Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Calm]

"In addition, you are asserting that Saemo thinks he is asserting opinion. "

No, he isn't.

[Buckeye]

As further explanation of the FAIR whitewashing, Bill was a panelist at the 2013 FAIR conference. His name is still listed on the agenda, and his bio is still included alongside other participants, but apparently all of his comments from the panel discussion have been scrubbed: See http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith(Bill is now omitted with the explanation "This content has been edited.").  See also: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/conf13a; http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/conf13b

 

ETA: Bill has the full video of the panel discussion on his blog, here: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/fairmormons-the-reel-story-part-1/. Apparently he was not only a participant but guided the discussion, which must have made editing him out even more awkward. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

As further explanation of the FAIR whitewashing, Bill was a panelist at the 2013 FAIR conference. His name is still listed on the agenda, and his bio is still included alongside other participants, but apparently all of his comments from the panel discussion have been scrubbed: See http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith(Bill is now omitted with the explanation "This content has been edited.").  See also: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/conf13a; http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/conf13b

 

ETA: Bill has the full video of the panel discussion on his blog, here: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/fairmormons-the-reel-story-part-1/. Apparently he was not only a participant but guided the discussion, which must have made editing him out even more awkward. 

This is a pretty funny/sad/silly/hurtful thing to do. That sounds like the FAIR I grew to disdain. Over time I found them petty and vindictive, close-minded, dismissive, and arrogant. Other than that I'm sure it's a wonderful organization, and in fairness I did have some good interactions with people there. Some were very kind and understanding. Sadly the kind people were the exception to the rule.

[SmileyMcGee]

"In addition, you are asserting that Saemo thinks he is asserting opinion. "

No, he isn't.

 

Ya, I agree with you upon a re-read. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Buckeye]

This is a pretty funny/sad/silly/hurtful thing to do. That sounds like the FAIR I grew to disdain. Over time I found them petty and vindictive, close-minded, dismissive, and arrogant. Other than that I'm sure it's a wonderful organization, and in fairness I did have some good interactions with people there. Some were very kind and understanding. Sadly the kind people were the exception to the rule.

 

I would love to have an explanation from Calm or anyone else plugged in with FAIR.

 

I can understand not inviting him again if you don't think he fits with the program. Heck, I'm pretty sure I'd never get an invite. But scrubbing someone's content is petty and, frankly, pretty pointless in the internet age. The D&C hasn't been scrubbed of the names of apostates. (And to be clear, Bill is still a member in good standing as far as I know). So if Bill's comments were acceptable at the time given, why remove them just because he's having a really hard time with the policy change and (as he admits) has been pretty aggressive on FB.

 

At this point all I can conclude is that FAIR is getting the same poor PR advice that is leading the COB.

[juliann]

This is a pretty funny/sad/silly/hurtful thing to do. That sounds like the FAIR I grew to disdain. Over time I found them petty and vindictive, close-minded, dismissive, and arrogant. Other than that I'm sure it's a wonderful organization, and in fairness I did have some good interactions with people there. Some were very kind and understanding. Sadly the kind people were the exception to the rule.

 

Nice to know you, too! I am an FM founder and sit on the Board. Only petty, vindictive, close-minded, dismissive and arrogant people can join. I look forward to many unkind interactions with you. 

[SmileyMcGee]

The problem with your belief that everything is personal preference is that you do not understand that that belief is only your personal preference

How have I suggested this? 

[rockpond]

Nice to know you, too! I am an FM founder and sit on the Board. Only petty, vindictive, close-minded, dismissive and arrogant people can join. I look forward to many unkind interactions with you. 

 

Would you care to explain why Bill was edited out of the panel discussion?

Edited November 20, 2015 by rockpond

[Buckeye]

 

Nice to know you, too! I am an FM founder and sit on the Board. Only petty, vindictive, close-minded, dismissive and arrogant people can join. I look forward to many unkind interactions with you.  

 

He said the action was petty; not the people. I agree. 

 

Perhaps some facts or explanation would help take the discussion away from the FAIR members.

[theplains]

Imagine if the Holy Spirit would operate in the church the same way like what happened in

Acts 4:32 to 5:16.  Many today might leave due to fear.  We tend to focus too much on

certain types of sins and ignore the others.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

[SmileyMcGee]

Go ahead and act on that.  See how it works

 

Go kill a few people because it is your personal preference and see how that works for you.

 

The FACT is that morality is very clearly defined socially.  We might disagree about details but overall we agree to an amazing degree.

 Did I imply that actions should or should not (or would or would not) have social consequences? 

Edited November 20, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[juliann]

Would you care to explain why Bill was edited out of the panel discussion?

 

No more than I or any other online organization would like to....or should be expected to explain every modification, edit, re-organization, on websites that are constantly changing. What surprises me is the misinformation being circulated. FYI, everything is available elsewhere, and it is, of course, cached.  Second, and most puzzling, the editing was done months ago yet it is being claimed it is a result of the recent church CHI changes. 

[Buckeye]

 

No more than I or any other online organization would like to....or should be expected to explain every modification, edit, re-organization, on websites that are constantly changing. What surprises me is the misinformation being circulated. FYI, everything is available elsewhere, and it is, of course, cached.  Second, and most puzzling, the editing was done months ago yet it is being claimed it is a result of the recent church CHI changes. 

 

No one is asking for an explanation of every change - just this one. You can't both (1) refuse to give and answer and (2) complain that misinformation is being circulated. Again, that's a page out of the church's playbook. Either give an answer or expect people to hypothesize and, not surprising, get things wrong.

 

It is helpful to know that this was done months ago. Thanks for that! The question still remains "why"? What purpose does it accomplish to scrub someone's comments from the 2013 Conference? 

[rockpond]

No more than I or any other online organization would like to....or should be expected to explain every modification, edit, re-organization, on websites that are constantly changing. What surprises me is the misinformation being circulated. FYI, everything is available elsewhere, and it is, of course, cached.  Second, and most puzzling, the editing was done months ago yet it is being claimed it is a result of the recent church CHI changes. 

 

I haven't seen it claimed to be a result of the CHI changes.  Nor have I read of Bill making such a claim.

 

Other than that, I second Buckeye's response in post #9.

[mfbukowski]

Once again, I'm not asserting that intrinsic qualities don't "exist," I'm simply asking those who assert knowledge of intrinsic quality to justify their position. This is the second thread where you have asserted something for me, which do not believe or assert myself. Asking people to defend there position is not taking a position. I believe that "evil" is, as far as human experience is concerned, a matter of opinion. I have not asserted otherwise. So that not "hard" for me to understand. Why are you lecturing me on epistemology when I have clearly asked the others to defend the epistemics of their position? 

 

Also, why do continue to attempt to end discussions by calling them "pointless?" Can articulate why any discussion on this board, including and especially those that you have participated in, are not "pointless?" If all is opinion, what is the point of any discussion? What ultimately is the point of anything, Mark? Pointless to you  or not, I enjoy participating in discussion. 

You did not read or comprehend my post.

 

In that post I said this:

Each of you can justify your position to your own satisfaction til doomsday and not resolve the question

 

.In this post you said this:

I'm simply asking those who assert knowledge of intrinsic quality to justify their position

 

Do you see that I already answered that before you asked the question?

 

There is no critiera for "justification" upon which you will agree, so we are back to the beginning.  We here have a poster who has essentially said that God taught hin to drive a car.  How can you argue with that?

 

If he wants to see it that way, nothing on this earth will dissuade him from that point of view.  That view is fully justified in his mind, and honestly I knew he was going to say that and honestly I cannot disagree with him.

 

Plato himself believed that knowledge was a kind of "remembering" what we already knew from the pre-existence (I am using LDS terms - not Platonic terms)

 

Plato was obviously no dummie!!   If that is what he believed about knowledge who am I to dispute it??  In fact I am somewhat sympathetic to that position myself.

 

I justify my beliefs pragmatically because I BELIEVE that makes the most sense.  Logical positivists BELIEVE that Occam's razor and scientific "evidence" is what justifies belief.  That is the position of many atheists who have not examined their own positions.

 

The problem is that BELIEF in that kind of "justification" is just as suspect as any other.

 

There are virtually no logical positivists left in philosophy departments and haven't been for probably 20 years because no one believes that anymore.  I would argue that logical positivism is much like a religious position in itself. 

 

"Justification" is now seen as applying to a particular COMMUNITY of believers.

 

That is why I keep posting that stupid Rorty video which no one listens to.  In that he says "JUSTIFICATION IS RELATIVE TO AN AUDIENCE"

 

Justification to a Cathoic audience is different than justification to a Mormon audience which is different than justification to an atheist audience which is different than justification to a logical positivist audience

etc

etc

 

Maher I hear was on tv the other night saying that "atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position"  Big laugh.  Those stupid religionists!!   Ha ha.

 

But in fact, though he presented it poorly, he confirmed the contradiction in his own statement which confirmed the audience's ignorance by their laughter!

 

Obviously religion is a position ABOUT the existence of God.  Atheism is also a position ABOUT the existence of God.  Abstinence is not ABOUT sex positions though some might argue that it de facto is- no sex positions at all.  But that statement on its own is incoherent.

 

Anyway, YES atheism is no more justifiable to EVERY audience than even this statement itself is.

 

So live with it.

 

I believe I can justifiy all my beliefs on a pragmatic basis.  I found Mormonism because I believed in Pragmatism first and I justifiy Mormonism based on Pragmatism.

 

But I have no illusions that Pragmatism "corresponds" to any "truth" beyond Pragmatism itself.  Pragmatism itself is the belief that that is "true".

 

No more, no less.

[mfbukowski]

I said:
 

The problem with your belief that everything is personal preference is that you do not understand that that belief is only your personal preference

 

How have I suggested this?

Dunno.
Maybe because you said that and I believed it reflected your belief?

I don't see how I could attribute morality to anything but personal preference, however that preference is determined.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

Deleted in respect to Mark and a sincere thanks to him.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

Sigh.

(That makes it a comment on the OP)

 

Here it is yet again.  Please actually listen.  Carefully.

 

If you disagree with Rorty on his own basis, you are probably wrong, but if you think you can "justify" your position to a pragmatic audience, go for it.  I would love to hear it.

 

Sorry.  I really should just transcribe it and cut and paste the reply again and again.

 

No one has ever taken Rorty on - at least not here.

 

But I am lazy, and the video is an easier post!! 

[mfbukowski]

I retracted and clarified myself, Mark. I also apologized to Scott in the same post.

I did not see that, and in that case I likewise apologize.

 

I will go back and delete the post.  Please go ahead and delete your quote of my post if you like.  We can just turn back the clock on that one.

 

I too go over the top on a regular basis and I understand what that is like

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

 Only petty, vindictive, close-minded, dismissive and arrogant people can join. 

That is how I got in.  

[mfbukowski]

So here is what Rorty is saying:

 

We have a bunch of statements. 

"There is objective morality"

"There is no objective morality"

"The boiling point of water is 212F".

"Joseph Smith's vision taught that God has a body like ours"

"Evolution is true"

"Evolution is false"

"Evolution proves there was no fall of man"

"The fall of man is conpativle with evolution"

 

Each of these statements is a "truth candidate"

 

Each statement can be "jusrified" within an audience because that "audience" - community- has its own system of justification, indpendent of the others.

 

Scientific statements can by justified by the methods of science.

 

Statements about Catholicism - objective morality etc- can be justified within that framework

 

Statements about Mormonism can be justified using what a Mormon audience finds to be "justification"

 

Some Mormons may have different rules of justification than others because our definition of "dioctrine" is essentially pragmatic (that is my personal opinion) so some may find statements about evolution being compatible with the fall "justified" others may not.   And yet others may agree with ssm- to a degree- and others not.  When in doubt the church defines what qualifes as a "justified belief" for the community.   Members of the community may disagree with that.  In the final analysis they either get kicked out or not.  The church clearly has a right to define those justification proceedures. (in my opinion)

 

Rorty then says that the word "truth" is used all the time but no one has defined it in an undisputed manner, for all audiences in all times.  That is his belief and that statement is itself another "truth candidate" subject to justification within the philosophy community as a whole.

 

No one given statement can be said to "correspond" to "reality" better than any other because we cannot define "reality", only the "appearance of reality" because all we have in language are symbolic statements about what appears to us to be "reality", we can never get "down" to reality itself- just appearance

 

So there are no "facts" that we can get to- just interpretations of someone's description of what they think "reality" is.

 

So that is Rorty's position.  Again- he does not allege that it is more "true" than any other description of "truth" so he is consistent about that.

 

Either that explanation helps or it doesn't.

 

I don't see how any of that is disputable.  If you don't like it it doesn't work for you, and you get to find something that does.

 

Discussions like this one, in my opinion, should be about whether or not a given position can be "justified" to the Mormon community as the church defines "Mormon Community" ie- members.

 

We can talk about atheism here, but we are not atheists.  We can talk about EV doctrine here, but ultimately those kinds of discussions which contain statements which are not justifiable within the Mormon community will come down to squabbling about defintions of words.

 

Within the community we know what we are talking about- (for the most part).  So probably if we actually want to nfluence others, we should probably stick to discussions within the community.

 

I am here to try to influence others to my way of seeing Mormonism.  That is my stated purpose, so that is why I do not see arguments justifiying truth candidates outside that community as relevant to my participation here.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mystery Meat]

Our own Bill Reel (DBMormon), who apparently now has the unique(?) honor of having been whitewashed out of the FAIR Mormon archives, explores the doctrinal contradictions in the new policy.  He has it formatted so that someone can take 5 minutes and just read the main points, or take 20 minutes to read the entire document.  Here's the link:

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/19575/duty-bound-to-reject-it/

 

And his concluding quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.

 

I think that Bill's article does a good job of capturing why so many faithful members are upset and why we feel compelled to speak out rather than be silent and give tacit approval to this action.

 

Your thoughts regarding Bill's points?

 

I think they are fine points to make, I just don't see, despite all of the arguments I have heard, how any of this (the changes to the handbook of instructions) conflicts with the standard works.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[canard78]

No more than I or any other online organization would like to....or should be expected to explain every modification, edit, re-organization, on websites that are constantly changing. What surprises me is the misinformation being circulated. FYI, everything is available elsewhere, and it is, of course, cached.  Second, and most puzzling, the editing was done months ago yet it is being claimed it is a result of the recent church CHI changes. 

 

I know others have made a similar point, but to complain about misinformation about the editing in the same sentence as a refusal to explain is delightfully ironic.

[rockpond]

I think they are fine points to make, I just don't see, despite all of the arguments I have heard, how any of this conflicts with the standard works.

 

He cites a number of scriptures as support.

[JLHPROF]

All great questions for Jesus, I guess. But what are you basing your ideas on about God's laws, if not the teachings of Jesus?

 

The recorded actions of God and the words of the scriptures.  What else is there?