Thomas Riskas, "deconstructing Mormonism"

[ERayR]

What? Just google President Monson and Warm Fuzzies.

 

Follow the context.

[Uncle Dale]

The question naturally arises (for some of us, at least):

 

"What is real?"

 

How can any of us differentiate what we know, beyond a doubt, to be true --

from those things that we simply believe to be true?

 

A few years back the "Matrix" films were popular, and even ordinary people,

who had no education in philosophy, metaphysics, or neuroscience, came away

from viewing those fanciful stories, asking themselves: "What is reality, anyway?"

 

For Latter Day Saints the question might also be extended, by asking:

 

"How do I know that the experiences a non-member relates are NOT real?"

 

Food for thought (literally)...

 

UD

[Stroopwafel]

This thread makes me see once more that there is no actual way to describe the "essence" of a spiritual experience, cf. everyone saying how "feeling warm fuzzies" isn't an adequate description. Words will only be able to convey the content of the experience, i.e., what the "knowledge" that was imparted is about, and nothing more. We are surprisingly unequipped to communicate spiritual matters without wrapping them in an aura of mystery, sacredness/secretness/taboo, and rituals.

 

I remember hearing Elder Oaks once say, talking about the sacredness of some ordinations going on in the temple if my memory serves me, something to the effect of : "Those who don't know about it talk about it. Those who know don't." Although this idea is borrowed from Taoism (Laozi more specifically), it does help one to grasp what it can be to have a spiritual experience. It is more about realizing something than acquiring a specific new knowledge that could be communicated. One has to live it, feel it himself or herself. For example, it is one thing to know that we are going to die one day, and it is another to actually feel it. Those who have experienced it will know...

 

So, what to make of all this? Personally, it seems to me that there is no way to meaningfully differentiate between experiences of that kind so as to conclude that my spiritual experience is more valid than yours, i.e., is closer to the "Truth" than yours. The LDS spiritual experience, apart from its content, isn't different from that of the catholic, sufist, buddhist, hindu, zoroastrian, eleusian mystic (although I doubt there is any around still), etc.

[Calm]

The LDS spiritual experience, apart from its content, isn't different from that of the catholic, sufist, buddhist, hindu, zoroastrian, eleusian mystic (although I doubt there is any around still), etc.

Isn't this something that we can't know by the very premise of your position (we cannot adquately express our spiritual experience itself, at best we may be able to convey information received…my interpretation of what you are saying).

 

If we can't express what the experience actually is, how do we know it isn't different?

 

At best we can categorize them all as essentially unknowable save to the individual surely?

[omni]

Another thing I've always wondered about those who push logic over faith, how is it logical to ignore your person witnesses of God?

What about for those of us who have prayed and received an answer different than your own?

[Avatar4321]

What about for those of us who have prayed and received an answer different than your own?

has God told you He didn't exist?

[omni]

Again, I'll probably get criticized for mis-characterizing Riskas, but

I conclude that his view of an LDS testimony would be something

like the scenario I encountered in the Delaware, Ohio LDS branch

back in 1979:

A young couple brought their five-year-old son up to the microphone

on F&T Sunday, and told him to bear his testimony to the congregation.

"I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon is true --

and, and..."

"What else, Timmy?" we could all hear his father whispering into the

kid's ear.

"And that the Church is true -- uh, er..."

"And that ... (inaudible)..." The dad continued.

"And that Ezra Taft Benson is a true prophet!" the boy finally blurted out.

This sort of thing was so foreign to my experiences as an RLDS, that I could

not help but ask the father and mother what all of that really meant? Did

Timmy really know "beyond a shadow of a doubt?"

"Of course, it's true. We taught him. He didn't say anything that wasn't true."

Was the cryptic response I got from the obviously irritated dad.

I asked no more. But I truly think that Riskas views all LDS testimony in

that light -- as nothing more than what little Timmy thought he should say;

coupled with some unusual level of emotion or excitement.

If we were to ask Mr. Riskas what difference there was between his

own bearing of testimony (before he dropped out) and Timmy's public

profession, I suppose Riskas would answer "no difference at all."

UD

Could you tell us more about how members of your church would bear their testimony? Would they ever express how the spirit confirmed your church was "true"?

[omni]

has God told you He didn't exist?

Nope, I'm not sure why he would.

[Uncle Dale]

Could you tell us more about how members of your church would bear their testimony? Would they ever express how the spirit confirmed your church was "true"?

 

 

Actually, I have not been on the membership rolls of Community of Christ

since shortly after the leaders abandoned the "Reorganized" name -- and

began hinting that members should speak of "Reformation" instead of

"Restoration" -- but that's neither here nor there.

 

If there was ever anything like a "typical" RLDS testimony during the last

century, it would probably have involved group prayer -- not exactly in

a "prayer circle," but at least entering into a prayerful attitude. There

likely would have been an invocation of the Holy Spirit -- an invitation to

manifest in each participant's heart and mind.

 

One or two of the members might speak in tongues (though this was

becoming rare in my lifetime) -- at least some testimony of spiritual

gifts (ala 2nd chapter of Acts) would be shared -- perhaps some account

of healing under the administration of the elders -- or even a more

dramatic instance of epiphany and blessings.

 

Rather than hearing somebody repeat a formula (such as, "I know this

Church is true"), the congregation might hear one or more members

speak of divine guidance in their lives -- prayers answered in their

families -- a personal pledge to bring forth and establish the cause of

Zion in these latter days -- a profession of the atonement -- of divine

forgiveness -- of the person and life of Jesus.

 

I never once heard an RLDS testify that the Church was true -- or that

W. Wallace Smith was a true prophet. Such profession would have

seemed out of place and even superficial. Not the sort of thing that a

"Thus saith the Spirit" message was meant to convey.

 

I would probably have to seek out a fundamentalist Restoration branch,

that had broken away from Community of Christ, in order to once again

witness that level of heartfelt testimony.

 

UD

[Avatar4321]

Nope, I'm not sure why he would.

Then there is nothing illogical about questioning whether God is there.

[Stroopwafel]

Isn't this something that we can't know by the very premise of your position (we cannot adquately express our spiritual experience itself, at best we may be able to convey information received…my interpretation of what you are saying).

 

Spiritual experiences from different faiths have recurring patterns and themes that emerge from the descriptions people who have experienced them give, despite the shortcomings that such descriptions may be subject to. See for instance the wikipedia articles on Religious experience and Mysticism.

 

 

If we can't express what the experience actually is, how do we know it isn't different?

 

At best we can categorize them all as essentially unknowable save to the individual surely?

 

Such experiences are interesting because they are different from one another in content, and yet have striking similarities in form.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Stroopwafel

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Such experiences are interesting because they are different from one another in content, and yet have striking similarities in form.

 

Unfortunately Mr. Riskas has no interest in such reports -- no matter how

frequent, how widespread, or how prevalent over centuries past. If anything,

he might classify the whole kit and kaboodle as hoaxes and delusions.

 

Even the word "experience" seems a bit misleading, when trying to relate

transcendental realization. A wry Zen monk might suggest "non-experience"

as a more appropriate description.

 

Theosis may be a useful term -- at least it is one that LDS scholars

sometimes resort to using, when "progression to godhood" comes off

sounding just a tad boastful. Then again, not all mystics claim to have

become "one with God" or profess "thou art That" (meaning the Divine).

 

No doubt there are shades and flavors of transcendance, varying from

dissociation to full-blown theophany -- but, again, Riskas would have no

interest in hearing about such phenomena.

 

Like the color-blind person brushing off suggestions that he could see

more, if only the means were made available, the hostile critic of mysticism

can say "It means nothing to me -- and I see no reason to believe in it."

 

"See" no reason, indeed!

 

UD

[canard78]

FWIW, the name of the person being referred to is found in one of the Amazon reviews for the book.

Deconstructing Mormonism

From his review:

I was with him all the way until the last sentence. Then he put an apostrophe in the wrong place. At that point I thought, "I can't believe a word you say if you ignore basic rules of grammar."

#trivial

#adhominem

#don'tcareifit'sboth

Edited January 27, 2015 by canard78

[mfbukowski]

I have never read this book and I don't have a real inclination to do so. But I do know the author wrote a book entitled "deconstructing Mormonism: An analysis and assessment of the Mormon faith." I know this book is probably the leading book that led a certain apologist from FAIR to abandon his faith. I am not saying his name because that probably isn't appropriate. The Book claims to be a psycho social analysis of Mormonism. Has FARMS or FAIR critiqued this book? How damaging is it for those that may have read it?

Quite honestly, the central argument is classical atheist stuff coming out of logical positivism:  If something cannot be proven scientifically, it cannot be "true".

 

I have a copy and am working my way through it, but it is deliberately packed with repetition and has sleep-inducing properties and is totally boring.  I keep wading through the.... stuff.... waiting for a new argument to no avail.   It's kind of like straining the mud out of a pond, going through every shovel looking, not for a diamond, but something coherent that is not designed to sound impressive while actually being jargon-ridden jibberish.

 

It is designed to win by intimidation of the uninformed or unschooled in real philosophy.  It strives to beat one into submission by the very weight of the... stuff... it shovels upon one.

 

As far as I can tell so far, all it is is logical positivism. 

 

Riskas cannot handle the idea of a truth system based on relativism, nor could he ever explain how a moral proposition like "It is wrong to murder" could be "true".

 

He seems to have no real grasp of theories of truth http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ other than the one he espouses.  Relativist positions escape his understanding.

 

So yes, the book could be confusing for the faith of those not schooled in philosophy, but for anyone who understands that there are many theories of truth, it doesn't even bear serious consideration.

[mfbukowski]

A quick search revealed yes there is a response:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Deconstructing_Mormonism

 

And a good one!

[mfbukowski]

I have his book -- which he kindly sent to me, free of charge,

even knowing in advance that I would not be an easy critic.

 

It helps to know that the author (a former Mormon) has discarded

all of his previous professions of Latter Day Saintism, Christianity,

theistic religion, and (if I understand him correctly, even atheistic

religion such as Zen or Taoism or Saturday afternoon yoga class).

 

He has arranged his arguments into something like a series of

doubts, or challenges to religion that the objective (?) investigator

of anti-Mormonism (and anti-religion) ought to work through, in

order to possibly end up at the same point as Riskas himself.

 

In other words, the prospective professor of LDS religion would

begin this study (exercise? experiment?) by first of all laying aside

his or her "testimony." If that seems impossible as a beginning point,

the reader of the book will be confronted with that implicit challenge

on practically every page of this thick, dense, hard-to-read volume,

replete with the sort of specialized jargon one might expect to encounter

in graduate courses in human psychology and philosophy.

 

How many Latter Day Saints can begin such an examination by

seriously and "objectively" doubting their most basic beliefs --

those apparent "truths" that the Brother of Jared might say go

even beyond mere belief, into the realms of certain knowledge?

 

I have a hard time visualizing anybody's Bishop saying, "Sure,

go ahead and read Riskas with the open mind of a benighted

gentile -- throw away your testimony, and become a "clean

slate" for the precepts of men to write upon..."

 

And I say all of that, not as a Latter Day Saint, myself, nor as

a Christian, as a theist, nor even as a practicioner of athestic

religion -- of supporting Greenpeace, or Save the Whales,

or the Unitarian-Universalists, etc. etc.

 

I say it simply as a reader who was willing to attempt reading

the fellow's book and taking his arguments/advice seriously.

 

I did ask Riskas where he suggested that I myself should begin,

in experimenting with dropping my "beliefs" -- and he appeared

unable to answer. I suspect he would do better engaging a

recent convert, who had never been to the Temple nor finished

reading 1st Nephi. That, or perhaps Bro. Shirts...

 

Oh well,

 

UD

Indeed!

[mfbukowski]

One would likely not read this unless into apologetics or having doubts. One with doubts is hesitant to validate their testimony over the testimony that those of other faiths have. Why is my spiritual fuzzy feeling of more worth than another's? From this starting point a person with doubt's can began on the authors premise.

Not if they understand different theories of truth.

 

It is a trap for a layman, no one else.   I have had discussions with Kerry and he has no clue about the nature of truth

[mfbukowski]

I may be mis-stating Riskas' deconstruction process, but, according

to what I see as his world-view, even St. John of the Cross would

have to throw his theophanies into the garbage dump and begin

by admitting those godly experiences to have been hallucinations.

 

Siddhartha would have to begin by admitting he had no true

transcendental enlightment while sitting under a tree in Deer Park.

 

And those groups of people who testify to having witnessed an

authentic supernatural event, would have to begin by admitting

that they were most likely victims of mass hysteria.

 

Moses encountered no Divinity in any burning bush.

 

No guy named Jesus ever suffered in any garden, pouring forth blood.

 

There is nothing supernatural. Metaphysics is a philosophical hoax.

 

If any of you folks can start off from such admissions (I can't) and

then be prepared to be de-programmed by Riskas in a step-by-step

process of belief deconstruction, go ahead and make the attempt.

 

As I said, Riskas could not even begin to suggest what beliefs I

should drop. Perhaps 2+2=4? Or maybe Newton's Laws? Or,

perhaps there never was a George Washington or Abe Lincoln?

 

Oh well...

 

UD

Exactly right.

 

He has never even read William James' Varieties of Religious Experience as far as I can tell.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/william-james-varieties-of-religious-experience-unique-message-1411767878

 

James message has never even crossed his mind. 

 

Our own Seth Payne has written about it http://www.sethpayne.com/oh-say-truth/

[mfbukowski]

 

FWIW, the name of the person being referred to is found in one of the Amazon reviews for the book.

 

Deconstructing Mormonism

 

From his review:

 

 

Kerry wrote that review- didn't he??

 

I remember he referred to his own review somewhere?

 

What is ironic is that Riskas doesn't even seem to understand what "deconstruction" IS in a sense Derrida would use it.

[mfbukowski]

What about for those of us who have prayed and received an answer different than your own?

God doesn't want you here!  Get out!   (easy- just kidding) 

 

No seriously, I think that God can direct us to the path that will bring EACH of us closer to him- he is an individualized tutor to those who love him.   If one is a drunk on skid row, the Salvation Army might be a "true" path for him.

 

I personally know that I HAD to be both a Catholic AND an atheist before I became LDS.   I am always open to other ideas, but so far, this is it.

[Uncle Dale]

What about for those of us who have prayed and received an answer different than your own?

 

 

Odd you should mention that. The Josephites generally follow Moroni's challenge

literally, and pray to know if the book is NOT true.

 

At least some of us did.

 

But that, friend, is a tale for some other long winter's eve.

 

UD

[omni]

Then there is nothing illogical about questioning whether God is there.

I agree, but I'm talking about those people who have prayed to know if the church is true and have received an answer that it is not. Shouldn't they react accordingly just as you have to your answer that it is true?

[omni]

God doesn't want you here! Get out! (easy- just kidding)

No seriously, I think that God can direct us to the path that will bring EACH of us closer to him- he is an individualized tutor to those who love him. If one is a drunk on skid row, the Salvation Army might be a "true" path for him.

I personally know that I HAD to be both a Catholic AND an atheist before I became LDS. I am always open to other ideas, but so far, this is it.

I tend to agree. I'm open to the idea that God uses the spirit to guide people into or out of whatever religion he feels will suit them best. I just don't believe there's a "one true church".

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, the name of the person being referred to is found in one of the Amazon reviews for the book.

 

Deconstructing Mormonism

 

From his review:

I went to the trouble of reading Deconstructing Mormonism and writing a lengthy review for the Interpreter. Yes, it is the one linked at FAIR as well. I did so primarily out of concern and respect for Kerry. He knows I wrote the review, but to date, he has not commented on it. I found that the book I read did not live up to his Amazon review. Nor can I or would I characterize Mormonism as he as does, that "We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told." For the record, several years before Riskas showed up, I encouraged Kerry to read Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. I used Barbour extensively in my response to Riskas. Claiming that Mormons are simply never taught to think, and claiming that "everything we read is geared to simply re-enforcing what we have been told" is, I think a rather grotesque over-generalization and caracature. Frankly, if it were true, I'd never have read Riskas. Nor a great many other things that I have read. Nor would my LDS favorite writers been able to produce the work that has most impressed and challenged me over the years.

Riskas did respond to my review by tacking a wordy response to a dismissive review of my Interpreter article on Amazon. I notice that he didn't bother to quote me a single time (my review quotes him extensively), and he never addresses particular arguments except that he emphatically denies that he is a Positivist. Alan Goff has observed that the standard reponse to being called a Positivist involves denying that one is a Posititivist while continuing to make Positivist claims. Had Riskas been able to define what characterizes positivism, and then showed that he does not make any positivist claims, that would constitute a logical argument. What we get is not what I would call a logical argument. Rather, he just tells his readers what to think, sans any actual confrontation with my logical arguments. That is, he makes no effort to distinguish his monotonously repeated Positivist claims about Verification and Falsification from text-book definitions of Positivism as built on standard claims about Verification and Falsification. This is not the kind of response that shows me by example the arcane art of critical thinking. It is simply anti-testimony.

Riskas claims that Mormons are trapped in a box in which the instructions for how to get out are written on the outside, and encourages us to uncritically submit to an outside test for faith. I ask readers to consider whether Riskas's outside test for faith (which turns out to be off-the-rack positivism) is just another box with the instructions for how to get out written on its outside. So I suggest applying a different outside test to both Riskas and Mormonism. And that is Barbour's wonderful little book. I still think that if Kerry had read Barbour, he would have had a far different experience with Riskas. In responding to me at Amazon, Riskas does not mention Barbour [actually, does, barely], let alone deal with the implications of his work.

And at one point, I do perform a bit of a Derridian deconstruction of Riskas. Riskas explains that he was raised by a controlling and authoritarian Father, and that during the sixties, he went through a period of rebellion in response to such toxic parenting. Then, without a trace of self-reflection or irony, he elsewhere argues that God does not exist on the grounds that God does NOT behave like a controlling and authoritarian toxic parent, of the sort that he himself rebelled against. Really. And this is supposedly a master class in critical thinking? Riskas basically insists that a person cannot and should not have faith in the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Think about that. And he claims absolute certainty with respect to his disbelief, insisting that nothing (such as evidence of any kind) could ever change his mind. An awareness of irony is not his strong suit.

Riskas has an extensive bibliography, notably heavy on atheistic psychology, light on Mormon thought, and non-existent on Nibley, Falconer, Givens, Goff, Sorenson, Gardner, Madsen, etc. That is, his reading is slanted towards re-enforcing his views, and light on the best and most important Mormon thought.

And incidentally, my essay uses LDS scripture and Barbour to argue that what we call testimony can and should involve far more than mere warm fuzzies.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 26, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

I agree, but I'm talking about those people who have prayed to know if the church is true and have received an answer that it is not. Shouldn't they react accordingly just as you have to your answer that it is true?

 

As one who has received the testimony that it is true all I can say to you who have received a different message is Take it and run with it.  Just allow someone whose experience is different than yours the opportunity to do the same with theirs.