Dan'S Announcement: The World Table

[Freedom]

And, by the way, it won't be a specifically Mormon board. Nor will it be restricted to religious discussions. It will be useable for debates and discussions on politics or on any other topic (e.g., the merits of different varieties of roses, the pleasures of touring Somalia) that members of The World Table want to talk about.

Well, that is something I can sink my teeth into. Til now I have been limited to the insane ignorance of huffington post.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just had a look at some of the comments about The World Table over at the message board where my Malevolent Stalker publishes his work. They're yucking it up about this silly new Mopologetic venture, about my general ludicrousness, and etc. But, as they commonly do, they're yucking it up in consummate ignorance.

It's not going to be a Mormon board. It's not going to be "apologetic." It's not going to be only religious. And so forth. They haven't got the faintest clue -- which, of course, makes them that much more free to comment.

I think that people -- by which I mean many, many people, far and away not all of them Latter-day Saints -- are going to like this when they finally see it and come to understand it how it functions and what it will do.

So I encourage people here to keep an eye out for it.

[DBMormon]

Dan, Bill Reel here. Can you email me the beta address

reelmormon@gmail.com

[mfbukowski]

Myron Penner should, given his expressed views.

And I was only talking about Myron Penner.

It all depends on what you mean by postmodernism.

Indeed it does, and I am not familiar with Penner.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed it does, and I am not familiar with Penner.

As a follow-up on this I want to post a portion of a summary of John Dewey's Quest for Certainty in which he makes the argument that the distinction the Greeks made between Pure Knowledge (intellectual knowledge- and spiritual contemplation) and practical knowledge (how to build a temple, say) has poisoned much of Western culture.

Science has evolved out of "practical knowledge" and due to its success, has led to positivism which is the view that if something cannot be observed objectively, ie: scientifically, it cannot be "real"

Dewey proposes a return to the belief that ALL of human inquiry - practical as well as intellectual and the study of feelings and psychology are indeed legitimate intellectual pursuits and that a "Reconstruction" of philosophy needs to take place. (I like the word "Restoration" better)

In short, it is the correspondence theory of knowledge which leads to positivism- and ultimately the destruction of religion.

What some call "postmodernism" is the only intellectual path possible (I think) into making religious studies a legitimate intellectual pursuit.

Here is a small quote from the summary of Dewey's book:

The first chapter, ‘Escape from Peril’, argues that the uncertainty of life in primitive times necessitated looking for certainty in the realm of the true Being or through manipulation by magic. Knowledge of the former became viewed as superior, while the practice of the latter was viewed as lesser. Thus, a division between theory and practice formed which hampered human progress. The development of philosophy came out of a search for the ultimate reality, but has solidified the classification and chasm separating knowledge from belief and practice. ‘Philosophy’s Search for the Immutable’, chapter 2, suggests that delineation between knowledge and action has limited human progress. Dewey argues that a necessary way forward is to re-enlist philosophy to address the ‘interactions of our judgements about ends to be sought with knowledge of the means for achieving them’. In this way the question becomes ascertaining what we need to know to implement proper practice. Rather than seeking knowledge in order to maintain life, he suggests seeking knowledge beyond traditional dogmatic frameworks in order to live and act rightly and with certainty: ‘[J]ust as belief that a magical ceremony will regulate the growth of seeds to full harvest stifles the tendency to investigate natural causes and their workings, so acceptance of dogmatic rules as bases of conduct in education, morals and social matters, lessens the impetus to find out about the conditions which are involved in forming intelligent plans.’ This requires the individual to seek after the corporate good beyond the traditional Christian pursuit of striving for personal salvation.

http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPQUCY&Summary=True

[3DOP]

I am afraid the link from Cal still is not working for me. I also went to the Maxwell Institute site where there was supposed to be something at the bottom of the page.

As much as I have enjoyed being here and I plan to continue, my politics have always changed according to my faith decisions. I regret having to talk about religious truths with political implications here, and then when things become explicitly interesting, finding a need to refrain.

Anyway, is there another link?

PS: Nevermind. I am in.

Edited August 3, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

PS: Nevermind. I am in.

Yea!

[Scott Lloyd]

I just had a look at some of the comments about The World Table over at the message board where my Malevolent Stalker publishes his work. They're yucking it up about this silly new Mopologetic venture, about my general ludicrousness, and etc. But, as they commonly do, they're yucking it up in consummate ignorance.

It's not going to be a Mormon board. It's not going to be "apologetic." It's not going to be only religious. And so forth. They haven't got the faintest clue -- which, of course, makes them that much more free to comment.

I think that people -- by which I mean many, many people, far and away not all of them Latter-day Saints -- are going to like this when they finally see it and come to understand it how it functions and what it will do.

So I encourage people here to keep an eye out for it.

For me, the most refreshing thing is the requirement that people give their real identities and be transparent about their values, positions, perspectives, etc. I expect that will inhibit the sniping and snark and promote productive dialogue. I'll be surprised -- and disappointed -- if it doesn't.

[jim_mason]

I just had a look at some of the comments about The World Table over at the message board where my Malevolent Stalker publishes his work. They're yucking it up about this silly new Mopologetic venture, about my general ludicrousness, and etc. But, as they commonly do, they're yucking it up in consummate ignorance.

It's not going to be a Mormon board. It's not going to be "apologetic." It's not going to be only religious. And so forth. They haven't got the faintest clue -- which, of course, makes them that much more free to comment.

I think that people -- by which I mean many, many people, far and away not all of them Latter-day Saints -- are going to like this when they finally see it and come to understand it how it functions and what it will do.

So I encourage people here to keep an eye out for it.

Will the moderators have public profiles, early post in this thread one gets the impression that their real names will be required. Will the moderators have to use their real names. What safe gaurds are in place to prevent it from becoming moderated by way of a who's-who moderators favorite list, which has been alleged of occurring on other boards.

I like the idea, but the frailty of man on the internet is just too predicatebly discourteous when it comes to religious debates.

[mfbukowski]

For me, the most refreshing thing is the requirement that people give their real identities and be transparent about their values, positions, perspectives, etc. I expect that will inhibit the sniping and snark and promote productive dialogue. I'll be surprised -- and disappointed -- if it doesn't.

Well I am trying to be less snarky but I think that I keep running into political correctness. It's not possible to say something valuable without offending someone sometime. Just disagreement itself can be offending. Plus I was in debate all the way through high school and college, so it is easy to fall into old habits going for the "win" instead of being Mr. nice guy.

Tough balance for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I am trying to be less snarky but I think that I keep running into political correctness. It's not possible to say something valuable without offending someone sometime. Just disagreement itself can be offending. Plus I was in debate all the way through high school and college, so it is easy to fall into old habits going for the "win" instead of being Mr. nice guy.

Tough balance for me.

When I speak of inhibited sniping and snark, don't get the impression I am affirming political correctness. I most assuredly detest it, as I have indicated on more than one occasion.

I, too, took debate in high school, and I understand the urge to best someone in an argument, especially when one is passionate about it and is certain the other guy is wrong and needs to be set straight. And nobody likes to lose, even under the most congenial of circumstances.

I agree it can be tough to find the balance. I guess my only rejoinder is that it's worth the effort.

[jim_mason]

It's not going to be a Mormon board. It's not going to be "apologetic."

Assuming BHODGES from Maxwell Institute is a reliable source, and that information posted on Maxwell Institute Blog is reliable...did you say the following: "The World Table is a place where members of the Church can become army of apologists,..."

Did you say that or not? If you did say, is it unreasonable for someone to think that the new website will be apologetic in nature?

[Calm]

The new website is not going to be controlled by Dan. It is the baby of some foundation I can't remember the name of.

Apologetics may take place there, but it won't be the only thing or even the main thing...it will depend on what people want to discuss.

From Blair's notes:

Foundations for Interreligious diplomacy, a small organization that is trying to make chapters for various faiths, etc. Idea is to model civil disagreement and discussion. where people become friends, etc. Not ecumenical in the sense of trying to merge traditions, but to learn to speak frankly openly fairly and respectfully about their similarities and differences.

It is actually the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy which you can read about here:

http://www.fidweb.org/

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Also:

The foundation facilitates the building of trust and good will between religious or ideological opponents through means of interrelgious diplomacy. In particular, the foundation promotes heart-to-heart discussions of conflicting worldviews through a process of respectful listenting and speaking called contestational dialogue.

http://www.fidweb.org/dialogues

And here for a visual example:

http://www.fidweb.org/dialogues/baptist-minister--conservative-mormon

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Found this:

Foundation announces new Mormon chapter (BYU NewsNet) (May 9, 2009)

With the help of BYU professors, the Foundation of Interreligious Diplomacy announced the newly formed Mormon chapter, which is the first organized chapter within the foundation. The foundation provides a place for people of many religions or belief systems to have in-depth discussions with others in an effort to help build trust within religious categories that have a difference of opinion.

http://www.fidweb.or.../mormon-chapter

FID’s Mormon Chapter is the first of several that the Foundation will be announcing in coming months. Others gaining momentum right now include an Evangelical Christian Chapter, a Mahayana Buddhist Chapter, a Shi’ite Muslim a Sunni Muslim Chapter, and an Orthodox Jewish Chapter. Each chapter will be largely autonomous, part of the larger network of diplomats the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy is creating, but with their own budgets and programming. The chapters will not be official arms of their religious communities, but they will consist of practicing community members who desire to engage in interreligious dialogue that will indirectly benefit the community.

http://www.fidweb.org/organization/fid-leadership

Dan is one of the Board members, a chapter member also of the Mormon Chapter...they have 6 chapters, 35 members in the Mormon chapter, 13 members of the EVC, Jewish and the rest are still getting going....but somehow I doubt that the EVC will allow the Mormons to turn it into a Mormon Apologetics Board.

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[jim_mason]

all well and good Calmoriah, but if Blair Hodges notes are correct or near correct, then Daniel Peterson presented theworldtable.org under the banner of apologetics or the need for more apologists of the LDS Faith and as a place for an army of Church apologists. How can a place for a army of apologists not be apologetic?

Most succinctly, if Hodges notes are correct, then the Title of Daniel Peterson presentation is "

“Toward a More Effective Apologetics”

Edited August 4, 2013 by jim_mason

[Calm]

He presented it at the FAIR conference which deals with apologetics, of course there will be a heavy slant to discussing it from that angle...but that doesn't mean it is its sole purpose or even primary purpose. It is to give people a safe, civil place to discuss with others who share interests with you but different backgrounds so you can make connections you've never made before. They are providing the ultimate banquet/feast of potential conversations. We will go there not only to teach and to defend but to learn...for most of us, I bet we will learn a great deal more than we will teach since we will likely be teaching one thing while learning so many (so far 6 different, very different faith communities will be represented if their members show up at least...and if they gather from outside their chapters....it could go just about anywhere.

You need to read what Blair wrote and more important listen to what Dan said. There is nothing about an army of apologists...he stated we need an army to PREACH the gospel...sounds like missionary work more than apologetics...

Dan outlined how to make what we do more effective for the why that we do it...to save souls, to open people's hearts and minds to the rational of our faith, to show them that LDS are not the scum of the earth, the corrupters of their children, the stealer of their souls. It is a continuation of making use of what has been found through research...if you can get people who are interested in talking about faith, do it in a civil environment, you will end up with perhaps not converts, but people who respect each other and who can discuss and learn from each other without having to attack them. One can stop working so hard at being right and instead focus on being good....and as that happens...that turns out to be the best apologetics ever as far as success goes...when one isn't acting like an apologist in the middle of a debate, but like a friend in a conversation

And the rating system and using real names requires each of us to stand for our faith, for our beliefs rather than hide behind anonymity and take pot shots at others. This means we will be more effective ambassadors...for bad if we are obnoxious and arrogant, for good if we are listeners, learners and true seekers and teachers.

Wait and listen to the talk itself and then get back with us to tell us how wrong he was to present it that way. There was a lot left out to provide necessary context imo, though he did great catching some of the highlights.

However until then dwell upon this:

But we still need to go online to defend the faith. Platform for the new apologetics: “The Word Table” website. We need an army of people to preach the gospel, it doesn’t mean apologetics in the conventional sense. Not everyone is an expert on all issues. A lot of it is just about presenting the gospel as an option that makes sense in your life. Answering a few questions, building up the positives in your life, is the way.

And then go on and read what his "army of apologists" are meant to do:

The World Table is a place where members of the Church can become army of apologists, to share testimony, share videos, combine resources, links of articles you like, etc. It isn’t about brilliance or being an expert. Everyone has a unique background, you can connect with someone that no one else can. Worth of souls is great in God’s sight.

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

It will have a lot wider religious base. Most message boards have one main faith that then talks about its relationship without others.

This one will have everyone talking about their own, about others.

With a very strong and active moderating team that respects the sacred aspects of each faith, then it could be fantastic, but it will be a lot of work.

Today I will be attending the LDS church and the Communiy of Christ church here in Nauvoo. This new site is like attending different faith's beliefs? How exciting. At first I thought it would be like visiting an LDS visitor's center with hundreds of missionaries teaching, but this sounds like it will be like a smorgasbord of different religious faiths to learn of or atleast hear different sides to. The people and their insights. I hope to go on there but feel I will be a sponge more than anything. Hopefully users are able to I observe for awhile. Or sign up and do that. Just like this board. This is so renovating actually, not like any other board, if you think about it. Edited August 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[jim_mason]

Calmoriah,

I am quite confident Daniel Peterson can defend himself. The simple fact is Daniel presented theworldtable.org under the guise of apologetics, but now wants to deny such because people who disagree with him commented about the site. His clear intent is that LDS people will use theworldtable.org to become a home base for LDS apologists.

Edited August 4, 2013 by jim_mason

[Scott Lloyd]

Calmoriah,

I am quite confident Daniel Peterson can defend himself. The simple fact is Daniel presented theworldtable.org under the guise of apologetics, but now wants to deny such because people who disagree with him commented about the site. Daniel clear intent is for theworldtable.org to become a home base for LDS apologists.

I didn't get that at all, either from Dan's talk or from Blair Hodges' summary notes. It was always clear to me that the World Table is anticipated to be a universal forum, tightly controlled for civility and accountability, which anyone, Latter-day Saints included, can avail himself of as an opportunity to promulgate or defend his faith.

Edited to add:

Did you read Hodges' notes first, or was your impression initially influenced by the ill-informed and malevolent chatter on the Mormon Discussions Board?

Edited August 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[3DOP]

Jim Mason just wait.

Why would they advertise as they have for an eclectic kind of exchange if it was planned as an army of Mormon apologists? Of course Daniel would want LDS representation. But he probably thinks that an equal playing field is all that is needed. I think it sounds great. I like the idea of being rated, apparently not just up but down too by the other participants. I think this will keep a premium on quality, civil discussion. People who can't control their passions for their beliefs will be discredited. That is what I am seeing. I don't care if it starts out mostly LDS. If they are nasty we'll find out. But there would be little point in launching some new nasty project. Clever? Pointed? Heated? I hope so...with civility if not maybe even love.

[jim_mason]

Scott llyod, I first read Daniel Petersons denial about the apologetic nature of the worldtable; which is in this thread. I then read Blair hodges notes regarding Daniels talk and saw Daniels frequent use of "apologists". As stated above, Daniels clear intent for lds people is to use theworldtable.org as a new apologists platform.

It is not relevant, for our present purposes, that the creators of theworldtable.org intend it as a gathering place of civil dialogue, what is relevant, for our present purposes, is that Daniel presented theworldtable.org as a new platform, that will provide a place for lds apologetics to defend the Church in a more civil manner in addition to mingle with other faiths in a civil manner.

Edited August 4, 2013 by jim_mason

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott llyod, I first read Daniel Petersons denial about the apologetic nature of the worldtable; which is in this thread. I then read Blair hodges notes regarding Daniels talk and saw Daniels frequent use of "apologists". As stated above, Daniels clear intent for lds people is to use theworldtable.org as a new apologists platform.

It is not relevant, for our present purposes, that the creators of theworldtable.org intend it as a gathering place of civil dialogue, what is relevant, for our present purposes, is that Daniel presented theworldtable.org as a new platform for lds apologetics.

I hope they do use it for that purpose. So what? Others are free to do likewise. Where's the harm in it ?

And I don't agree Daniel denied it could be used for apologetics. He was, in fact, encouraging us to do so.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jim_mason]

I hope they do use it for that purpose. So what? Others are free to do likewise. Where's the harm in it ?

Yes others are free to do likewise, and there is nothing wrong with civil apologetics. What you seem to not understand is Daniel Peterson made a claim in this thread which contradicts what he said at the FAIR conference. By definition isn't the defense of something "apologetics"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes others are free to do likewise, and there is nothing wrong with civil apologetics. What you seem to not understand is Daniel Peterson made a claim in this thread which contradicts what he said at the FAIR conference. By definition isn't the defense of something "apologetics"?

He did no such thing. See my addendum to my last post.