Bushman, Givens, & Muhlstein - What Would Ask Them

[Rivers]

Yeah, I realize that...it was said tongue in cheek, but I was on my phone and couldn't add any emoticons.

Oh. I wish emocations would be added to the mobile version.

[DBMormon]

Bill,

 

This could be asked of any of the scholars, but I have Givens specifically in mind.  I'm intrigued by his idea that agency and faith only exist in a sphere were there is sufficient evidence and lack of evidence to allow one to choose what they believe.  I'm paraphrasing there.  You should obviously use his actual statement.

 

Here is the question: at least for us mortals who cannot claim possession of absolute truth (though we may aspire to it), in a world in which there is sufficient evidence and lack of evidence to allow us agency, are we required to honor our fellow man's choices as equal to ours, even and especially if they choose differently?  As one example, is someone who looks over the evidence and concludes the BOM is a fraud making just as valid a decision as someone who concludes the BOM is true? 

 

Great Question Buckeye.  I will work that in.

[Kevin Christensen]

Bill,

 

This could be asked of any of the scholars, but I have Givens specifically in mind.  I'm intrigued by his idea that agency and faith only exist in a sphere were there is sufficient evidence and lack of evidence to allow one to choose what they believe.  I'm paraphrasing there.  You should obviously use his actual statement.

 

Here is the question: at least for us mortals who cannot claim possession of absolute truth (though we may aspire to it), in a world in which there is sufficient evidence and lack of evidence to allow us agency, are we required to honor our fellow man's choices as equal to ours, even and especially if they choose differently?  As one example, is someone who looks over the evidence and concludes the BOM is a fraud making just as valid a decision as someone who concludes the BOM is true? 

Barbour's Myth's Models and Paradigms refers to a parable about two men walking through an area of forest in which one of them claims to see signs that there had once been a garden, and the other arguing that it was all random growth.  The parable is supposed to provide a model for dispassionate intellectual discourse regarding what counts as persuasive evidence.  But, the problem with any parable is that once adopted, it can become as master rather than a tool.  In that particular parable, nothing is at stake.  What difference does it make if there once was a gardener or not?  Who cares?

 

Barbour in a later chapter introduces the parable of the partisan, with a WWII resistance background in which high stakes abound in any decision about who to trust, and what evidence counts most against open questions.. But you should be able to get the same sense of urgency and high takes from Harry Potter.  Harry Potter despises and distrusts Professor Severus Snape. Against Potter's impassioned protest, Professor Dumbledore trusts Professor Snape.

 

Are their conclusions equally valid?  Both certainly have valid reasons for their feelings, based on, it must be admitted, different sets of experiences, different personal knowledge.  Does that make a difference?   What difference does a trip to the pensive make?  Is there ever a point in which faith and trust and hope entirely disappears, no matter how much knowledge and experience a person gains?

 

The issue for the Book of Mormon is, does a conclusion one way or another have no consequences?  Is there anything at stake?  Many people take an all or nothing approach.  I think there are different ways to frame the issues.  My essay on A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience is attempt to get around that extreme polarity.  The Perry Scheme is another way.  But even so, I still see a great deal at stake, even in the way a person subsequently contextualizes and reads the Book of Mormon, what questions and sources and paths of inquiry a person pursues and how a person relates to the LDS community, and to God.

 

For instance, I've occasionally mentioned how I'd met a friend at a Salt Lake City Sunstone, and held up a copy of my newly published Occasional Paper.  She glanced at the cover, and frowned and said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, and nothing you can say will ever change my mind.  I never read anything from FARMS.  It makes me mad." 

 

Is that a valid decision on her part?  What validates it?  Or is validity not the only question that applies?  What are the consequences?

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 28, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Buckeye]

Barbour's Myth's Models and Paradigms refers to a parable about two men walking through an area of forest in which one of them claims to see signs that there had once been a garden, and the other arguing that it was all random growth.  The parable is supposed to provide a model for dispassionate intellectual discourse regarding what counts as persuasive evidence.  But, the problem with any parable is that once adopted, it can become as master rather than a tool.  In that particular parable, nothing is at stake.  What difference does it make if there once was a gardener or not?  Who cares?

 

Barbour in a later chapter introduces the parable of the partisan, with a WWII resistance background in which high stakes abound in any decision about who to trust, and what evidence counts most against open questions.. But you should be able to get the same sense of urgency and high takes from Harry Potter.  Harry Potter despises and distrusts Professor Severus Snape. Against Potter's impassioned protest, Professor Dumbledore trusts Professor Snape.

 

Are their conclusions equally valid?  Both certainly have valid reasons for their feelings, based on, it must be admitted, different sets of experiences, different personal knowledge.  Does that make a difference?   What difference does a trip to the pensive make?  Is there ever a point in which faith and trust and hope entirely disappears, no matter how much knowledge and experience a person gains?

 

The issue for the Book of Mormon is, does a conclusion one way or another have no consequences?  Is there anything at stake?  Many people take an all or nothing approach.  I think there are different ways to frame the issues.  My essay on A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience is attempt to get around that extreme polarity.  The Perry Scheme is another way.  But even so, I still see a great deal at stake, even in the way a person subsequently contextualizes and reads the Book of Mormon, what questions and sources and paths of inquiry a person pursues and how a person relates to the LDS community, and to God.

 

For instance, I've occasionally mentioned how I'd met a friend at a Salt Lake City Sunstone, and held up a copy of my newly published Occasional Paper.  She glanced at the cover, and frowned and said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, and nothing you can say will ever change my mind.  I never read anything from FARMS.  It makes me mad." 

 

Is that a valid decision on her part?  What validates it?  Or is validity not the only question that applies?  What are the consequences?

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

Very good response.  Thank you Kevin.  To be clear, I was not advocating one view or the other.  I'm honestly interested Givens' answer. 

 

I can see the foibles of absolute relativism.  But I'm struggling to draw a defensible line somewhere prior to that.  For the issues of faith crises, it seems that very often a church members' approach is to provide context and information, but with a clear intent that the person in crises eventually regain his testimony and return to the fold.  That's a very reasonable and good approach.  I can't see a church program being geared towards any other goal.  But, honestly, the approach can very often be offputting to someone who is questioning everything.  In their mind, if your goal is to get them back to church, they must take everything you say with a grain of salt. 

 

I wonder if it's possible for us to approach a person in faith crises and help guide them to whatever "truth" is for them, even if that is different from "truth" for me.  I really don't know.

[Kevin Christensen]

Very good response.  Thank you Kevin.  To be clear, I was not advocating one view or the other.  I'm honestly interested Givens' answer. 

 

I can see the foibles of absolute relativism.  But I'm struggling to draw a defensible line somewhere prior to that.  For the issues of faith crises, it seems that very often a church members' approach is to provide context and information, but with a clear intent that the person in crises eventually regain his testimony and return to the fold.  That's a very reasonable and good approach.  I can't see a church program being geared towards any other goal.  But, honestly, the approach can very often be offputting to someone who is questioning everything.  In their mind, if your goal is to get them back to church, they must take everything you say with a grain of salt. 

 

I wonder if it's possible for us to approach a person in faith crises and help guide them to whatever "truth" is for them, even if that is different from "truth" for me.  I really don't know.

You may find Positions 5 and 6 on the Perry Scheme relevant to your concerns and hopes:

POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

Part of Position 7 is "He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative." Part of Position 8 is "But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love"."

And with Position 9, I think you'll see is a desirable state:

 

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 28, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[juliann]

We are so used to seeing arm chair analysis of the BOA,  it would be helpful for Muhlstein to outline how many sub-specialities are necessary to be considered an expert and how few have even some of the background required. 

[Brian 2.0]

I'm excited for these interviews.  I would love to sit down and ask questions to these guys...  while this isn't a question per say I do find Kerry Muhlstein a bit of "one of these guys is not like the other" in your trio.

 

As a doubter, I feel like Givens and Bushman address the issues as issues and at least show empathy on how they can be troubling or how they are difficult given that we don't have more information on them.  For me, it's more more engaging to hear them talk and offer their understandings on how they deal with those "issues."  They often come across as if they are speaking to people that know the issues, have doubts, and they want to help them.

 

Kerry Muhlstein's YouTube videos (which is how I know him mostly) seem to offer a much different vibe.  It's more a of an "Issues? what issues?" feel.  He's citing evidences of Joseph "hitting the nail on the head" or getting yet another "bullseye" in his BoA videos (which come across as very loose definitions of "bullseye" when I've looked into those evidences).  And then not even mentioning all the other difficult areas which are not "bullseyes".  He gives off the impression that there is "nothing to see here" because we've answered the critics entirely.  The videos seem less like they are talking to people who know the issues and have doubts, but more directed to the people who are just learning about the issues and Muhlstein is giving them a "don't worry... there's no reason to be troubled."

 

It seems like Givens and Bushman are talking to the doubters, acknowledging their doubt, and trying to help.

While Muhlstein seems to be talking to people new to hearing about these issues and is telling them that there is no reason to doubt.

 

It's two different audiences, and maybe the world of apologetics needs both.  But as a "doubter" Givens and Bushman speak more to me than Muhlstein.  

 

In fact, Muhlstein's video are troubling to me, because I think of my active parents who are trying to understand my plight.  As they search if they run across Givens and Bushman I'm happy... because my parents will realize that I'm not just listening to "anti" stuff, but am wrestling with legitimate issues -- my parents will see my doubt as a part of a process that hopefully leads back to deeper faith.  But if they find Muhlstein, they'll just think that I'm listening to the critics and I'm turning a blind eye to the answers, because the evidence is clear that the critics are wrong -- my doubt is not legitimate.

 

I know there's not really a question in there, but I guess I would ask Kerry what audience he is trying to speak to and if he sees his approach as different than that of Givens and/or Bushman.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

P.S.

 

a friend of mine (not on this forum) also wanted me to pass along this question to Kerry:

 

Q: Lets just say that the BOA was indeed not authentic.  What do you think would be the type of evidence we would expect to encounter that would convince us of it's non authenticity?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[DBMormon]

 

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/premium-signup

Richard Bushman interview along with Claudia Bushman and Caroline Kline are up and available but only as Early Entry Episodes.
One has to subscribe to have access to these episodes. Otherwise they will release publicly over the next 5 weeks. I am hoping more people will support the podcast this way. This support will determine whether this podcast goes another year or another 5 years. So if this podcast is of benefit to you, please consider supporting the program

[DBMormon]

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com

 

The interview is done but only available for subscribers.  The public access to it should occur in about 4-6 weeks

Early Entry for Premium subscribers - Subscribe here -  http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/premium-signup

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond, where he holds the James A. Bostwick Chair in English.  He is the author of several books including "By The Hand of Mormon" and has a book approaching publishing called "The Crucible of Doubt".  Terryl has been part of a series of firesides given to helps doubters address their framework and talks to us today about Faith and Doubt and how we might better navigate these issues.

Edited September 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

 

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond, where he holds the James A. Bostwick Chair in English.  He is the author of several books including "By The Hand of Mormon" and has a book approaching publishing called "The Crucible of Doubt".  Terryl has been part of a series of firesides given to helps doubters address their framework and talks to us today about Faith and Doubt and how we might better navigate these issues.

BOOKS BY BRO. GIVENS

By the Hand of Mormon

People of Paradox

The God Who Weeps

Biography of Parley Pratt

TALKS BY BRO. GIVENS

Letter to a Doubter

When Souls Had Wings

Lightning Out of Heaven

Edited October 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[Rivers]

The link for Terryl Givens' interview isn't working.

[Bob Crockett]

P.S.

 

a friend of mine (not on this forum) also wanted me to pass along this question to Kerry:

 

Q: Lets just say that the BOA was indeed not authentic.  What do you think would be the type of evidence we would expect to encounter that would convince us of it's non authenticity?

I wonder how valuable hypothetical questions are, in the discussion of religious belief, where one is asked to suspend his or her religious belief. 

 

Somehow I doubt that Johann Eck would have gotten very far if he asked Martin Luther to suspend, for purposes of argument, his belief that Jesus died on the cross and came back from the dead.

[Bob Crockett]

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com

 

The interview is done but only available for subscribers.  The public access to it should occur in about 4-6 weeks

Early Entry for Premium subscribers - Subscribe here -  http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/premium-signup

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond, where he holds the James A. Bostwick Chair in English.  He is the author of several books including "By The Hand of Mormon" and has a book approaching publishing called "The Crucible of Doubt".  Terryl has been part of a series of firesides given to helps doubters address their framework and talks to us today about Faith and Doubt and how we might better navigate these issues.

Do you tell Givens and Bushman that you charge money to listen to them?   Maybe they don't care, but I'd not put up with it.  But FARMS, a not-for-profit, derived revenue from something I  wrote, so perhaps I'm carping about what is not important.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Do you tell Givens and Bushman that you charge money to listen to them?   Maybe they don't care, but I'd not put up with it.

So be patient and wait a month and pay nothing....

 

If not enough people think it is worth donating money to support Bill's work or it is wrong to do so, then the natural conclusion will be that Bill will stop asking for it...since as I understand it, he will be unable to continue the work if he has to continue to pay for it out of his own pocket.

 

If enough people are comfortable enough to donate, then he will continue.

Edited October 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I realize this looks like my private hobby horse, but I question the motivations of trinket salesmen at Lourdes.  

Edited October 16, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Would it make you feel better if Bill were to post an expense/income page somewhere on his site so you could judge if there was any motivation besides producing the podcasts themselves likely?

[DBMormon]

Do you tell Givens and Bushman that you charge money to listen to them?   Maybe they don't care, but I'd not put up with it.  But FARMS, a not-for-profit, derived revenue from something I  wrote, so perhaps I'm carping about what is not important.

 

Go fly a kite please

[DBMormon]

The link for Terryl Givens' interview isn't working.

 

Try this

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/2013/10/14/terryl-givens-crucible-of-doubt/

[DBMormon]

So be patient and wait a month and pay nothing....

 

If not enough people think it is worth donating money to support Bill's work or it is wrong to do so, then the natural conclusion will be that Bill will stop asking for it...since as I understand it, he will be unable to continue the work if he has to continue to pay for it out of his own pocket.

 

If enough people are comfortable enough to donate, then he will continue.

 

There are presently about 20 subscribers each donating at various levels.  It produced about $500 last year (before expenses) and it looks to do about that maybe a little more this year.  Cal, just remember if I wasn't on this board, Bob would likely never come out of the woodwork.  So you have me to thank for his jovial personality surfacing once a week. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I realize this looks like my private hobby horse, but I question the motivations of trinket salesmen at Lourdes.  

 

I question a critic who only surfaces when he has something to say and never when he asked to respond to his behavior?

 

HEY BOB - Have you seen my podcast work on Fair's site as well?  FairBlog.Org  -  your hilarious.  Everybody watches you come out of the woodwork everytime I post.  Everybody here sees right through this behavior.  Is it jealousy, bitterness, cmon let us in on what really bothers you.   Otherwise.... move on.  You have only stated a dozen times that you are perturbed by me and anything I touch.

[DBMormon]

 Remember this post..... as always you never responded, I assume you'll disappear again until I turn up in another thread.

 

I have a bigger question

How come any time I say something Bob Crockett rushes in, says a lot of innaccurate stuff, and then disappears into oblivion until the next time he sees me post something.

 

Bob - you stated that I started this thread (Wrong)

 

Bob - You said I was pushing for PH for women - (wrong)

 

once pointed out to you, you vanish.  Why are you never around when it becomes obvious that you are simply casting stones at me at every chance? 

 

Bob remember this -

 

 

Quote

'Bob Crockett', on 13 Feb 2013 - 4:14 PM, said:

'Bob Crockett', on 13 Feb 2013 - 4:14 PM, said:

This is board nanny stuff. You will be removed if you put up one more post analyzing a debate partner.

At this point, I resign from this board. I have a little blog on LDS material, often legal-related, which you all might follow. See the link below.

I was originally invited to this board years and years ago to lend my expertise on MMM issues, and it was lots of fun dealing with those. But, at this point, I know not what a "Board Nanny" might be and I can't derive any instructions from the moderators.

 

 

 

Best Idea I have seen yet from you.  And yes I am frustrated that you plaster dishonest statements regularly about me and then disappear when it is time to answer for them.

 

Edited October 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Would it make you feel better if Bill were to post an expense/income page somewhere on his site so you could judge if there was any motivation besides producing the podcasts themselves likely?

I did this at one time.  It didn't satisfy him.

[Rivers]

Go fly a kite please

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-g8YYPKVo#

Edited October 17, 2013 by Rivers

[DBMormon]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-g8YYPKVo#

At least you see the humor!!!!  The other Guy has vanished

 

The next time Bob Crockett derails a thread with personal attacks, he will be suspended or banned. <----Provide this in a report for the next occurrence.  Meantime, keep the thread on topic.