Not so easy?

[Dunamis]

EAllusion, I am not sure what you do not understand about a warning to not bring your personal issues from one board to another. I don't like the way you started and I don't like the way you are continuing. If you have an issue with an individual take it to email. In the meantime, I am going to put you on the queue until you demonstrate that you can take on a topic instead of an individual.

[Confidential Informant]

It's like the irony of Juliann dividing the world in to naive fundamentalists and everyone else (which usually ends up being pomo people) and then complaining fundamentalists are such black and white thinkers - only writ on a more large scale.

I think this is a misrepresentation. She's never drawn such a starkly bifurcated conclusion. Her point has always been that certain critics while claiming to be "liberal" actually utilize fundamentalistic assumptions in their argumentation which they then expect LDS to be responsive to.

The classic example is Metcalfe's "Redefining Lamanite Identify" essay. The whole essay is based on the fundamentalistic assumption that LDS prophets and LDS scripture should be treated in an inerrant fashion. In this case, what is specifically seeks to accomplish is take away the LGT as a viable position for LDS scholars by showing how the scholars views diverge from traditional LDS views and (more importantly) how they diverge from what LDS Apostles and Prophets have said on the subject. It assumes the LDS treat, or at the very least, should treat, what these men have said as being authoritative and inerrant. Thus, any divergence from what they have said is claimed by critics to be a heresy. Thus, they hope to place us in a catch-22 where if we maintain the traditional belief they nail us with the science and if we alter our traditional understanding in such a way as to negate the science we are branded as heretic and outside the scope of true LDS thought.

That is fundamentalistic, and this is exactly one sense in which Juliann has been using the term.

She both agrees and disagrees with Bill depending on the circumstances. The only thing that stays consistent is her dogged desire to call those who write material that can lead to critical conclusions of the Church she believes in "fundamentalists"

Again, she hasn't labeled them as such. In fact, I specifically recall that on ZLMB she actually clarified and said that "fundamentalistic" would be more appropriate. Morevoer, the only "critics" she's nailing with this are the ones who advance very fundamentalistic arguments and then expect LDS to be responsible for them. We aren't fundamentalists and thus such arguments ring particularly hollow.

Juliann's willingness to agree with Hamblin isn't born out of any intellecutal consistency. That's the position I will claim to defend. The full extent of Juliann's arguments is a hodgepodge of misunderstood views used to try and justify calling people a label of derision she has endeared herself to.

Well, make sue your attacking her actual stance rather than some strawman of your own creation, because it sounds to me that that's what you're doing.

It's not a personal attack Pent. Juliann has a long history of criticizing people unless they include in their posts quotations from scholars. Given that this is the person I'm dealing with, I though it'd be smart to go get some quotes, even though my laziness will cause this to take much more time. You have a very strange concept of what constitutes a personal attack.

Anytime you refer to "that type of person" it's a personal attack, EA. I fail to see how it's an idosyncratic defintion.

[E Allusion]

Edit. Sorry. I didn't think I posted this. It was in a serious pre-edit stage.

[Blink]

Boy, ZLMB must really be getting bad these days. Now we've got EA posting over here at FAIR.

If Serenity shows up, we may have to call this "ZLMB West" or something like that.

C.I.

The whole essay is based on the fundamentalistic assumption that LDS prophets and LDS scripture should be treated in an inerrant fashion. In this case, what is specifically seeks to accomplish is take away the LGT as a viable position for LDS scholars by showing how the scholars views diverge from traditional LDS views and (more importantly) how they diverge from what LDS Apostles and Prophets have said on the subject. It assumes the LDS treat, or at the very least, should treat, what these men have said as being authoritative and inerrant.

And yet, does the normal run-of-the-mill LDS member accept the traditional apostle and prophet view on any subject before they accept any mere member's view? To the ROTM LDS member, surely the prophet and the apostles are indeed virtually completely inerrant and their words more trustworthy and authoritative than anyone else's. Else why listen so attentively to conference every 6 months? Why pay the yearly fee to receive the Ensign in each member's home? Why attend church at all? Why pay tithing? If the prophet and the apostles can't get it right, on whatever the current issue (it) is, why are members repeatedly instructed to "follow the prophet", with the sure knowledge that God has told us that he will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray?

PS: (Comments about someone who isn't a regular poster here serve no purpose, C. I. Surely you have outgrown your fascination with Serenity enough to cease watching the door for her arrival.)

[Bill Hamblin]

(This thread is getting so far off topic I've forgotten what the topic even is. It is really impossible to have a rational conversation under such circumstances. It is amazing how few people can actually follow arguments and make cogent relevant comments. The level of obfuscation, distraction and equivocation among anti-Mormons here is reaching absolutely chaotic levels, creating an environment in which it becomes essentially pointless to discuss issues.)

I have a few comments about EA's claims:

1- So what if Juliann and I disagree (if we do)? Can't we LDS disagree among ourselves?

2- The only important thing is that Juliann and I agree that Vogel is wrong. All else is secondary.

3- Whatever disagreements there may be (if there are any) are miniscule when compared to the fundamental paradigmatic disagreement between sectarian anti-Mormons and secular anti-Mormons. I never cease to be amazed how sectarian antis use secular anti arguments to attack the Church, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that the same secular paradigms and arguments should be consistently applied to their own faith-claims. The double-standard and incoherence is often positively stunning.

4- Post-Modernism has many different variations, some of them internally contradictory.

5- My objection to Post-Modernism (PM) is ontological not epistemological. That is to say, epistemological PM says human reason cannot achieve objectivity and discover absolute truth because of a wide range of problems, such as bias, ambiguity, lack of evidence, different paradigms, conflicting assumptions, etc. Ontological PM says there is no absolute truth, or absolute reality. I find much that is interesting and useful in PM epistemology. I find PM ontology absurd. I find it exceeding odd that some people seem unable to grasp that the inability of humans to perceive ultimate reality with complete accuracy does not prove that there is no ultimate reality. I don

[exegete]

Hi CI,

I've only got a minute (I'm still settling in from the relocation), but let me briefly clarify a few points.

[Confidential Informant @ Nov 22 2004, 02:04 PM]

I think this is a misrepresentation. She's never drawn such a starkly bifurcated conclusion. Her point has always been that certain critics while claiming to be "liberal" actually utilize fundamentalistic assumptions in their argumentation which they then expect LDS to be responsive to.

The classic example is Metcalfe's "Redefining Lamanite Identify" essay. ...

As I've previously responded to Julie, I don't recall having ever labeled my scholarship "liberal"

[Beowulf]

You should note that when Dan Vogel uses the tag "fundamentalist" to describe Bill Hamblin's worldview, he means, essentially (to my mind, anyway), that belief in a God who talks to young boys in New York is "fundamentalist."

Any other theory, by definition, is NOT fundamentalist.

Once you understand that, then the tag becomes comprehensible.

Beowulf

Its the same sort of reaction I expect to get from telling the Skeptical Inquirer in a letter to the editor that I resent being considered an anti-science person just because I believe in a God who actually intervenes in the affairs of the world (because I also accept the principles of science).

[Bill Hamblin]

Nowhere do I suggest "that LDS prophets and LDS scripture should be treated in an inerrant fashion"

[A Random Catholic]

I would just like to take a moment to thank the posters on this thread, especially the high-profile folks like Mr. Vogel & Professor Hamblin. You are all obviously putting a lot of time and effort into the thread, and I'm finding it extremely interesting.

[Confidential Informant]

I also, am in a rush. Just a couple of points/questions.

As I've previously responded to Julie, I don't recall having ever labeled my scholarship "liberal"—can you provide even one example from any of my publications where I characterize my scholarship as "liberal"?

If not "liberal" then how, exactly, would you categorize your "scholarship"? How about "iconoclastic" or "polemic"?

And yet, does the normal run-of-the-mill LDS member accept the traditional apostle and prophet view on any subject before they accept any mere member's view?

On any subject? No, I don't think so. On matter of spiritual import, then yes, I'd agree. On other matters, no I don't think we do (or don't think we should).

To the ROTM LDS member, surely the prophet and the apostles are indeed virtually completely inerrant and their words more trustworthy and authoritative than anyone else's.

If this is the case, it is not the fault of the prophets. It appears to me that they have taken great pains from the beginning of the work to emphasize their status as human beings first and prophetic figure second. Smith said, "A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such." Young expressed his fear that members would being to accept the word of their leaders as inerrant rather than seeking their own confirmations of things. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what Wilford Woodruff stated when said that the Lord would never let the prophet let the Church astray.

You've noted that verse, but what does it mean? You assume it is some sort of statement of inerrancy. I do not. I think it refers to a general prinicple that doesn't require any sort of inerrancy.

Moreover, when was the last time that you heard a GA riffing about the location of Cumorah at General Conference in a context other than one that you could readily tell that he was simply stating the prevailing view? I have yet to see any statement that even vaguely resembles an authoritative declaration of such matters.

You seem to think that the idea that the prophets don't always "get it right" raises some sort of horrible quandry for the LDS, but I have yet to see that quandry. Ezra Taft Benson made some very authoritative statements regarding politics and social issues, many of which I disagree with and think he was dead wrong on. But I do not believe that his perceived inability to "get it right" in that context in any way cripples his teachings regarding faith, salvation, repentance, etc. Your implication that prophets must always "get it right" is simply more fundamentalistic nonesense which has never been apart of LDS thought or belief.

PS: (Comments about someone who isn't a regular poster here serve no purpose, C. I. Surely you have outgrown your fascination with Serenity enough to cease watching the door for her arrival.)

She's not a regular poster here. In fact, to my knowledge she's never posted here. I have no fascination with Serenity except as an example of everything that was wrong with ZLMB. However, I'm sure she'll be glad to know that the members of the "DSC: Defend Serenity Coalistion" have begun arriving here and that she may make her appearance soon. (She wouldn't last a day here thought, because he silliness imply wouldn't be tolerated).

C.I.

[exegete]

Hi Bill,

I'm running out the door, but please take a minute and illustrate from my Sunstone essay where my "arguments against the LGT theory are only cogent if argued against fundamentalistic presuppositions," and then illustrate how such arguments are countered by the notions "that LDS scripture is not inerrant" and "that LDS propehts are not infallible."

This may help me better understand the rationale for your claim.

Best wishes,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

[exegete]

Hi CI,

[Confidential Informant @ Nov 22 2004, 04:06 PM]

If not "liberal" then how, exactly, would you categorize your "scholarship"? How about "iconoclastic" or "polemic"?

Rigorous and irenic are good for starters.

My best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

[Beowulf]

Very funny.

[Blink]

On any subject?  No, I don't think so. On matter of spiritual import, then yes, I'd agree.  On other matters, no I don't think we do (or don't think we  should).

Do you think the average member thinks the General Authorities' words are not of greater import on such diverse issues as evolution vs creationism, the age of the earth, or the real lineage of the American Indian than, say, the most prominent scientists of the age? Because if that's what you think, I think you're mistaken. I think the average member puts a lot more weight/authority on the General Authorities' words than they do on the most prominent scientists' words, when those words conflict.

If this is the case, it is not the fault of the prophets. It appears to me that they have taken great pains from the beginning of the work to emphasize their status as human beings first and prophetic figure second. Smith said, "A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such." Young expressed his fear that members would being to accept the word of their leaders as inerrant rather than seeking their own confirmations of things. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what Wilford Woodruff stated when said that the Lord would never let the prophet let the Church astray.

You've noted that verse, but what does it mean? You assume it is some sort of statement of inerrancy. I do not. I think it refers to a general prinicple that doesn't require any sort of inerrancy.

I didn't assign fault to the inerrancy issue. I said it exists. Whose fault it is is immaterial.

How else could WW's words be construed by the average member (who reveres the prophet as, well, a Prophet of God who literally speaks with God) if not that God will not allow the Prophet to be so incorrect as to lead us all astray? When the average ROTM member is asked about WW's statement, what do you think he/she think it means? Do you honestly think all or even most LDS members have an understanding of that statement like your understanding? Or is my understanding of what they think closer to what is real?

You seem to think that the idea that the prophets don't always "get it right" raises some sort of horrible quandry for the LDS, but I have yet to see that quandry. Ezra Taft Benson made some very authoritative statements regarding politics and social issues, many of which I disagree with and think he was dead wrong on. But I do not believe that his perceived inability to "get it right" in that context in any way cripples his teachings regarding faith, salvation, repentance, etc. Your implication that prophets must always "get it right" is simply more fundamentalistic nonesense which has never been apart of LDS thought or belief.

And yet, you are not the norm, CI. You are not at all the norm. Have you ever spent any time outside of Happy Valley? Outside of your home and work place? Enough time to get to know the average member, outside of Utah or Salt Lake county? Few places on earth have the concentration of LDS members that Utah county has (90%, last I heard) or Salt Lake county (60% last I heard). Outside of the strongholds of Zion, the members cling to the prophet's words as they were lifelines, as it were (which, no doubt, they often are). No ward in my stake has an activity rate of less than 50%; most ward members in my stake believe in the accuracy of the prophet's words, and seek to follow the prophet, knowing God will not allow the prophet to lead them astray. They know this, CI. Perhaps you should move to a place where you could know this too, and then you could cease to doubt the accuracy of the prophet's words.

All of ETB's assorted pronouncements are held in awe and reverence, once he put on the mantle of prophet, and because of his status as prophet. Even those statements that are so outrageous as to raise eyebrows on social or political issues are held in reverence. He is a Prophet of God, CI. All things are spiritual to God, therefore all things are spiritual to the Prophet. Many of these people take "follow the prophet" quite seriously, and question the loyalty of anyone who would question anything a prophet says, once he's made Prophet.

She's not a regular poster here. In fact, to my knowledge she's never posted here.

Luckily, your own fallibility has never been in question.

[juliann]

I find it exceeding odd that some people seem unable to grasp that the inability of humans to perceive ultimate reality with complete accuracy does not prove that there is no ultimate reality. I don’t know if Juliann agrees with me on this or not, but I suspect she does.

She does.

[Ray Agostini]

How else could WW's words be construed by the average member (who reveres the prophet as, well, a Prophet of God who literally speaks with God) if not that God will not allow the Prophet to be so incorrect as to lead us all astray?

Have you ever spent any time outside of Happy Valley? Outside of your home and work place? Enough time to get to know the average member, outside of Utah or Salt Lake county? Few places on earth have the concentration of LDS members that Utah county has (90%, last I heard) or Salt Lake county (60% last I heard). Outside of the strongholds of Zion, the members cling to the prophet's words as they were lifelines, as it were (which, no doubt, they often are). No ward in my stake has an activity rate of less than 50%; most ward members in my stake believe in the accuracy of the prophet's words, and seek to follow the prophet, knowing God will not allow the prophet to lead them astray.

I do think many members place too much emphasis on the prophet's words, but Brigham Young warned about doing this, and the following scripture may help in determining how much we should follow what a prophet says, from Deuteronomy 18:

18  I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20  But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21  And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22  When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I believe those verses are speaking of prophets called of God, as well as false self-appointed prophets. The "that prophet shall die" statement is a bit harsh, but in line with OT jargon, and the strict behaviour generally required in the OT. And I think in some cases false self-appointed prophets do die.

Adam/God doctrine "did not come to pass".

Nor did "blacks will not receive the PH until everyone else has received it".

And we need not discard everything else the prophet teaches, because verse 22 makes it explicit that when the prophet speaks of "the thing", and it does not come to pass, then in that thing he was wrong, and "thou shalt not be afraid of him" in that thing. Blacks in the church now have no need to worry about those statements, because they were "spoken presumptuously".

False teachings which have not come to pass have never frightened me.

[Beowulf]

To agree with Ray...

Take a look at the episode involving the prophet Micaiah. The kings of Judah and Israel join together in a military expedition, and inquire of the prophets how things will go. They all chant in chorus that everything will be just great.... Except Micaiah, who annoys the royalty with some nasty predictions.

Naturally, he is proved right.

Were all the other prophets false?

I have thought about this, and decided that they were not. The problem was that they were human and were cowed by the fierceness of the royal gaze (typical yes-man response).

In our own day, the parallel is disagreements among the general authorities (yes, it does happen), and we are left to decide for ourselves. BY would have approved.

Beowulf

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm running out the door, but please take a minute and illustrate from my Sunstone essay where my "arguments against the LGT theory are only cogent if argued against fundamentalistic presuppositions," and then illustrate how such arguments are countered by the notions "that LDS scripture is not inerrant" and "that LDS propehts are not infallible."

Not interested. We've been on the merry-go-round a number of times and it has always proven rather pointless. If you don't get it now, you never will.

[Dunamis]

Bill Hamblin, this is your thread. What do you want as the topic? I suggest that those who are interested in a particular topic make a new thread because this one needs to be refocused or shut down.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill Hamblin, this is your thread. What do you want as the topic? I suggest that those who are interested in a particular topic make a new thread because this one needs to be refocused or shut down.

It's all rather pointless. The forces of Chaos continue to overwhelm the forces of Order. Shut it down, for pity's sake, shut it down and put it out of its misery.

[Dunamis]

For Dan Vogel's response go here: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5844