as though final and indisputable. Not just believers in Historicity. McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." In terms of conscious paradigm testing of Joseph Smith's claims, McMurrin produced nothing. He died before he could have read Brant Gardner's work, or that of Brian Stubbs, or Jerry Grover, or anything in the Interpreter, or the LiDar surveys, or my work on Barker. So "better" does not enter into it. The point is that I know many top Latter-day Saint scholars who are consciously participating in paradigm testing. Alan Goff, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and literally dozens of others, if not hundreds. The generalization you offer does not account for my personal experience and observation. Again, I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Notice that this generalizes about apologetics at such a high level of abstraction that no specifics are involved. It tells a story, a paradigm, a myth, as though it applies to every situation. And it also ignores what Kuhn explains is the difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm (without actually bothering to solve any specific puzzles, such as Hebrew festival patterns in Mosiah, Lehi's qasida, the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Jerry Grover on New World geology, etc.), and paradigm testing using criteria that are not completely paradigm dependent. It is indeed a very clear example of ideological dismissal. I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. As Kuhn says, it makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two competing paradigms is better. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Antifa equals brown shirts? Really? This does not remind me of the thuggish 30s Brownshirts I know about. The media I watched reported on the 2020 BLM protests as mostly peaceful, not totally peaceful. There is a difference. A person can discuss Mountain Meadows as exceptional behavior or typical behavior. But to claim typical, we need to show that sort of thing happening everywhere all the time. It clearly doesn't. Something terrible happened in 1857, but it was exceptional, not typical. Not matter how many cameras are focused on a burning police car, and no matter how many channels show it burning how often, one car is still one car. Exceptions ought to be discussed as exceptional, addressing what went wrong in a particular instance. But establishing paradigms and controlling narratives via exceptions distorts vision and impedes understanding. You want a reference to the recent Presidential claim about the January 6 2021 assault on the Capitol. Okay. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-appears-forget-jan-6-144119251.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/president-2020-trump-gop-want-200551587.html ICE is deporting people without due process. Masked men grabbing people, including US citizens, without due process. ICE is grabbing people's friends and neighbors, fathers and mothers, people who contribute economically and socially to communities. (Think about the economic and social and diplomatic impacts of the ICE raid on a Georgia Hyundai factory.) ICE acts on Stephen Miller's Replacement Theory paranoia, not the ideals of the Statue of Liberty, nor the demands of Christianity, nor the founding story of this country as a nation of immigrants. "He doth execute the judgment (mishpat) for the orphan and the widow, and he loves the stranger and wants him to be provided with food and clothing. Therefore, you must do the same: love the stranger — remember that you too were strangers [and were oppressed] in the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 10:18–19). That is not a favorite scripture among Christian Nationalists. Nor is this one: "Whatsoever ye have done unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I see no scriptural or Constitutional charge to deport the stranger on principle without delay or weighing whether anything bad might happen to them or whether they actually do have legal grounds for being here or whether any legal issues could be resolved without disrupting lives and communities. No riots after the Charlie Kirk murder. True. Think about why not. His murder was not typical, but exceptional. The BLM protests happened because yet another killing of a black man happened on camera, accompanied by an initial false report of what happened. Not because something totally unprecedented happened. But because something terrible happened yet again in a public, recorded way that millions of people witnessed and deeply felt. Are you aware that from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to the 1950s, there was at least one extra-judicial, usually very public, lynching of a black man every week somewhere in the U.S.? And guess how often the perps were brought to account? The BLM protests did not happen in response to a one-off, or even relatively unusual exception. They happened because of how much had happened before and kept on happening again and again and again. One-off exceptions or occasional incidents, don't by their nature, set off long standing frustrations and long building anger. Reasonable shock and dismay, yes. "Trump fully supports the separation of powers between the three branches of government?" Trump throws public tantrums when the other branches don't give him what he wants. He belittles, bullies, and where he can eventually fires and replaces people who resist on constitutional and legal grounds till he gets done what he wants done, even when that requires placing in a high position someone whose only notable qualification for a job is unquestioning fealty and public subservience to Trump. We all just saw his Truth Social post demanding that the Attorney General prosecute and jail Comey and others. That evidence does not demonstrate his support for and respect of separation of powers. He talks like he would happily replace the Department of Justice and all law with himself at the head of a lynch mob. But he has helped negotiate in Israel. That counts. Not the only thing to consider, not by a long stretch, but it counts. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

No discussion of the point of Antifa. A definition of Fascism and a discussion of why Antifa might seem relevant in America today. Scapegoating, and presumed guilt by association, along with an assumed, not demonstrated, narrative regarding the protests after yet another black man was killed by police on camera. By far, most of the black lives matter protests and protesters in 2020 were non-violent. Paradigms are established and political narratives are controlled by means of which examples are taken as representative. Exceptions are, by definition, not representative. Lies are by definition not representative of reality. (Consider the recent presidential claim that Biden, though not yet president, sent FBI agents to instigate the Jan. 6th 2021 assault on the Capitol, and therefore Biden is to blame). Lies do not represent reality. Establishing paradigms by use of non-representative examples, is, by definition, a distortion. Statistically and factually, right-wing violence occurs far more often in the US than left-wing violence. Sure, one can find instances, but which are most representative versus, which can be exploited by powers that be to control a narrative? Fascism defined. Key characteristics of fascism include: Dictatorial leadership: Power is concentrated in a single leader who is presented as infallible. (Only I can save you.) Militarism and nationalism: It glorifies the military and prioritizes extreme, often exclusionary, nationalism. Suppression of opposition: Any form of dissent is violently suppressed, and basic human rights are disregarded. Belief in hierarchy: Fascism promotes a rigid social structure and the rule of elites, in opposition to democracy and liberalism. Scapegoating and victimization: It identifies internal and external "enemies" to unify the populace and focuses on a narrative of national decline or humiliation. Control of media: The government seeks to control mass media and promote myths and lies to control the narrative. Intertwined religion and government: In fascist states, government and religion are often merged, and business interests are protected. Glorification of violence: Violence is often glorified as a means of achieving national goals. Why does Glen Beck not bother to define and discuss fascism before setting out to discredit and demonize Antifa? What would happen to his message if he dared to do so? (Remember when Beck temporarily experimented with being critical of Trumpism? Was it good for his business? How did he respond to market pressure? I grew up with a copy of the book Profiles in Courage in my house. Now days, it is much easier to find Profiles in Spinelessness and Accommodation.) Is it possible to discuss the definition of fascism and then to explain current US politics as though none of this has any relevance? Is is possible to define fascism and then declare, there is no need for Antifa because fascism poses no real threat to US democracy? Are the No Kings protests this Saturday a manifestation of terrorism or patriotism? FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Yes, but Hubner's story happened in far off Nazi Germany in the 1940s. What possible relevance could it have in an America that is, by the convenient doctrine of ideological exceptionalism, exceptional in all ways and therefore should never be criticized, and has Democratically elected leaders who are necessarily exceptional and moral and above reproach, never ever behave or speak or act like those terrible fascists in 30s and 40s Germany and Italy, except according to the dictionary and history, which, as George Orwell reminded us, does not matter in the least, because, "Who reads Orwell?" Clearly not the President! I am only glad my father died before I, as a loyal American would have to report him as being in a formal Antifa organization, in the 813th Tank Destroyer Battalion, attached to the 34th Infantry Division in North Africa, engaged in unquestioned Antifa activities, and then, attached to the 79th Infantry Division engaged in more Antifa activities through Normandy, the Breakout and drive towards Paris, up through Belgium, down to the 7th Army and the Voges campaign, and then the terrible Nordwind battles at Hatten and Ritterschoffen, and finally, attached to the 101st Airborne for more Antifa activities into Austria and Berchtesgaden. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Besides Steve Smoot, Jeff Lindsay also provided an important response to Vogel's take on Book of Abraham apologetics. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-abraham-polemics-dan-vogels-broad-critique-of-the-defense-of-the-book-of-abraham/ The abstract has this: For a specific example of neglect: Besides ignoring One Eternal Round, Vogel also does not mention Tim Barker's revolutionary FAIR Presentation “Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads.” Barker shows that Joseph Smith directed Reuben Hedlock to fill in gaps in Facsimile 2 with characters from the Hor Book of Breathings and in the published facsimiles declares that he has not translated those characters, a significant obstacle for the long standing claim that Joseph Smith mistakenly thought or fraudulently claimed that he had translated the Book of Abraham from the Hor Book of Breathings. Vogel also fails to mention or engage Will Schryver's FAIR Presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian papers as an attempt to create a cypher, rather than a dubious approach to translation. At the end of his long response, Lindsay reports that: FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Notice that the phrase "one true church" is not part of the formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1, especially not in the crucial verse. Proper interpretation does not mean, add what is missing and remove everything that does not re-enforce what you are conditioned to expect. Deleting 25 words, adding the crucial "one," and ignoring chapter context suggests to me that the reading may lack definitiveness. The common misreading is, I submit, due to human nature according to the Perry Scheme, rather than revelation. Here is position 2 of 9. I have made the case at length (In "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") that Joseph Smith tries to get us to Position 9, which is far more empathetic, tolerant and inclusive, and somehow not a bit cynical. The Book of Mormon itself is much more open to the notion of God working with everyone where they are: And as far as the validity of Personal Spiritual Experiences, I am personally fond of Blake Ostler's personal take here: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment I expected someone to post and comment before now. I have had some notable spiritual experiences along my life journey, but they have also been supplemented by many other kinds of exploration. Intellectual and practical. And of course, lots of Kuhn and Alma 32. Paradigm testing, rather than just puzzle solving within a paradigm, comparative Puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I always notice that the God other people tell me that they don't believe in is very different than the one I do believe in. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT