Tone And Stakes

[Kevin Christensen]

Ian Barbour, in Myths Models, and Paradigms (one of my favorite books) relates some key events and images regarding on-going debates between believers and atheists in the mid-twentieth century. One author built on the situation of two men walking through a patch of ground in the woods, where one suggests that he sees evidence that there had once been a planned garden. The other responds, no, it's just random, natural growth. Both men can point to things that they see as confirming their perspective. The image was raised as context for discussing the question of what would constitute evidence, and also a pattern for peaceful, reasoned discussion.

The pattern of intellectuals walking through the woods, discussing this and that, and peacefully debating question of the existence of a gardener at some point in the past has a gentle appeal. But it should be admitted that during that kind of discussion, nothing much is at stake one way or the other.

In response, another writer imagines another kind of discussion, with the parable of The Partisan. A WWII resistence fighter meets a stranger and through intense personal experience comes to trust and depend on him. Then in a later situation sees the stranger talking with members of the Gestapo. What happens to the discussion about evidence and trust and faith in this situation? Is the stranger still to be trusted? Is the stranger in trouble? Being questioned? Asking questions in an effort to gain information? What does the evidence mean? Is getting along the only thing that matters? Is an honest interpretation that the stranger has betrayed them necessarily the correct interpretation? What about the experience that went into building the trust in the first place? Among a band of partisans, it most certainly does. But what to do about the stranger who some trust and some do not?

To take a more recent example with the same kinds of high stakes in implications, think of a discussion between Harry Potter and Professor Dumbledore revolving around Dumbledore's simple declaration, "I trust Severus Snape." It's exactly the same kind of thing, where stakes are high, and trust between Harry and Dumbledore are also vital. Is Harry entitled to the integrity of his own feelings and experience with Snape? Is his personal experience valid? Should it count, or be discounted? Does Dumbledore just not understand or see what Harry has seen? Is a sense of victimhood and personal rancor, justified through years of actual experience, a reliable key to truth in this situation? Can we generalize from that the truth of every situation?

Seven or eight years ago (come to think of it, 14 or 15 years ago) , I was invited to try to assemble a book of essays for Signature Books, on the topic of Book of Mormon historicity, following the pattern of things like Faithful History, where different perspectives are bound under the same volume. The person previously invited to do so had managed to offend people on both sides, and it was thought that perhaps I was one who could mediate. I thought about it for a while, and decided, I'm not the guy, and I'm not because I'm not like the two respectible scholars gently discussing whether or not there had been a gardner in a particular patch of woods, at some time in the distant past regarding something that really doesn't matter. But I'm a partisan, committed, and very much aware of the stakes. And while reading J. K. Rowling, I developed my own notions about Severus Snape. I couldn't pretend to be neutral and objective, and frankly, don't believe that it's possible.

It's important to get along, and be kind, and Christlike and to avoid contention. But to get to truth, a knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, necessarily involves proving contraries, wrestling with different perspectives. Given what is at stake, and given all of our limitations, I think we all ought to give each other a little grace for caring one way or another.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 10, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

Bless you, Kevin. I always come away feeling better after reading your posts.

[thesometimesaint]

You can capture more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

[volgadon]

You can capture more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

I agree, which is why a gentler approach is to be prefered when possible.

[Calm]

You can capture more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

Actually vinegar works best, but who wants flies?

[thesometimesaint]

I've heard beer works best of all.

Anyway anyone can act the twit. It takes real skills to tell some to go to He(double hockey sticks), and have them want to pack their bags.

[Peppermint Patty]

It's important to get along, and be kind, and Christlike and to avoid contention. But to get to truth, a knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, necessarily involves proving contraries, wrestling with different perspectives. Given what is at stake, and given all of our limitations, I think we all ought to give each other a little grace for caring one way or another.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

+1000 You have restored my faith here.

[treehugger]

Thanks Kevin, great last paragraph.

[rameumptom]

Excellent, Kevin. I suppose there is no use trying to post this at the other discussion board, is there?

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks all.

Incidentally, a subtext of my reference to what J. K. Rowling did with Severus Snape in the Harry Potter series fits nicely with my long post on the Mormon Stories Thread, where I discussed D&C 121:42, and the concept that "pure knowledge enlarges the soul." What a difference a trip to the pensive makes.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

P.S. I haven't spent enough time on the other board to have considered them.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

Actually vinegar works best, but who wants flies?

Isn't it gnats that are attracted to vinegar?

[Log]

Isn't it gnats that are attracted to vinegar?

No. It's fries.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Isn't it gnats that are attracted to vinegar?

Around my house the flies like it as well...but perhaps they are a mixed breed.

[mfbukowski]

No. It's fries.

I didn't know you were Canadian.

[wenglund]

You can capture more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

I have found that fly-swatters and bug-zappers work best in certain circumstances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ron Beron]

Along these lines I am reminded of Will Durant's "The Lessons of History" which indicates, in something of the opposite of the above viewpoint, that opposition is necessary to obtain the truth...

So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it — perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection, opposition, and contumely; this is the trial heat which innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old; out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.

[Calm]

I have found that fly-swatters and bug-zappers work best in certain circumstances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bug zappers sound cool too.

[ncfarmerjoe]

Kevin, i hope i'm not stepping out of line here, but this is my first post here & because of restrictions placed on new members? this my only way to ask you this question cause the threads which are of the topic of the topic i wish to ask you about are "locked"......

i saw where you mentioned you where going to read Margaret Barker's latest book ....Temple Mysticism....have you any thoughts on it? i was looking to make my 1st purchases of her work and have been considering....Temple Theology....& her latest offering? unless you or others would recco differently?

i have been reading you work concerning her work at the different places on the web they reside, along with Mr. Hamblin's you tube interviews and have become intrigued with her views.

thank you, joe

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, i hope i'm not stepping out of line here, but this is my first post here & because of restrictions placed on new members? this my only way to ask you this question cause the threads which are of the topic of the topic i wish to ask you about are "locked"......

i saw where you mentioned you where going to read Margaret Barker's latest book ....Temple Mysticism....have you any thoughts on it? i was looking to make my 1st purchases of her work and have been considering....Temple Theology....& her latest offering? unless you or others would recco differently?

i have been reading you work concerning her work at the different places on the web they reside, along with Mr. Hamblin's you tube interviews and have become intrigued with her views.

thank you, joe

Temple Theology and Temple Mysticism are both excellent books. For those who are not Nibleyophiles, Temple Theology provides a short, clear introduction to her approach, and I often recommend it as such. The one thing to be clear on in Temple Mysticsm is to pay early and close attention to what she means by the term "mysticism." For her it is not the kind of thing Nibley talks about in his "Prophets and Mystics" essay in The World and the Prophets, or Kabbalistic kinds of things, but simply "seeing God." Temple Mysticism is an excellent companion volume for delving into her approach.

Margaret is an intriguing scholar and interesting person. I'm also quite impressed that her open acceptance of the LDS interest in her work has not impeded interest in her work elswhere. Quite the contrary. For instance, she was awarded a Doctorate by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was invited to speak at the Oxthodox Seminary in Yonkers.

Thank you,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ncfarmerjoe]

thank you for taking the time to respond, much appreciated!

joe

[The Nehor]

You can capture more flies with honey than you can vinegar.

[Messenger]

I definitely agree with that. Being nice is hard for a lot of people. Sometimes they have to be humbled before they can actually do that.

[ncfarmerjoe]

Kevin, if you have a minute......i received Temple Theology this week but, with Mrs. Barker's latest on back order which has turned out well cause i will have time to go over this one several times before Temple Mysticism arrives.

after a quick once over, would i be wrong in thinking that i sense (and this maybe well known to others?) that Mrs. Barker has a view of Heavenly Father & Jesus more akin to LDS theology than mainstream? in that they are 2 distinct persons? because it seems to me she is stressing "Wisdom" as being side by side with God from before the foundations making me believe that she is slightly injecting the idea of a God with a physical body(page 82 among many struck me with her "translation")? maybe i am reading to much of my personal beliefs into her words & direction?

thanks, joe

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, if you have a minute......i received Temple Theology this week but, with Mrs. Barker's latest on back order which has turned out well cause i will have time to go over this one several times before Temple Mysticism arrives.

after a quick once over, would i be wrong in thinking that i sense (and this maybe well known to others?) that Mrs. Barker has a view of Heavenly Father & Jesus more akin to LDS theology than mainstream? in that they are 2 distinct persons? because it seems to me she is stressing "Wisdom" as being side by side with God from before the foundations making me believe that she is slightly injecting the idea of a God with a physical body(page 82 among many struck me with her "translation")? maybe i am reading to much of my personal beliefs into her words & direction?

thanks, joe

The impressive convergence between Barker's view and LDS theology, as expressed in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, led directly to the LDS interest in her work. My first introduction to her work was this quote, used by two different authors in the FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. Ross Beron and Martin Tanner both used this passage in their reviews in 1995 volumes of the Review:

What has become clear to me time and time again is that even over so wide an area, the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use the word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel [that of the First Temple] in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord.

(Barker, Great Angel, p 3)

That stands out for an LDS reader. Those quotes stuck in my mind, and started clamoring for attention when I spotted some copies of The Great Angel in a Half Price Books in Dallas, Texas in 1999. And of course, the notion of Jesus as Yahweh wasn't what she was expecting when she started, based on her own religious training. I soon found that a fairly common reaction to a reading of The Great Angel by LDS scholars was a single exclaimation, "Wow!"

And she's very much aware of and impressed by the close fit.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ncfarmerjoe]

thanks, joe