Has your opinion of the LDS church

[BYU Alterego]

Hi BYU Alterego:

You might find it useful in discussing or debating "DNA issues" with folks like DCP and CI to distinguish between the hemispheric vs. limited geography model of the BoM, and the separate set(s) of evolving "population models" that have been applied to the BoM. The Leavitt, Crandall, Marshall article in the Vol. 36 No. 4 Dialogue (2003), for example, while it doesn't reference their historical development, illustrates that it is assumptions/models about ancient Amerindian populations and BoM peoples that are relevant to the DNA science and data. (Hence Whiting's "global colonization model" -- rather than a "hemispheric geography model" -- and the BoM population models of Leavitt et al in their DNA article, none of which are significantly affected by the assumed geographic location or geographic scope of the referenced BoM cities, or of the Book's narrative.)

I mention this because the evolving geography models and the population models have a distinct intellectual history (as Roper's three FARMS articles show) and also present distinct logical, interpretive and (hence) distinct BoM-historicity issues.  If the discussion instead conflates the geographic and population models and issues,  historicity advocates such as DCP and CI have an easier time of it, seems to me, and goodness, we can't have that!   

Two examples.  First, it is clear that JS and his contemporaries all adopted/accepted what Whiting calls the "global colonization model"  and which Leavitt et al. refer to as the "traditional hemispheric model" of BoM/ancient Amerindian populations, which has to do with the absence of pre-BoM indigenous inhabitants in the Americas, not the location or spatial scope of BoM events.  Consequently, favorable comments JS may have made about a mesoamerican location (along with other locations) for BoM peoples and events (the comments DCP invokes) are actually irrelevant to the DNA, historicity and other issues raised by the population model JS and his contemporaries uniformly adopted and believed in.  Perhaps more importantly, they are also irrelevant to the issues raised by the current, conflicting BoM population model advocated by Sorenson, Roper, Meldrum, Stephens and others in the 2003 JBMS articles you (BYU alterego) mentioned.  (The same is true of the oft-invoked textual support -- e.g., limited travel distances -- that favors the limited spatial scope (geography) for the BoM narrative.  The current population model advocated in support of ancient authorship, on the other hand,  raises entirely different interpretive issues and difficulties.)

Second, it is relatively easy to reconcile the limited mesoamerican geography model with the D&C references to modern-era North American Amerindians as "Lamanites" (one of which BYU alterego quotes); hence DCP suggests that no one who adopts that limited geographical model is or should be concerned with those D&C passages.  Without arguing the point here, a distinct, and IMO a much stronger case, can be made that the D&C revelations regarding modern-era Lamanites plainly reflect the original (discredited) BoM population model and also are inconsistent with the current population model advanced by ancient authorship advocates.

With these comments I don't mean to belabor the obvious or wax pedantic, btw; perhaps BYU alterego, for example, understands this difference (yawn, etc.), but his dialogue with DCP seemed to me to suggest otherwise.  In any event, I'd be interested in your (BYU alterego's) assessment of the above-referenced Leavitt article.  Do you think it suffers from the same or similar logical or DNA-science mistakes/defects as those you believe are reflected in the 2003 JBMS articles?

Note to Brant G: if you happen to be reading this thread, I'll respond to your most recent comments re my last post in the "DNA" thread within the next couple of days.

Thanks very much for your post. I have read that Leavitt article a number of times actually. I found it to be quite honest and overall an excellent article.

In fact, I used to work very closely with Dr. Crandall as an undergrad and took a class from him on Molecular evolution and bioinformatic theory. I have a great deal of respect for him. If I hadn't left the Church, I would probably being doing graduate work with him right now. I'm really sad about that actually, one of my few regrets about leaving BYU.

You'll notice that when Dr. Crandall has gone on record about this issue, either at the "Whiting Panel" at BYU or in the Dialogue article, he has shown a lot of restraint not paralleled by Whiting, Butler, Parr and others. Although he apparently maintains his affiliation to the Church, he does not dismiss the data as irrelevant like many of those that Dr. Peterson endlessly cites.

For the doubters, just read the transcript of the symposium on the Tungate site: CLICK ME. Also follow up on the Dialogue article that Addictio mentioned.

Humbly I have to concede your point that perhaps I've been far too assumptive in my arguments thus far. I guess for me I do indeed take the scriptures at face value and don't allow for the wide definition of Lamanite or the wide definition "Jewish" (another D&C issue) that is used by those adhering to theories other than the Hemispheric model.

Thanks again for the post, it was much appreciated...

[juliann]

What happened to you explaining to me that quote on science, positivism and how it connects to your calling people like myself fundamentalist? I was looking forward to that.

There is no tidy border in any of this. No one is 100% anything. Even liberal religions have some conservative elements and vice versa. You seem to see everything as residing in a pothole. Belief is always on a spectrum. But then...that is why you look like a fundamentalist.

You have done little beyond a well spoken version of "is not!". You never respond to the sources...you simply demand more while you give none. And it is just bizarre that you should use Introvigne as evidence that Mormons are fundamentalists when he is the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies saying the exact opposite,

More deeply, the basic epistemology of Latter-day Saint conservatives is entirely different from the fundamentalist paradigm. We have mentioned earlier that

[E Allusion]

What happened to you explaining to me that quote on science, positivism and how it connects to your calling people like myself fundamentalist? I was looking forward to that.

There is no tidy border in any of this.

[juliann]

You asked me if I needed that quote explained to me. My answer was yes. I want the quote's relevance explained to me. Please explain to me what logical positivism is, why it is appropriate to attach that label to the people you are criticizing, such as myself or Sidewinder, and why it is appropriate to use that as a justification to call someone fundamentalist. And if it isn't, why bring it up at all?

 

Because you are all off-shoots of Enlightenment thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_%28philosophy%29

Positivist philosophy states that the only authentic knowledge is the scientific knowledge. It is an approach to the philosophy of science, deriving from Enlightenment thinkers like Pierre-Simon Laplace (and many others).

Fundamentalists will use "science" to "prove" creationalism. You will use "science" to "prove" atheism or whatever brand of anti-religionism you subscribe to. The parallels are endless.

Now, if it has hit Wiki...it is enjoying broad usage. You just can't escape the obvious because you think that disavoing your philosophy that functions as a religion fools anybody. Back to Introvigne, he was probably the first to notice that there was always a "born again" type conversion experience to you finding out "the truth". You then set out to proselytize against the religion that you broke away from to form your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentism

Non-religious fundamentalism

Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For example, when Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself an "atheist state", it was deemed by some to be a kind of "Fundamentalist Atheism" or more accurately "Stalinist Fundamentalism". There are people who in their attempt to live according to the writings of Ayn Rand seem to detractors to transgress respect for other perspectives in propagating their views, so that they are deemed to be a kind of "Objectivist Fundamentalist", and they are spoken of derogatorily as, "Randroids." In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labelled by some as "Secular Fundamentalism." The idea of non-religious Fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "Fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms. Occasionally, it represents an idea of purity, and is self-applied as signifying a rather counter-cultural fidelity to some noble, simple, but overlooked principle, as in Economic fundamentalism; but the same term can be used in a critical way.

So perhaps "positivist fundamentalism" would be a more appropriate description of your philosophy. We have a group who is literal minded and intolerant of Mormonism who think they have the sole source of objective truth.

Perhaps most telling...

A general criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe and practice

We need do little here beyond point out the double standards the critics live by. We point them out on a daily basis. But...it does little good because positivist fundamentalists believe that they have objective truth and are immune from the same introspection they demand of others.

You asked that I explain the following quote to you:

Scientists generally, in contrast to some persistent public misconceptions about science that many social scientists, [fundamentalistic exmos] and biblical scholars still hold, have abandoned the modernist, positivist view of science, preferring a more realistic recognition that their disciplines operate through models, persuasion, and community protocols.

[sidewinder]

Fundamentalists will use "science" to "prove" creationalism.

But that's secondary to what fundamentalism is because not all religious fundamentalism thinks that they can scientifically prove their beliefs. The particular brand of protestant fundamentalism might have, but if it didn't, it wouldn't have all of a sudden not been fundamentalism anymore.

But let us point to the major flaw in your reasoning once again for the benefit of the lurkers:

"If A then C" doesn't imply "If C then A."

If protestant fundamentalism is a member of the set of "enlightenment certainty," that doesn't mean "enlightenment certainty" is a member of the set of fundamentalism. Basic logic. If Lamanites are people, that doesn't mean all people are Lamanites.

You will use "science" to "prove" atheism or whatever brand of anti-religionism you subscribe to. The parallels are endless.

First of all, EA doesn't believe science can prove atheism. Secondly, the positivists didn't believe science could prove atheism. In fact, most positivists didn't believe science could evaluate religious beliefs at all. I'll let you chew on that one for a while.

So perhaps "positivist fundamentalism" would be a more appropriate description of your philosophy.

It wouldn't, for obvious reasons. EA is not a positivist. He's probably a realist. And given EA doesn't dogmatically follow any cult atheist figures like Karl Marx or Ayn Rand, I can see no application of the word "fundamentalist" to EA (The extended wiki definition doesn't help you in EA's case). If EA is a fundamentalist, then the definition is so broad that just about anyone could be considered a fundamentalist for some reason or another.

[E Allusion]

Because you are all off-shoots of Enlightenment thinking.

That doesn't answer my question. Or if you think it does, I'd like you to connect the dots further for me. "Enlightenment thinking" isn't a defining trait of fundamentalism, even if that were true. Simply stating that earth 20th century protestant fundamentalism was part of an Enlightenmnet tradition doesn't prove that anything part of an enlightenment tradition is fundamentalist. That would be - here we go again - affirming the consequent. What you need to establish, if you want this argument to stick, is that this is a defining characteristic of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists will use "science" to "prove" creationalism.

[mbh26]

I'm interested in knowing the truth. I don't want a forum that silences anything that is not faith promoting. I want truth, not sugar coated lies that can only make you feel good for a while. I just don't see the point in asking questions with the only purpose being to find the answer you want and rejecting all others.

Since we are only told and only allowed to talk about faith promoting things in Church, I'm very thankful for this place because here I can say what I really think about religious things. Here I can ask the hard questions and others can attempt to respond. So far asking hard questions has not incited anger against me as it would most people I know in my normal life.

As long as there are still thinking Mormons who want to hold onto their faith, we need this site.

[juliann]

If protestant fundamentalism is a member of the set of "enlightenment certainty," that doesn't mean "enlightenment certainty" is a member of the set of fundamentalism. Basic logic.

Uh huh. And saying that these were birthed in Enlightenment thinking isn't saying anything about your sets. Basic logic.

  In fact, most positivists didn't believe science could evaluate religious beliefs at all. I'll let you chew on that one for a while.

Right...because they eliminated it before it ever made it to any evaluation. That is why those who dogmatically stick to this worldview are seen as ideologues who have no interest in anything but proselyting an already decided "truth".

If EA is a fundamentalist, then the definition is so broad that just about anyone could be considered a fundamentalist for some reason or another.

Well, of course they could. No one is 100% anything. It is just when those traits start to pile up that the label looks quite persuasive.

[E Allusion]

[juliann]

When have I ever used science to prove atheism? That's silly and I have done no such thing, ever. 

You use science to disprove religion. DNA ring a bell? Anyone? Disproving religion, according to the critics, means that whatever they are pushing is magically valid. What you are pushing is not of concern to me which is why I don't keep track of personal traits of this tag team you guys get going.

Moreover, by what definition of fundamentalism is using science to prove something considered a part of it?

Its in just about everything written about the topic. It goes back to the need for black/white/certainty. Technology supplies that for them. Do you think it an accident that the creationists are manned by people with degrees in the sciences? How could you have missed that? It's stuff like this that makes it pretty obvious you are just saying "is NOT!" without knowing much more about it.

If you want to expand the term "fundamentalism" to be so general as refering to any philosophical viewpoint anyone has, then everyone is a fundamentalist and you've robbed the term of is usefulness. You'd also be contradicting it's more technical senses that your trying to connect your assertions to.

Well, the same thing has happened to postmodernism. But that is why scholars/theologians/philosophers are coming in and defining it in ways that provide solutions to the seeming impasse between science and religion. The counter Mormons are just sticking to their usual "false prophet" dressed up in fancy words. Mormonism=bad, Secularism=good. It's not looking nearly as intellectual anymore. Especially when LDS are out there playing with those on the cutting edge of intellectual enquiry.

Fundamentalist thought often appears anti-intellectual because of its proneness to oversimplification.

[E Allusion]

EA: When have I ever used science to prove atheism? That's silly and I have done no such thing, ever.

[sidewinder]

And saying that these were birthed in Enlightenment thinking isn't saying anything about your sets. Basic logic.

As EA pointed out, fundamentalism was a reaction against most of what constitutes enlightenment thinking. The fact that they might have decided at some point, that science can prove the Bible doesn't say much if anything about the enlightenment. Your sources don't make the point you're trying to make, I don't think EA and I have ever disagreed with something you've quoted from Marsden. We just don't think you know how to read your source. It doesn't matter if Evangelicals fundies have a love affair with enlightenment science, enlightenment science couldn't care less about fundamentalism and Evangelical fundamentalism tells us little if nothing of importance about the enlightenment. Specifically, your reasoning that if Evangelical fundies believed in their Bible with "enlightenment certainty" that the enlightenment thinkers were fundamentalists is a clear logical fallacy.

Let me give you an example. Modern genetics tells us something about the Raelians but the Raelians tell us nothing about Modern genetics. Without modern genetics, the Raelians would never have existed. They couldn't have existed in 2000 B.C. They couldn't have existed in an Amish community. The love affair an Raelian might have with genetic engineering concepts doesn't make genetic engineering a cult. Nor does it mean that anyone who loves genetic engineering is an Raelian.

For the lurkers who might think I'm making too extreme of an example here, let's go back to the enlightenment. the claim by Juliann is that evangelical fundies represent enlightenment thinking, that if we study creationists, we have a window into understanding enlightenment thinking.

So take the creationists who testified in Kansas. By understanding how these fundamentalists think, we now understand the following misguided fundies -- or the following enlightenment thinkers who thought a lot like creationists:

Thomas Jefferson

Adam Smith

Immanual Kant

Thomas Hobbes

David Hume

James Madison

George Washington

Right...because they eliminated it before it ever made it to any evaluation.

Don't forget to thank EA. I'm just showing that you don't have even a minimal grasp on the history of science or philosophy.

[thesometimesaint]

sidewinder:

I have no problem with God using the science of evolution to produce me and everything in my world, and universe.

But to posit that Mormonism is a fundamentalist religion is simply false.

[sidewinder]

But to posit that Mormonism is a fundamentalist religion is simply false.

Who's doing that?

[E Allusion]

sidewinder:

I have no problem with God using the science of evolution to produce me and everything in my world, and universe.

But to posit that Mormonism is a fundamentalist religion is simply false.

I don't think anyone here has argued this. From what I've read, the closest anyone has come is when I listed an alternative scholarly defintion of fundamentalism that would place the Mormon religion within it with ease. But that's obviously not the defintion I was defending as the relevant one here. I'm just arguing that Juliann is misapplying the label to people such as myself.

I don't think Mormonism is fundamentalist. I think specific Mormons are, and there is definitely a streak of fundamentalism in Mormon culture, but I don't think Mormon theology is fundamentalist per se, nor do I think fundamentalism can be assumed of a person based upon knowledge of them being a Mormon. For example, I don't think you are fundamentalist.

[thesometimesaint]

E Allusion:

Thank you for the clarification. I was wondering there for a minute if we hadn't brought polygamy back.

[juliann]

For the lurkers who might think I'm making too extreme of an example here, let's go back to the enlightenment.

[E Allusion]

The only difference in my asking for back up and your asking for back up is that you call the refusal to address research as saying "Nuh.Uh." and I call it "is NOT."

I backed up my position Juliann. I...

1) Showed where you go wrong in your intepretation of qutoes

2) Showed quotes supporting my position

You just ignore this and then reassert that no one is dealing with the research, despite the obvious fact they are. I can lead a horse to water, force its head in the trough, shout "Drink Damnit!", splash water in its face, but I can't force it to drink.

If you're searching my history, did you find me saying things like, "However, this procedure for knowing we call "science" is not the only potential source of truth, nor do our epistemic limitations neccessarily tell us what does not exist"

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...30entry309980

Compare that to your assertions about me.

Now, if you will, please demonstrate I am a "positivist fundamentalist."

[Confidential Informant]

I don't think Mormonism is fundamentalist. I think specific Mormons are, and there is definitely a streak of fundamentalism in Mormon culture, but I don't think Mormon theology is fundamentalist per se, nor do I think fundamentalism can be assumed of a person based upon knowledge of them being a Mormon. For example, I don't think you are fundamentalist.

Good lord then what are you arguing about. I know for a fact that Juliann wouldn't disagree one whit with this statement! Nor do I. That's what got us on this topic was BYUAlterego's fundamentatlist views of LDS doctrine, prophets, etc.

The very problem in the Church is you have a good many fundamentalist running around in a very non-fundamentalist theology and when the two clash it causes problems such we see with BYUAlterego.

C.I.

[E Allusion]

Good lord then what are you arguing about. 

That Juliann's use of the term fundamentalist is inappropriate. That should've been obivous enough. The reply you are replying to was written in response to someone who thought someone here was arguing Mormonism is fundamentalist.

[E Allusion]

So perhaps "positivist fundamentalism" would be a more appropriate description of your philosophy.

You're not ever going to defend this, are you Juliann? Granted, I might be baiting you a little here, since I know a decent amount about this subject and it's obvious I'm not a positivist. I probably want to watch you keeping digging yourself further into your hole of ignorance for the observers to watch, but I'd really like to see you try and back up one of your numerous charges about me.

If I were a bettin' man, I'd say to you positivist is a vague word you use for "secular types who are critical of my faith and talk about science and stuff," and it doesn't run much deeper than that. I don't expect you to own up to that, of course, but what is clear is that you don't have a minimal understanding of the labels you are tossing around.

[Pokatator]

My answer: I had doubts and this forum has increased my doubts.

This poll and all the posts, especially the last bunch has further confirmed my doubts. I expected that since this is a LDS site that I could find some answers to many of my questions. And well I have on many questions. But the tone and manner of many and really most of the regular LDS posters on this forum is not in the mode of being LDS but really the same as the opposite. The last several pages of posts in this thread I think illustrate this totally.

The LDS posters are just as arrogant and narrow minded as the opposition. There is no monopoly on stupidity, character assault, strawman arguments, label making, and just plain ignorance.

That has been my disapointment with this forum is that there is no difference between trolls and LDS apologists.....the manner and tone and tactics are the same. Kind of like the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is.......one is in and the other one is trying to get in.

My suggestion to apologists, don't forget who your audience is. Quit labeling and falling into the snares of your opposition. Be different. You are not always helping your cause even though you think you are.