Warts and all kind of history

[Deborah]

If I ever come back to church (and I doubt that could ever happen) then at least I would come back empowered by knowlege rather than wallowing in ignorance. It frustrates me no end that my friends judge my decision to leave the church yet I can't have an open conversation as to why, for fear of upsetting the balance of their faith.

But again the assumption seems to be if we choose to stay we somehow don't have the knowledge that those who leave do. I feel empowered by knowledge since coming back to full activity (though doctrine was never the issue anyway). We still have the issue of why those who left feel like their sources are any more accurate than ours. And even when one reads the Apologetic sources or members read the Anti sources we still come to different conclusions. There is something more than just reading; it's still a matter of what we choose to believe.

[JNclone]

What are you doing over there, Kerry? I thought they let you out of the insane asylum?!?!?

Zǐ Yuē: "W

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 07:50 AM

But again the assumption seems to be if we choose to stay we somehow don't have the knowledge that those who leave do. I feel empowered by knowledge since coming back to full activity (though doctrine was never the issue anyway).

Some may incorrectly make that assumption that everyone who stays must not have as much information. I would say some do and some don't.

We still have the issue of why those who left feel like their sources are any more accurate than ours.

Again some may. I have seen a number of people here who think apologetic information is much more accurate as well. My experience is that there are inaccuracies from both sides. Some sources are better than others. Both sides have their bias, some more than others, so we can't get a more accurate picture if were not willing to look at each sides information as they relate it. I find the EV info usually very poor which is why some EV's who show up here and haven't got a better picture by reading the other side and usually make a fool of themselves.

And even when one reads the Apologetic sources or members read the Anti sources we still come to different conclusions.

Sure happens all the time on many issues. I still have to wonder with all the knowledge we have why many around the world still believe in a global flood or 6000 year old earth. It may have to do with your last statement and what you said on another thread.

There is something more than just reading; it's still a matter of what we choose to believe.

I think our choice of what we read and accept reflects the bias we already have and the direction we have already chosen to go and we are just looking for support for either choice.

I think to many whether it's members of the LDS or or religions like the EV's have already made their choice (based usually on their interpretations of their spiritual experiences) and any contradictory information can be ignored, and they will usually only get their sources from those who agree with their beliefs. Once that choice has been made we have little chance of controlling our bias on whatever issue we may be looking at that concerns those choices.

[Daniel Peterson]

There are two mistakes in your romanization of this abbreviated quotation.

As Bishop Joseph Butler did not say "Sir, the pretending to extraordinary facility in a language one does not comprehend is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing."

Where did this habit start?

Let's face it: Bill Hamblin is a villain. He didn't know that Confucius didn't say what he said Confucius said, and even though he didn't actually seriously say that Confucius really said it, what he did say was an insult to Confucius and to Chinese people everywhere, which reveals his true character (Bill Hamblin is a villain), and his character is also revealed in his attempt to pretend that he's fluent in Chinese (Bill Hamblin is a villain), and this is a Watershed Moment in the History of Mopologetics© that discredits everything he's written and shows him to be a man of no character (Bill Hamblin is a villain) and demonstrates that FARMS is academically disreputable (thus refuting all the works of John Welch and Richard Anderson and John Sorenson and Hugh Nibley and John Gee and Blake Ostler and everybody else who's ever published with them) and permits critics to focus on the villainy of Bill Hamblin (who is a villain) rather than on any substantive issue.

[Scott26.2]

I would agree with that. Of all my active friends I doubt there is one that has bothered to learn as much about LDS history as I have (and that's saying something because I don't know much compared to the scholars who post here active and inactive/non-member). The reasons for this are complex I think, but probably include apathy, laziness, avoidance, contentment.

I find this whole conversation to be fascinating. Yet I still want help understanding this basic question...How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (ie..Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized? If you were "deceived" when learning about the church, who's to say your not being deceived by the "problems" of church history? When does it stop, when can a person say with conviction, "I know enough, and 'warts and all' I will stand for the truth I know!"

just a few of my ramblings

Scott26.2

[Abulafia]

Deborah said:

But again the assumption seems to be if we choose to stay we somehow don't have the knowledge that those who leave do.

No. Absolutely not. I didn't write that Deborah. I wrote specifically of my member friends and acquaintances. Most of the people who contribute to this board are more knowledgeable than I am on church history and 'still' believe and I actually referenced that and there will be 100's who never go near these boards but are in a position of greater knowledge than me. That's what keeps me coming here by the way.

We still have the issue of why those who left feel like their sources are any more accurate than ours. And even when one reads the Apologetic sources or members read the Anti sources we still come to different conclusions. There is something more than just reading; it's still a matter of what we choose to believe.

How we interpret the evidence presented is down to us. But I think that the view of Joseph Smith that I came to have (which was a faith promoting but ultimately faulty one) was part of the reason why there was such a large disconnect between what I had been led to believe about him, and what was actually the reality. All religion's like to put their leaders on a pedestal I think. It's understandable, but I welcome attempts to broaden the view of who Joseph was and to give a fuller view of church history and some of the main players within it. Ultimately I think it will empower rather than weaken the saints to have a more rounded view of their own history.

Mary

[juliann]

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth to me seem simple, love yourself, love people, try and be good, try not to be hypocritical, treat other people and things with kindness and respect, be peaceful, be forgiving, don't be arrogant, respect your parents, concentrate on bettering yourself rather than try to better others. It's all there. Why do humans want to make it so complex and inaccessible and available to only a few? His message seems universal and pragmatic.

Your behavior does not match your words....

If I ever come back to church (and I doubt that could ever happen) then at least I would come back empowered by knowlege rather than wallowing in ignorance. It frustrates me no end that my friends judge my decision to leave the church yet I can't have an open conversation as to why, for fear of upsetting the balance of their faith.

When I tried with my visiting teachers, they stopped visiting, started writing letters and one quietly stated over the phone...'but that's apostate'. I'm on a hiding to nothing and just make people want to avoid me because I become dangerous. They don't want their faith questioned or lessened by the likes of me. If they knew more, and they should, as life long members, then I would be on safer ground.

You have decided that your friends are stupid (and you have no problem whatsoever in publishing denigrating comments about them) because they don't think as you do and they only want to avoid you because you are "dangerous". The more likely reason would be that you are so disrespectful of what is important and meaningful to them. If your friends only wanted to inform you how stupid you are in choosing a career and insist on telling you everything you are doing wrong on the job would you want to be around them? Your advice is good "try not to be hypocritical, treat other people and things with kindness and respect," but it should be universally applied.

[Bender]

I find this whole conversation to be fascinating. Yet I still want help understanding this basic question...How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (ie..Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized? If you were "deceived" when learning about the church, who's to say your not being deceived by the "problems" of church history? When does it stop, when can a person say with conviction, "I know enough, and 'warts and all' I will stand for the truth I know!"

just a few of my ramblings

Scott26.2

I think this has been addressed but I will try and clarify. How does one discover truth? Many religious people think it is through ones spiritual experiences which are very subjective. Some of us have recognized that the spiritual is very subjective and not very good for trying to discover objective reality. Others think differently so when conflicting physical evidence comes along I think we can see how each may react or what value we will put on that evidence. Now none of us is totally unbiased, and we don't know all the information. That said we all have to make choices based on what we think is right or most correct, whether that is to believe in a particular religion or to believe something else. If I come across new information that suggests I am wrong about something I'm ok with changing my beliefs accordingly. I think it may really boil down to how much we trust certain interpretations from our subjective spiritual experiences as showing us objective reality. I personally don't think I can trust it to the exclusion of any or all physical evidence. The physical is not perfect but does have an immensely better track record of showing us objective reality.

[Bill Hamblin]

Uh huh.

This coming from you? Referring to the difference between your approach to religion and mine as a "difference in schools of thought" was supposed to be cute and playful (purposefully). I am sorry I did not use scare quotes for you. You didn't catch on and triumphantly started in with misguided, utter pedantry.

If I were anything at all like you, I would go on and on and on about your Confucius slip up and never accept the idea that it was a joke. Already, there are those who are doubting that it was a joke. But, I'm not like you in this regard. I can let the tiny thing pass and accept the clarification. You can't.

You never accept clarification, your first incorrect impression sticks and you become incorrigible.

Many times you have said you were "through with" me. I think the opposite is true. You're a bit fixated on this.

If you don't want to play nice, if you want to continue interpreting what I say in as uncharitable way as possible, there is nothing I can do about it.

Even after what amounts to an apology and encouragement to Kerry, you are gnashing your teeth.

Balderdash, Tarski. Pure balderdash

I've accepted your clarification that you weren't really criticizing Kerry for being an autodidact when you called him an autodidact.

I've accepted your clarification that you weren't really accusing Nibley of teaching himself Egyptian when you said he taught himself Egyptian.

I've accepted your clarification that you didn't mean "school of thought" when you wrote "school of thought."

Indeed, I've accepted all of your explanations.

What I refuse to accept, however, is your attempt to somehow make your imprecise and unclear use of language into an example of intellectual or moral failing on my part.

That is balderdash, Tarski. Pure balderdash.

[Bill Hamblin]

There are two mistakes in your romanization of this abbreviated quotation.

As Bishop Joseph Butler did not say "Sir, the pretending to extraordinary facility in a language one does not comprehend is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing."

Where did this habit start?

Now I'm "pretending to extraordinary facility in a language I do not comprehend"? Really? By quoting Confucius in transliterated Chinese? What a crime against humanity that is! Will the horrors never cease? Horrid! Simply horrid!

[Bill Hamblin]

Let's face it: Bill Hamblin is a villain. He didn't know that Confucius didn't say what he said Confucius said, and even though he didn't actually seriously say that Confucius really said it, what he did say was an insult to Confucius and to Chinese people everywhere, which reveals his true character (Bill Hamblin is a villain), and his character is also revealed in his attempt to pretend that he's fluent in Chinese (Bill Hamblin is a villain), and this is a Watershed Moment in the History of Mopologetics

[Tarski]

What I refuse to accept, however, is your attempt to somehow make your imprecise and unclear use of language into an example of intellectual or moral failing on my part.

Huh? I don't think I am making your inability to catch on the the spirit of my "imprecise" language into any more of an intellectual or moral failing than my supposed inability to be sure you were joking about the Confucius attribution. I am not the one who is going on about that. You will have to go to a different board if you want an argument about your intellectual or moral failings and I won't likely be participating.

It is understandable that you got hot over my slightly overbearing challenge to Kerry on the quantum theory part of his musings and the conjecture that other things he says might also be a bit on the amateur side (I never claimed anything but suspicions). I already backed off of that as a matter of politeness and so on.

What is less understandable is your seeming conviction that I am an unintelligent utter fool who knows nothing but math (and physics). I would bet that my exposure to theology, religious issues, and especially philosophy is at least above average in most math departments.

Oh and I am also sexy! LOL

[Bill Hamblin]

Huh? I don't think I am making your inability to catch on the the spirit of my "imprecise" language into any more of an intellectual or moral failing than my supposed inability to be sure you were joking about the Confucius attribution. I am not the one who is going on about that.

First, I never said anything about your supposed inability to understand the Confucius joke. It's the inmates of the asylum on the other board who have a problem in that regard.

Second, Hereâ??s what youâ??ve had to say on the topic of my alleged moral and intellectual failings related to confusion derived from your imprecise use of language:

#168

You have a more rigid view of language than I do which is ironic given that you are in the humanities.

The way I said it was harmless and clear in context. You were only looking for a opportunity to find a perceived trip up on my part as part of your present project of trying to bully me

#183

You didn't catch on and triumphantly started in with misguided, utter pedantry.

But, I'm not like you in this regard. I can let the tiny thing pass and accept the clarification. You can't. You never accept clarification, your first incorrect impression sticks and you become incorrigible.

If you don't want to play nice, if you want to continue interpreting what I say in as uncharitable way as possible, there is nothing I can do about it.

Even after what amounts to an apology and encouragement to Kerry, you are gnashing your teeth.

First, you make an imprecise statement. Then, I understand your statement in a completely reasonable fashion. You clarify your statement, blaming me for the confusion. I have accepted your clarification; I refuse to accept the blame for the confusion Are we done now?

What is less understandable is your seeming conviction that I am an unintelligent utter fool who knows nothing but math (and physics). I would bet that my exposure to theology, religious issues, and especially philosophy is at least above average in most math departments.

Well, it may be less understandable because I never said such a thing. CFR. Why don't you try to pay attention to what I actually said in context.

Oh and I am also sexy! LOL

Sorry, I bat right-handed, so I doubt I'd agree with your self-assessment in this regard.

[Jason]

Okay, there's only one way to resolve the conflict between you two that has completely overrun this thread and made it uninteresting and unreadable:

THUNDERDOME!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

[Tarski]

Are we done now?

One can only hope.

[Daniel Peterson]

One can only hope.

Except that, in not too many years, all hope (and everything else) will be utterly extinguished for each of us, n'est-ce pas?

[Tarski]

Except that, in not too many years, all hope (and everything else) will be utterly extinguished for each of us, n'est-ce pas?

c'est la vie (or maybe not) LOL

Perhaps. Of course, all despair and pain goes too in that case.

Who really knows?

I'm more worried about the economy and political and religious fanatics than I am about the thermodynamic fate of the cosmos eons from now.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm more worried about the economy and political and religious fanatics than I am about the thermodynamic fate of the cosmos eons from now.

I had personal oblivion in mind.

The ultimate heat death of the universe is just icing on the cake.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If I ever come back to church (and I doubt that could ever happen) then at least I would come back empowered by knowlege rather than wallowing in ignorance.

I hope you do, Mary.

[Tarski]

I had personal oblivion in mind.

The ultimate heat death of the universe is just icing on the cake.

Oh right. I'm going to die. I keep forgetting, it's all about me!

I should point out that you seem to have not suffered much during your recent enounter with oblivion.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh right. I'm going to die. I keep forgetting, it's all about me!

To the extent that it concerns you, it is.

I should point out that you seem to have not suffered much during your recent enounter with oblivion.

It ended, as I knew it would.

I'm with my wife and children again, still working on projects, listening to music, planning trips, enjoying my friends, reading good books, and launching new ideas -- not to mention, if you inhabit the parallel universe of Scratchworld, lying, scheming to harm my Malevolent Stalker, conspiring with the Brethren, fantasizing about violence, hating everybody, seething with rage and vindictiveness, drooling over ways to injure critics of the Church, and so forth.

[JNclone]

Now I'm "pretending to extraordinary facility in a language I do not comprehend"? Really? By quoting Confucius in transliterated Chinese? What a crime against humanity that is! Will the horrors never cease? Horrid! Simply horrid!

You put in two bits of ancient Chinese transliterated into modern Beijing pronunciation. One (minus tone marks) was of a phrase not actually found in ancient texts. The other (with tone marks) was incorrectly transliterated.

Not a crime against humanity. Just a bit pretentious and a little silly.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Bishop Butler quote in its original context.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just a bit pretentious and a little silly.

It's enormously important that Bill Hamblin be condemned.

For everything. No matter how small and insignificant.

No witticisms, no cuteness, no whimsicality is to be permitted to such people.

[Abulafia]

Juliann said:

Your behavior does not match your words....

Hello Juliann.

You have decided that your friends are stupid (and you have no problem whatsoever in publishing denigrating comments about them) because they don't think as you do and they only want to avoid you because you are "dangerous". The more likely reason would be that you are so disrespectful of what is important and meaningful to them. If your friends only wanted to inform you how stupid you are in choosing a career and insist on telling you everything you are doing wrong on the job would you want to be around them? Your advice is good "try not to be hypocritical, treat other people and things with kindness and respect," but it should be universally applied.

Oh no! Not one of my friends is stupid, and I categorically deny that I have ever even suggested it. I'm sorry Juliann, I know more about church history than they do in the most part, but that doesn't make me clever and them stupid, or vice versa. It's just a statement of the way things are. If you want me to start giving anecdotal evidence I can.

When I gave my stake president the book Mormon Polygamy and asked for answers he couldn't give any, because he didn't know the information himself. Again, that's just the way it was.

I also try my hardest not to be disrespectful of lds beliefs around active LDS. I've slipped up a couple of times. I once deeply upset an active member for suggesting (in her home) that I didn't feel any of us needed a ticket (mormon baptism) to get into the CK. This was the same lady who told me Mother Theresa wouldn't be getting to the CK unless she was baptised into the mormon church. I offended her deeply. (I said those things in front of her children) I felt bad, and I have never talked about the church to her since.

Anyway, you know a lot Juliann and you still believe. I respect you for it. I respect anyone who takes the time to know their religion.

[Abulafia]

I find this whole conversation to be fascinating. Yet I still want help understanding this basic question...How does discovering truth you didn't know when you were baptized (ie..Joseph had plural wives), change the truth you did know (Joseph was a prophet of God)when you were baptized? If you were "deceived" when learning about the church, who's to say your not being deceived by the "problems" of church history? When does it stop, when can a person say with conviction, "I know enough, and 'warts and all' I will stand for the truth I know!"

just a few of my ramblings

Scott26.2

Well, I was baptised at 9 without really understanding what I was getting into. My family quickly went inactive (within a year) I activated myself at 13/14 because I was looking for general answers to some of lifes questions. I had decided that I believed in Jesus, and I wanted to associate with like minded people. I wanted to follow (at the time) Jesus, and I felt that the mormon church was a vehicle for that. I don't know that I really knew or understood much about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. I just thought Mormons were good people and were trying to follow Jesus.

I was persuaded to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet over the years, and I accepted it based on my understanding of what a prophet was, and how a prophet should behave. Mormon Polygamy (Van Wagoner) gave me a whole different view of Joseph that I found difficult to reconcile with my understanding of what a prophet was and how a prophet should behave. I'm not saying I was right, just that that is how I felt when I read Mormon Polygamy back in the late 80's.

Mary