Elder Packer's Statements To Helen Whitney Regarding

[LifeOnaPlate]

Karl: Why do you presume their sins are your business? That is what I don't understand.

[karl61]

Karl: Why do you presume their sins are your business? That is what I don't understand.

what do you think you do when you play golf or fish: you talk about woman, business and if something they say leaps out of the water like a marlin you ask more questions. They are talking to friends not sitting in the office talking to a Bishop with perceived "consequences" for telling the truth.

[LifeOnaPlate]

what do you think you do when you play golf or fish: you talk about woman, business and if something they say leaps out of the water like a marlin you ask more questions. They are talking to friends not sitting in the office talking to a Bishop with perceived "consequences" for telling the truth.

I don't understand how someone else's moral transgressions pertain to this discussion; or even how they pertain to your or my status in the Church or before god.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am uncomfortable with the whole concept of "useful" vs "un-useful".

So do you think that all facts are equally important and equally useful for all purposes?

[karl61]

I don't understand how someone else's moral transgressions pertain to this discussion; or even how they pertain to your or my status in the Church or before god.

If someone is a priesthood holder and someone knows that something they are doing would not allow them to partcipate in certain duties they are doing would you say to remain silent. I'm out of the church but my friend that ran the gay porno site and fathered a child out of wedlock remains very active in the church - I still am thinking of writing to Salt Lake and just saying maybe you should see if these things have been addressed... because I know him very well, since we were teenagers, and the likelyhood of confession is remotely low - I don't bet but I would be ten thousand dollars he has not been truthful.

[Lightbearer]

HW: Is there a conflict between a faith-promoting work of scholarship and factual scholarship? Is there a conflict at all?

Notice how Ms Whitney tries to say "faith promoting" and "factual" scholarship are two different things. My contention is that faith promoting scholarship IS factual.

[Daniel Peterson]

Notice how Ms Whitney tries to say "faith promoting" and "factual" scholarship are two different things. My contention is that faith promoting scholarship IS factual.

As I reflect on The Mormons, I've begun to think that that attitude is key to her approach to Mormonism. She's a more or less sympathetic observer -- I found her genuinely so, at least -- but she thinks that Mormon faith needs to be uncoupled from "facts" if it's going to survive, since the "facts," in her opinion, run so strongly against us.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I reflect on The Mormons, I've begun to think that that attitude is key to her approach to Mormonism. She's a more or less sympathetic observer -- I found her genuinely so, at least -- but she thinks that Mormon faith needs to be uncoupled from "facts" if it's going to survive, since the "facts," in her opinion, run so strongly against us.

Which, no doubt, is why she was so careless about balance in some of the segments of the program, where the pro-LDS response to some criticisms went unrepresented.

But you and I have discussed this before.

[cinepro]

I believe that Elder Packer, like Elder Oaks was talking about the necessity of adapting the lessons to the needs of the audience.

But who determines the "needs of the audience"?

If two people are speaking to an audience, and one person has determined that the audience needs to believe their claim, make a lifelong commitment and give them 10% of their income, might their message be different than someone who speaks to the same audience but has decided they need to get as much information as possible to make an informed decision, and that making an informed decision is more important than what the outcome of that decision is?

Both will adapt their lesson to the needs of the audience, yet I imagine the content of their speeches will be different.

[Corky Wallace]

(Lightbearer @ Aug 9 2007, 03:29 PM)

Notice how Ms Whitney tries to say "faith promoting" and "factual" scholarship are two different things. My contention is that faith promoting scholarship IS factual.

As I reflect on The Mormons, I've begun to think that that attitude is key to her approach to Mormonism. She's a more or less sympathetic observer -- I found her genuinely so, at least -- but she thinks that Mormon faith needs to be uncoupled from "facts" if it's going to survive, since the "facts," in her opinion, run so strongly against us.

I would agree with HW that Mormonism has an uphill battle vis-a-vis "facts", moreso than other Christian religions. All religions that claim literal supernatural histories have a tough time these days, certainly, but LDS history is quite recent, accounts are available surrounding it's inception & early participants, the relative seclusion of Deseret insulated Brigham and subsequent prophets from scrutiny - and they were pretty "loose" with pronouncements, prophecies, opinions, etc

IMO, LDS leadership today has become much more guarded about pronouncements, there are far fewer formal revelations than 120 years ago. From an ideological position it appears (to me, at least) that Mormonism is somewhat on the defensive.

LDS apologists do "OK" when considering each controversial issue by itself, IMO. (At least they have a response, some stronger than others.)

But if a list of controversial issues was lined up & presented - say like with a jury - with supporting & dissenting evidence & accounts, with rebuttals, it's not very favorable to the faithful (again, IMO).

[selek]

But who determines the "needs of the audience"?

In terms of curricula for use during church time, clearly the Church does.

As a not so bright indivdual said the other day:

To put it frankly, there are a million reasons not to beleive and only a handful of reasons to believe.

From the Church's perspective, there is limited time to discuss all of these matters, and it is both more productive and more consistent with their mission to discuss the reasons to beleive instead of combatting the reasons not to.

It is simply a matter of making the most productive use of the Church's time.

I think we can agree that those who are concerned will have highly personalized lists of reasons not to. As you say anachronisms may be big with one person while another may be most concerned with polygamy. It is unrealistic and impractical to attempt to deal with these issues on a one-size-fits-all-basis.

In this instance, like chemotherapy, the cure may be worse than the disease.

It is better to leave this matter to reasoned and careful individual research and conversations with one's priesthood leaders- which is exactly what the Church advocates.

And if he doesn't get the toffee recipe posted soon, the UMW's are going to take out a contract on him.

But who determines the "needs of the audience"?

If two people are speaking to an audience, and one person has determined that the audience needs to believe their claim, make a lifelong commitment and give them 10% of their income, might their message be different than someone who speaks to the same audience but has decided they need to get as much information as possible to make an informed decision, and that making an informed decision is more important than what the outcome of that decision is?

Both will adapt their lesson to the needs of the audience, yet I imagine the content of their speeches will be different.

It is very likely that the presentations would be different.

It does not necessarily follow, however, that one of them would be wrong.

[jerryp48]

As I reflect on The Mormons, I've begun to think that that attitude is key to her approach to Mormonism. She's a more or less sympathetic observer -- I found her genuinely so, at least -- but she thinks that Mormon faith needs to be uncoupled from "facts" if it's going to survive, since the "facts," in her opinion, run so strongly against us.

Deseret Morning News Article today titled "Filmaker drawn to big questions"

Early suggestions from LDS friends that she read Fawn Bowdie's book "No Man Knows My History" set the stage for Whitney's examination

Clearly her base is unbiased.

[Scott Lloyd]

But if a list of controversial issues was lined up & presented - say like with a jury - with supporting & dissenting evidence & accounts, with rebuttals, it's not very favorable to the faithful (again, IMO).

From a rules-of-evidence standpoint, it is the accusers and attackers of Mormonism who have the uphill battle -- because they shoulder the burden of proof. As defenders, believers need only establish plausibility, a far less daunting task.

[jwhitlock]

If two people are speaking to an audience, and one person has determined that the audience needs to believe their claim, make a lifelong commitment and give them 10% of their income, might their message be different than someone who speaks to the same audience but has decided they need to get as much information as possible to make an informed decision, and that making an informed decision is more important than what the outcome of that decision is?

I'm curious; who are the people out there who think that Mormons need to get as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision, and want to provide it to them? Not PBS, not anti-Mormons, not Christian organizations, nor any other sources I can think of off the top of my head. Those sources are all well filtered to conform to their own agendas and in no way provide as much information as possible.

Are there people out there without an agenda who would provide such unfiltered information?

[Daniel Peterson]

I would agree with HW that Mormonism has an uphill battle vis-a-vis "facts", moreso than other Christian religions.

I disagree.

All religions that claim literal supernatural histories have a tough time these days, certainly,

I disgree again.

I don't think things are any tougher today than at any other time. There are reasons to believe, and reasons to disbelieve. There always have been.

But if a list of controversial issues was lined up & presented - say like with a jury - with supporting & dissenting evidence & accounts, with rebuttals, it's not very favorable to the faithful (again, IMO).

Again, I disagree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deseret Morning News Article today titled "Filmaker drawn to big questions"

Clearly her base is unbiased.

When I saw that story today, I pondered what kind of "LDS friend" would recommend Brodie's book as a primer on Mormonism to an inquiring journalist.

[karl61]

Deseret Morning News Article today titled "Filmaker drawn to big questions"

Clearly her base is unbiased.

I think today it's difficult to say what is biased and what is not; certainly she should be well read and should also have staff researching. She should read all kinds of books if she considers herself a professional. what book list do you think she would get from Elder Packer as suggested readings prior to the interview.

The only thing I am seeing is people drawing conclusions about her and not stating what her biased questions are. You are going after the person. It reminds me of democrats who just go after bush - ask yourself when you are writing are you writing facts or are you writing a conclusion or do you know the difference. what questions do you think came from the Brodie book.

[Corky Wallace]

From a rules-of-evidence standpoint, it is the accusers and attackers of Mormonism who have the uphill battle -- because they shoulder the burden of proof. As defenders, believers need only establish plausibility, a far less daunting task.

Actually, I agree, when it is framed this way, as in determining the guilt of a suspected felon.

But to a relatively unbiased third party - of which I'm not, of course - my hunch is after a balanced, objective presentation was given to a large group of reasoned, educated observers, it would not fare well for the LDS "truth" position.

For example, let's say a lengthy and extensive presentation is made with carefully constructed & "fair" positions pro & against, then a poll is presented:

1- "LDS Church is a positive thing for people & their families, and I think it could be "true", factually & spiritually. I'm open to learning more."

2- "LDS Church is a positive thing for people & their families, but I find the truth claims untenable, it's almost certainly not literally true."

3- "LDS Church is a cult, Mormons are to be attacked mercilessly."

4- "Please let me out of this experiment, I'm hungry & tired. I eject!"

I believe the poll choice with the most votes would be the 2nd, followed by the 4th (or maybe it was 4th, then 2nd!)

"Selling" a religion is an uphill battle, thus HW's (alleged) view that Mormons are an admirable & appealing people, but they're troubled by "facts" / unflattering accounts & assertions in their history.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I agree, when it is framed this way, as in determining the guilt of a suspected felon.

But to a relatively unbiased third party - of which I'm not, of course - my hunch is after a balanced, objective presentation was given to a large group of reasoned, educated observers, it would not fare well for the LDS "truth" position.

For example, let's say a lengthy and extensive presentation is made with carefully constructed & "fair" positions pro & against, then a poll is presented:

1- "LDS Church is a positive thing for people & their families, and I think it could be "true", factually & spiritually. I'm open to learning more."

2- "LDS Church is a positive thing for people & their families, but I find the truth claims untenable, it's almost certainly not literally true."

3- "LDS Church is a cult, Mormons are to be attacked mercilessly."

4- "Please let me out of this experiment, I'm hungry & tired. I eject!"

I believe the poll choice with the most votes would be the 2nd, followed by the 4th (or maybe it was 4th, then 2nd!)

"Selling" a religion is an uphill battle, thus HW's (alleged) view that Mormons are an admirable & appealing people, but they're troubled by "facts" / unflattering accounts & assertions in their history.

There is a wide territory between "I think it could be true; I'm open to learning more" and "It is almost certainly not literally true."

The latter position would be difficult to sustain logically. On the other hand "could be true" is not enough motivation for the average person to put the time and energy into learning more.

But if believers have established plausibility, they have successfully defended Mormonism against the antagonists. The task then remains as it has always been: to move the individual from a point of indifference to one of energetic investigation. So, along the spectrum that you devised, your Point #4 probably should have been placed between #s 1 and 2.

The problem with Whitney's documentary is that in some segments, Latter-day Saints were not even allowed the opportunity to attempt to establish plausibility.

Incidentally, the "burden of proof" concept has far wider application than criminal court proceedings. I first learned it in my debate classes in high school. It makes logical sense no matter what the arena.

[Corky Wallace]

Dr. Peterson:

QUOTE(Corky Wallace @ Aug 9 2007, 04:09 PM)

All religions that claim literal supernatural histories have a tough time these days, certainly,

I disgree again.

I don't think things are any tougher today than at any other time. There are reasons to believe, and reasons to disbelieve. There always have been.

This is a post topic of it's own, but I agree there are reasons to believe & to not believe - and we may yet find there are people who have genetic predispositions to belief or skepticism - but so much of what religions have asserted in the past has been battered by scientific advances & explanations.

200 or 300 years ago a religious fellow could more easily portray his worldview as being "true". That precise message today would be roughed up by the internet, by much more educated & skeptical listeners. Even today there are people for whom the message resonates and those who are not swayed - and that will always be the case. But among the middle who may be "convinceable", the avalanche of information on the internet (& other sources of information) makes the Pro side's task a bit steeper, again, IMO.

[Daniel Peterson]

200 or 300 years ago a religious fellow could more easily portray his worldview as being "true". That precise message today would be roughed up by the internet, by much more educated & skeptical listeners. Even today there are people for whom the message resonates and those who are not swayed - and that will always be the case. But among the middle who may be "convinceable", the avalanche of information on the internet (& other sources of information) makes the Pro side's task a bit steeper, again, IMO.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: I disagree.

[Corky Wallace]

But if believers have established plausibility, they have successfully defended Mormonism against the antagonists.

Defended Mormonism for themselves & other believers, or for a wider audience? I think the wider audience for whom the established plausibility will resonate includes many who've chased other visions / offers / fantasies. (I'm not trying to offend here, only stating my opinion.)

This is how the cynical "Flying Spaghetti Monster" came to be. Religions are non-falsifiable hypotheses, as is the FSM.

As an "optimistic agnostic", I'm frequently disgusted with the harsh & degrading treatment too many ardent atheists give to religionists. Most of the non-believers I know would have nothing to do with trying to play "gotcha" with good people who have beliefs that might seem a little quirky. I find the exchanges on this board to be fascinating and many of the characters - on both sides - to be good people.

[Corky Wallace]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: I disagree.

I respect your opinion.

Question: what do you make of the so-called "god gene"? The notion that people have a predisposition toward belief, skepticism or even uninterest, in things religious?

Like many others, I was exposed to LDS theology as a youth & never really "connected" with the spirit, with others' apparent spiritual experiences, etc. I read accounts of good LDS folks who do all the things the right way - even through much effort & desire to "connect", the light never goes on - who never get the affirming signal that truth has been found, and think "yep, that's me."

[Scott Lloyd]

Defended Mormonism for themselves & other believers, or for a wider audience? I think the wider audience for whom the established plausibility will resonate includes many who've chased other visions / offers / fantasies. (I'm not trying to offend here, only stating my opinion.)

I'm talking about the wider audience. A sound argument is sound regardless of whether one likes it or not.

This is how the cynical "Flying Spaghetti Monster" came to be. Religions are non-falsifiable hypotheses, as is the FSM.

Which is precisely why the detractors, not the believers, are the ones who face the "uphill battle." They can't prove a religion false. They can try to reduce it to the absurd (as in your "Flying Spaghetti Monster") but ultimately, that is not very compelling, because, as I mentioned, they have the burden of proof, being the side that is on the attack.

[Daniel Peterson]

Question: what do you make of the so-called "god gene"? The notion that people have a predisposition toward belief, skepticism or even uninterest, in things religious?

I've read a bit about it. I'm not sure that I buy it (and, apparently, from what I hear, others are beginning to weigh in more skeptically, too), but, even if I did, I'm not convinced that it would say anything one way or the other about the truth claims of religion. (One could argue, I suppose, that, if a "god gene" were really a product of evolutionary development, that would confer a kind of Darwinian "seal of approval" on religious belief in opposition to Freud's claim that religion is pathological and a mental illness.)