Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[DBMormon]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Bill, can you see how you jump to conclusions? I said it would be a better approach. How do you get CFR from that?

You have stated that it better that I prove him wrong.  I have extended the CFR.  The board rules require him to substantiate it or retract it.  You have suggested that responsibility not lie with him but rather with me.  I simply disagree.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

fify  

 

That is rather a board no no (I believe because it can lead to misunderstandings who wrote what even if it appears to be clear...plus people have a right imo to be allowed to let their words stand as they wrote them when being quoted.) Better to quote the original and then put the altered under your own name.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I assume you will also retract your statement that I am inaccurate till that transcript comes out?

I'm retracting nothing.

But when the transcript is available, I will expect you to document each of your assertions with one or more direct quotations, in context, from the transcription.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'm including their books and podcasts and what not with that description not just their FairMormon presentations.      

Would you agree Bushman has a radically different view of scripture and prophets than the average conservative LDS?

 

Depends on your definition of conservative.  If you mean fundamentalist, I would probably agree. 

[churchistrue]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Here we go.....

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions

Yay!

[juliann]

 

Quote

4.)  That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there.

What he actually said:

One of the problems we have in Mormonism is that we have loaded too much into the Truth Cart. And then when anything in the cart starts to rot a bit, or look unseemly upon further inspection, some have a tendency to overturn the entire cart or seek a refund for the whole lot. We have loaded so much into the Truth Cart largely because we have wanted to have the same kind of certainty about our religious claims—down to rather obscure doctrinal issues—as we do about scientific claims. . . .

Over the years the church leadership and laity have also done our religion no favors by putting more in the cart than the cart could possibly bear. . . . Many of the things which trouble people are things that we probably should never have been all that dogmatic about in the first place. I find that a little humility about our doctrine, especially given the contingencies of its historical development, goes a long way in remaining satisfied with the whole. . . .

 

[juliann]

Quote

 

7.)  He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes

8.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors.

 

What he actually said:

I believe we need to summon the courage to finally and truly repent for some of our past transgressions. Let’s start with the obvious stuff, like Mountain Meadows, the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban, and generations of patriarchal discourse that relegated women to being reflected light compared to the glory of their husbands and priesthood leaders. Repentance, at least as the church has taught me the principle, requires an admission of wrongdoing and an effort toward reconciliation with those who have been trespassed against. It is more than either just moving on or a lawyerly expression of remorse that bad things may have happened.

[churchistrue]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on your definition of conservative.  If you mean fundamentalist, I would probably agree. 

Well, there you go.  We have agreement.  I think Hardy and Mason come down in line with Bushman on those issues.  And I do think it's radically different than the traditional view.  Whether you call that conservative/fundamentalistic, whatever.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Quote

1.)  He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly.

Not seeing this in the transcript -- no statement "flatly" asserting that "we" (what is meant by "we"?) have "defined prophets incorrectly."

Maybe Bill is referring to this statement from the letter that Mason quoted:

Quote

We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough.

Or this follow-up commentary:

Quote

The chapter in Planted that I get the most comments on is chapter 6, “In All Patience and Faith,” which addresses prophetic fallibility while maintaining the conviction that God does reach down and call a few mortals among us to dedicate their lives and best efforts to proclaiming the gospel, leading the church, and calling us to repentance. One of our community’s gifts, as Latter-day Saint Christians, is that we declare that God points us to prophets, apostles, and the church—not because they can save or redeem us, but because they are the temporal means by which he orients us to our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

But I don't see here any indication that "we" (and I can only assume that by this he means the institutional Church) have "defined prophets incorrectly."

Mason didn't say that, not in any of the foregoing passages.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

I tried searching for the terms "prophet" and "prophetic," and these are the only passages I come up with.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[churchistrue]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is what was referred to as polemics. It has nothing to do with the labels you put on Mormons. It has nothing to do with apologetics. I'm just shaking my head that so many still want to turn a talk arguing against polemics into....polemics. 

Again, critics, who are typically polemicists, will have trouble with Hardy and Mason as has been well demonstrated here.

Hmm, I thought I did exactly what you did.  You just used critics in your example.  And I used conservative apologists in my example.    I wouldn't consider either of us engaging in polemics.  We both were talking about a group misinterpreting and misapplying Hardy and Mason.

 

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not seeing this in the transcript -- no statement "flatly" asserting that "we" (what is meant by "we"?) have "defined prophets incorrectly."

Maybe he's referring to this statement from the letter that Mason quoted:

Or this follow-up commentary:

But I don't see here any indication that "we" (and I can only assume that by this he means the institutional Church) have "defined prophets incorrectly."

Mason didn't say that, not in any of the foregoing passages.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

I tried searching for the terms "prophet" and "prophetic," and these are the only passages I come up with.

You cherry picked the quote.  Here's the whole thing.

Quote

One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood. We have treated our prophets too often as demigods. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough. We give it lip service but too often do not believe it, nor consider its implications, other than the intellectually lazy conclusion that the whole thing must either be all true or a complete fraud. . . . We need to think harder about why we should…sustain prophets and apostles whom we know will occasionally be wrong about certain things. We don’t always know what those things are except in hindsight, because we were usually all wrong together

If you used five words to summarize that paragraph,  "we have defined prophets incorrectly," would probably be about the best you could do.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You cherry picked the quote.  Here's the whole thing.

If you used five words to summarize that paragraph,  "we have defined prophets incorrectly," would probably be about the best you could do.

 

Well, if that's the best you can do, you probably ought not try to summarize it in five words.

Because what you have quoted here (which, by the way, is not Mason giving his own words, but rather, Mason quoting from a letter he has received) does not say that "we have defined prophets incorrectly." Again, where is the "flat" statement to that effect?

And I'm still not certain what Bill meant by "we." The institutional Church? The leadership of the Church? Well-meaning rank-and-file members who occasionally err in their understanding? What?

Edited August 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

It is easy to change meaning and intent through omission:

Quote

he fears a fundamentalist takeover

What Bill leaves out:

Quote

But for the most part I’m optimistic that the center will hold, and that Zion will transcend the ongoing culture wars.

 

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You cherry picked the quote.  Here's the whole thing.

If you used five words to summarize that paragraph,  "we have defined prophets incorrectly," would probably be about the best you could do.

 

But that is the problem, using five words to describe a very full paragraph that ripples with nuance. He has missed the full meaning of Mason's thoughts in almost every bullet point. Can you honestly say that you think Mason (or anyone) would appreciate what has been done to his talk? He is clearly hopeful and supportive of the church but Reel has omitted  anything positive or hopeful. Few would call that intellectually honest.

I am hoping that talks like this one will provide needed contrast to those "toxic" sites he mentions. 

And BTW, putting "defined prophets incorrectly" into Mason's mouth is about as descriptive and helpful as shouting "you are WRONG!" at someone rather than giving an explanation. Mason gives examples, he teaches. He doesn't merely accuse.

Edited August 16, 2016 by juliann

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

If you used five words to summarize that paragraph,  "we have defined prophets incorrectly," would probably be about the best you could do.

As far as the quote doesn't say that though (it doesn't talk about how we have defined prophets at all.  It touches on how we often treat them, but that is completely different than defining something) it's a poor summarization of Mason's words.

Just take out Mason's word and use Reel's and it shows how weak the summarization is.  LDS definitely do not define a prophet as a demigod, for example.  

[Atomic Punk]

All I can say is that I attended the FairMormon conference, listened intently to Patrick Mason's talk and, after reading Bill's statements, wondered how he could interpret Mason's words so differently than what I understood.  Context is everything. C'mon Bill, don't make this harder than it really is.

[Flexible]

I just purchased the streaming, but can't access it because it is now asking me for a password which I don't have.  Anyone have a solution?

[Flexible]

11 minutes ago, Flexible said:

I just purchased the streaming, but can't access it because it is now asking me for a password which I don't have.  Anyone have a solution?

Problem solved.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

What he actually said:

One of the problems we have in Mormonism is that we have loaded too much into the Truth Cart. And then when anything in the cart starts to rot a bit, or look unseemly upon further inspection, some have a tendency to overturn the entire cart or seek a refund for the whole lot. We have loaded so much into the Truth Cart largely because we have wanted to have the same kind of certainty about our religious claims—down to rather obscure doctrinal issues—as we do about scientific claims. . . .

Over the years the church leadership and laity have also done our religion no favors by putting more in the cart than the cart could possibly bear. . . . Many of the things which trouble people are things that we probably should never have been all that dogmatic about in the first place. I find that a little humility about our doctrine, especially given the contingencies of its historical development, goes a long way in remaining satisfied with the whole. . . .

 

Perfect.  One down

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

What he actually said:

I believe we need to summon the courage to finally and truly repent for some of our past transgressions. Let’s start with the obvious stuff, like Mountain Meadows, the spurious racial ideologies surrounding the priesthood-temple ban, and generations of patriarchal discourse that relegated women to being reflected light compared to the glory of their husbands and priesthood leaders. Repentance, at least as the church has taught me the principle, requires an admission of wrongdoing and an effort toward reconciliation with those who have been trespassed against. It is more than either just moving on or a lawyerly expression of remorse that bad things may have happened.

Perfect.  two more

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

You cherry picked the quote.  Here's the whole thing.

If you used five words to summarize that paragraph,  "we have defined prophets incorrectly," would probably be about the best you could do.

 

perfect. Another down.  Lets keep going... this is fun

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Well, there you go.  We have agreement.  I think Hardy and Mason come down in line with Bushman on those issues.  And I do think it's radically different than the traditional view.  Whether you call that conservative/fundamentalistic, whatever.  

Except I don't think it is radically different than the traditional view....but that is okay if we differ, of course.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Since we got that out of the way, Lets discuss the substance of what Patrick has stated.

 

How?  Where is what he said?  Has it been posted legitimately?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Flexible said:

I just purchased the streaming, but can't access it because it is now asking me for a password which I don't have.  Anyone have a solution?

You should have gotten an email with instructions and password.  If not, contact us on the Fairmormon site and you will get sent one...pretty quickly....

I see it has now been solved, excellent.