Dan Peterson: "what It Feels Like To Be A Mormon 'apologist'"

[Thinking]

Ritual creates the sacred and always has. It redefines an action or object by putting it in a sacred context, and by acting as if it is sacred. This redefinition is "making rational" much as language makes rational our experiences. It literally is "rationalization" in the sense of making the object or action rational by giving it a purpose it never had before.

 

So in the context of John having a hard time rationalizing Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, what is the new purpose of marrying another man's wife?

[Tacenda]

So in the context of John having a hard time rationalizing Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, what is the new purpose of marrying another man's wife?

That is one, even an apologist can't rationalize.

[jkwilliams]

That is one, even an apologist can't rationalize.

 

I wouldn't say that. My point was that not everyone can justify Joseph's behavior. Saying that some of us can't is not a personal attack on those who can.

[Tacenda]

I wouldn't say that. My point was that not everyone can justify Joseph's behavior. Saying that some of us can't is not a personal attack on those who can.

You're right, I'm sure there are those who can, I apologize for my flippant remark. 

[jkwilliams]

You're right, I'm sure there are those who can, I apologize for my flippant remark. 

 

No problem. I understood what you were saying: we can't justify it. Must be our judgmental nature, or something.

 

I remember someone on this board telling me that the great trial of this life is to be able to overcome your conscience and obey even when your conscience tells you it's wrong to obey. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

I do believe most people in or out of the church would find Joseph's behavior problematic, ...

Obviously they do not.

[mfbukowski]

If you understand 20th Century art at all, you understand re-contextulization. Look at Dada. That was about making the ordinary "sacred" by simply putting the ordinary into a gallery, and questioning the whole definition of what constitutes "art".

Everyone in the church understands Joseph's re-contextulization of polygamy, though some disagree with what they choose to rationalize as " what really happened ".

No one knows what really happened or didn't, nor do we ever.

It's all the context in which we choose to see it.

These ideas of re-contextulization are not going anywhere. They are 200 years old. They have finally filtered into the church, thank God.

We no longer need creedal dualism.

[jkwilliams]

If you understand 20th Century art at all, you understand re-contextulization. Look at Dada. That was about making the ordinary "sacred" by simply putting the ordinary into a gallery, and questioning the whole definition of what constitutes "art".

Everyone in the church understands Joseph's re-contextulization of polygamy, though some disagree with what they choose to rationalize as " what really happened ".

No one knows what really happened or didn't, nor do we ever.

It's all the context in which we choose to see it.

These ideas of re-contextulization are not going anywhere. They are 200 years old. They have finally filtered into the church, thank God.

We no longer need creedal dualism.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming they know what really happened, but most of us agree that Joseph married a number of women without his wife's knowledge or consent. Some people's conscience won't allow them to "recontextualize" that behavior into something sacred. Saying that some of us can't do that is not an indictment of those who can. At the same time, I don't think the inability to justify this kind of stuff is a character flaw, as some seem to believe. 

[mfbukowski]

I don't think anyone is claiming they know what really happened, but most of us agree that Joseph married a number of women without his wife's knowledge or consent. Some people's conscience won't allow them to "recontextualize" that behavior into something sacred. Saying that some of us can't do that is not an indictment of those who can. At the same time, I don't think the inability to justify this kind of stuff is a character flaw, as some seem to believe.

No point made, no answer possible.

[jkwilliams]

No point made, no answer possible.

 

I thought my point was clear, but maybe not. But I'll just say it again: some of us can't justify certain things because our conscience won't let us. I don't know what that has to do with Dada or creedal dualism. 

 

Rereading your post about re-contextualizing, Dada, etc., I still don't know what you're trying to say. Some clarification would help.

Edited November 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[hagoth7]

...I don't think the inability to justify this kind of stuff is a character flaw, as some seem to believe. 

 

No point made, no answer possible.

 

jk's suggested point, if I'm understanding him correctly, is that two parties arriving at different conclusions after carefully considering the same evidence doesn't mean either of the parties is inherently flawed.

Edited November 4, 2015 by hagoth7

[jkwilliams]

jk's suggested point, if I'm understanding him correctly, is that two parties arriving at different conclusions after carefully considering the same evidence doesn't make either of the parties inherently bad.

 

Exactly. I was beginning to think maybe I don't communicate very well. I'm glad at least one person understood what I was trying to say. 

[hagoth7]

...I remember someone on this board telling me that the great trial of this life is to be able to overcome your conscience and obey even when your conscience tells you it's wrong to obey. 

Never heard such a thing. Were they citing someone?

 

I'm more partial to: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own  conscience, and allow all men the same privilege..."

Edited November 4, 2015 by hagoth7

[jkwilliams]

Never heard such a thing. Were they citing someone?

 

Yes, they cited Joseph Smith's letter to Nancy Rigdon.

[hagoth7]

Yes, they cited Joseph Smith's letter to Nancy Rigdon.

Oops. Looks like I opened up a can of worms. 

 

Dare I ask: is the original letter archived somewhere?

[jkwilliams]

Oops. Looks like I opened up a can of worms. 

 

Dare I ask: is the original letter archived somewhere?

 

I don't think the original is available, but the church has generally acknowledged its authenticity. But you're right, big can of worms, and that would require another thread.

[Nevo]

Never heard such a thing. Were they citing someone?

 

I first came across the idea—that "whatever God commands is right" even if it goes against our conscience—in Eugene England's essay, "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage." Regarding Abrahamic tests, England wrote:

 

God apparently uses such a unique and uniquely troubling test because it is the only way to teach us something paradoxical but true and very important about the universe—that trust in our personal experiences with divinity must sometimes outweigh our rational morality. Obedience to the divine commands that come directly to us must sometimes supersede our understanding of earlier commands if we are ever to transcend the human limitations of even our best inherited culture and religion. We must learn, sometimes very painfully, to be open to continuous revelation. We must learn such a lesson partly because truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable commandments—even from past prophets—like “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt always have only one spouse.” Truth is ultimately “rational,” but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

I first came across the idea—that "whatever God commands is right" even if it goes against our conscience—in Eugene England's essay, "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage." Regarding Abrahamic tests, England wrote:

It makes no sense under most people's concept of conscience -- that it is God-given. If a person of conscience is motivated to violate traditional mores, it is ultimately because he is led to do so by his conscience.

[jkwilliams]

It makes no sense under most people's concept of conscience -- that it is God-given. If a person of conscience is motivated to violate traditional mores, it is ultimately because he is led to do so by his conscience.

It never made sense to me, either. It suggests that Heavenly Father wants us to ignore the Light of Christ He has given us.

[Scott Lloyd]

It never made sense to me, either. It suggests that Heavenly Father wants us to ignore the Light of Christ He has given us.

Agreed.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I think we are using different definitions of "rationalize." I used it in its most common sense of attempting to justify or make excuses for something that bothers your conscience. Either way, I shouldn't have let Mark goad me into a response.

Actually, I covered several definitions of "rationalize," including the negative one you are using here.  Then I demonstrated other meanings, including interpretation, which fits right into Mark's approach to understanding the social construction of reality -- something it would behoove all of us to take more seriously.

 

 

I don't think that definition works in the sentence you quoted from Brant:

Of course not, but I didn't suggest that it did.  What I was attempting to point out was the importance in Mormonism (and in other mystery religions) of rationalizing ritual via myth, which (for scholars anyway) carries no negative implication.   The scholarly bent is to be fully aware and reflective of all such discursive theological methods of interpreting reality.

 

Moreover, scholars generally prefer to find their definitions of words from usage and context -- best obtained via the Oxford English Dictionary and a close reading of any given text.

[Robert F. Smith]

I first came across the idea—that "whatever God commands is right" even if it goes against our conscience—in Eugene England's essay, "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage." Regarding Abrahamic tests, England wrote:

Quote

God apparently uses such a unique and uniquely troubling test because it is the only way to teach us something paradoxical but true and very important about the universe—that trust in our personal experiences with divinity must sometimes outweigh our rational morality. Obedience to the divine commands that come directly to us must sometimes supersede our understanding of earlier commands if we are ever to transcend the human limitations of even our best inherited culture and religion. We must learn, sometimes very painfully, to be open to continuous revelation. We must learn such a lesson partly because truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable commandments—even from past prophets—like “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt always have only one spouse.” Truth is ultimately “rational,” but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason.

Wouldn't this appeal to a jihadist?

[jkwilliams]

Actually, I covered several definitions of "rationalize," including the negative one you are using here.  Then I demonstrated other meanings, including interpretation, which fits right into Mark's approach to understanding the social construction of reality -- something it would behoove all of us to take more seriously.

 

 

Of course not, but I didn't suggest that it did.  What I was attempting to point out was the importance in Mormonism (and in other mystery religions) of rationalizing ritual via myth, which (for scholars anyway) carries no negative implication.   The scholarly bent is to be fully aware and reflective of all such discursive theological methods of interpreting reality.

 

Moreover, scholars generally prefer to find their definitions of words from usage and context -- best obtained via the Oxford English Dictionary and a close reading of any given text.

I was talking about conscience and whether one can or cannot justify something that conflicts with one's conscience. As Mark noted, I do believe everything is interpreted. What goes into that interpretation is complicated, and part of it is conscience, whether that is socially constructed or a gift from God. In this thread, it's been asserted that not being able to reconcile one's understanding of certain events is a sign of bad faith and an eagerness to judge harshly. My response had nothing to do with whether or not we interpret events, but Mark couldn't pass up an opportunity to take another cheap shot at me. I get it. It's what he does. I'm not offended.

[mfbukowski]

I thought my point was clear, but maybe not. But I'll just say it again: some of us can't justify certain things because our conscience won't let us. I don't know what that has to do with Dada or creedal dualism.

Rereading your post about re-contextualizing, Dada, etc., I still don't know what you're trying to say. Some clarification would help.

So they disagree on the interpretation.

OK.

The point is that Dada says it's all interpretation. If you disagree, that's your prerogative. Dadaists would say that the conscience is contingent, so its still just interpretation contingent on your cultural context.

Once you start with the notion that it's all interpretation you have to stick with it to be consistent. So saying the conscience does not allow it is just saying your interpretation does not allow it.

That's nice but it doesn't really say anything new.

Edited November 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

jk's suggested point, if I'm understanding him correctly, is that two parties arriving at different conclusions after carefully considering the same evidence doesn't mean either of the parties is inherently flawed.

Yes I know and I agree with him.

I thought I was saying the same thing so there was no need for him to effectively repeat it.  What he had said already implied what he said again explicitly.  No net gain or loss.

 

So to me at this point we are discussing the discussion about whether or not there was a discussion.

 

So let's fergitabout it already!!