let us reason together

[stemelbow]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormoninout/

new blog.  Pretty sweet so far. 

It has Patrick Mason, famed for the book Planted and his recent FairMormon talk, at least for me, and John Dehlin conversing. 

The first couple of posts have been really good as they discuss epistemology. 

Some quotes.

Mason:

Quote

One way to think about this is to reflect on the question, are you secular or religious?  Well, for me at least, the answer is “both.”  In line with the writing of Charles Taylor and many others, I would agree that we live in “a secular age,” in which we (at least in the modern West) are all secular.  The processes of rational knowledge acquisition that were developed and refined since the Enlightenment shape everything we do.  I would say that nowadays it’s virtually impossible not to be rational and scientific — that’s simply the default for the way knowledge works in secular modernity.

Dehlin:

Quote

If in 2016 a man or woman were to make any of the claims that Joseph Smith made — “I saw God!” “God told me to start a new church!”  “I received golden plates from an angel but he told me to hide them!” “The Book of Mormon is an ancient record of Native Americans!” — or were to do any of more controversial things that Joseph Smith did, such as marry 30+ women, several of whom were either under 18 or married to other men, lose (misappropriate?) people’s financial investments, claim to translate ancient documents using a rock/hat, translations that are subsequently denounced as completely wrong by modern linguists — my guess is that you would not take this person seriously for a second, and instead might even seek legal recourse, especially if it were your wife or daughter that he was seeking to marry.  

But when it comes to these sorts of claims or behaviors occurring within your own faith tradition, it appears as though you and others are much more willing to “give Joseph a pass” — and either look the other way, or find justifications that you would otherwise never bother to make in other modern contexts.

And so I wonder to what extent it is possible for you or other “believers” to be reasonably “objective” about scientific and historical evidence when family, social ties, and even occupation can be so tightly interwoven into one’s beliefs.  

Please know that I mean no offense by these questions.  They are just questions I often have now that I have lost my belief and see the world in a totally different light.

Mason:

Quote

Now, do I have to use a different part of my brain when I open myself up to non-rational, non-verifiable religious claims and experiences?  Yes.  But as I said earlier, I think that’s part of what makes us human — authentically encountering a world of wonders, from love to poetry to religious mystery, that requires us to approach reality in a different way.  I sincerely believe that we as humans can have our cake and eat it too.  We can be hyperrational in one moment and open to mystery and divinity the next.  Some people will see contradiction; I see complexity.

Dehlin:

Quote

And while I LOVE and personally embrace the idea that you/we can be both rational, evidence-loving creatures AND open to mystery/wonder/the divine — I still feel as though orthodox and progressive Mormons are willing to give Joseph Smith and LDS church truth claims far more latitude than they would anyone/anything else in their own, immediate, material existences.

How far do you think we can take this type of discussion?  it seems like in times past these discussion happen to some extent and then die.  Sides are taken and people refuse to give the other side listen or credence. 

What do you say?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

I think it's awesome. 

[Glenn101]

If a man married thirty wives today. the way Joseph Smith did, he could start his own reality show. It would be just one more show among the many.

If a man claimed that he had received golden plates from an angel and translated characters from them, people probably would be skeptical, until they had the chance to examine the plates themselves, then they just might sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that they had seen them. If the man said that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God and invited people to pray about it, he would get just about the same response that people do with the Book of Mormon. Some do and most don't

However, Joseph was not given a free pass in his day. He was challenged at just about every turn. It was those who received a testament through the Holy Ghost that Joseph was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God that accepted him as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Joseph did not get a free pass on polygamy among his followers. There were many who rejected it. It was those (both men and women) who received a testament through the Holy Ghost that plural wives was/is a true principle that accepted it and some that actually practiced it.

That is true of the members of the church today. There are those who have received their testaments via the Ho;y Ghost and are firm in their beliefs. But there also are many who are struggling with the rational (and emotional) problems that accepting polygamy or the Book of Mormon as an inspired historical tome of scripture.

No doubt there is a tension between rational and spiritual. It is part of God's design. It starts with Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, with the evidence of a much older earth than six thousand years to start that tension. The story of the flood, a universal flood that covered the earth according to the Bible.

In all honesty, if absent the spiritual experiences that have shaped my life, my rational mind would have rejected much that I have read in the Bible. I do not know about an accidental beginning of the universe because of the rational things I have learned. I say that I do not know, because I really do not know how I would think absent the religious background in which I was raised.

Does this make sense to anyone?

 

Glenn

 

[Meadowchik]

I'm sorry but I can't respect Dehlin as participating in good faith in dialoguing about the church.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Does this make sense to anyone?

Perfect sense.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormoninout/

new blog.  Pretty sweet so far. 

It has Patrick Mason, famed for the book Planted and his recent FairMormon talk, at least for me, and John Dehlin conversing. 

The first couple of posts have been really good as they discuss epistemology. 

.............................................................

How far do you think we can take this type of discussion?  it seems like in times past these discussion happen to some extent and then die.  Sides are taken and people refuse to give the other side listen or credence. 

What do you say?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

I think it's awesome. 

Mason seems very tolerant and considerate, while Dehlin takes the low road, striking out at any opportunity with negative spin and straw men.  How different the dialogue when it involves non-Mormon scholars like Jan Shipps or Margaret Barker.  Too bad that Dehlin doesn't want to keep it on a high plane.

[Jeanne]

I thought it was very respectfully done.  I didn't see any roads high or low..just two people communicating.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I thought it was very respectfully done.  I didn't see any roads high or low..just two people communicating.

I am referring specifically to Dehlin's comments:

Quote

But when it comes to these sorts of claims or behaviors occurring within your own faith tradition, it appears as though you and others are much more willing to “give Joseph a pass” — and either look the other way, or find justifications that you would otherwise never bother to make in other modern contexts.

Quote

I still feel as though orthodox and progressive Mormons are willing to give Joseph Smith and LDS church truth claims far more latitude than they would anyone/anything else in their own, immediate, material existences.

That is not mutual respect.  It is saying that Mormons are basically unfair.  How can one have a rational discussion with someone who makes that automatic assumption?  Only Mason's long-suffering tolerance for that sort of consistent Dehlin negative spin can lead to a nice discussion.  This is something Dehlin has done for years.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am referring specifically to Dehlin's comments:

That is not mutual respect.  It is saying that Mormons are basically unfair.  How can one have a rational discussion with someone who makes that automatic assumption?  Only Mason's long-suffering tolerance for that sort of consistent Dehlin negative spin can lead to a nice discussion.  This is something Dehlin has done for years.

You just disagree.  He merely stated how he sees it.  He didn't sound angry or anything.  I realize that Dehlin can be negative in giving his own interviews but I think on this he did it with real honesty in how he feels..and one thing about it, he doesn't say he is right and neither does Patrick.  I thought it was very good considering that these are significant issues and differences on how they see things.  Just because you disagree doesn't make it anti agenda.

[oremites]

Quote

... claim to translate ancient documents using a rock/hat, translations that are subsequently denounced as completely wrong by modern linguists ...

What translation(s) did Joseph do with a rock/hat that have been denounced as completely wrong by modern linguists?

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, oremites said:

What translation(s) did Joseph do with a rock/hat that have been denounced as completely wrong by modern linguists?

Wouldn't it be the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon? What else is there?

[Storm Rider]

The topic is an interesting one and worthy of discussion.  It is not a topic I would ever deign to discuss with this Mr. D, but we don't run in the same circles, same country, same land so I don't have to worry about that. 

In my life I think that I am more aware of my personal beliefs and that fact allows me to see different religions and teachings in a more neutral manner.  Does it surprise me that Mohammed claimed to be taught by the angel Gabriel or that Bernadette Soubirous claimed to see the Virgin Mary?  No, it doesn't I listen and strive to find truth wherever truth is found.  I accept that God has talked and talks with others.  Joseph was used for a specific purpose, but that does not limit what God has done with other peoples in other countries. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You just disagree.  He merely stated how he sees it.  He didn't sound angry or anything.  I realize that Dehlin can be negative in giving his own interviews but I think on this he did it with real honesty in how he feels..and one thing about it, he doesn't say he is right and neither does Patrick.  I thought it was very good considering that these are significant issues and differences on how they see things.  Just because you disagree doesn't make it anti agenda.

It has nothing to do with whether one disagrees, but rather with his automatic assertion of unfairness by Mormons -- something we never see from John Christopher Thomas, a serious student of Mormonism, who is a senior professor at a Pentecostal theological seminary; something we never see in the analysis of evangelical Richard J. Mouw, former President of Fuller Theological Seminary (in fact he has condemned his fellow evangelicals for doing precisely what Dehlin does all the time); and a host of other non-Mormon scholars, who do not believe in Mormonism, but nevertheless understand what decorum and mutual respect are.  If Dehlin wants to make one harshly negative statement after another, let him at least cite his sources (something he never does, because they don't exist).  Let him at least be a little less reckless in his anti-Mormon diatribes.  Why?  As a doctoral candidate in psychology he ought to understand already that such an approach is more academically respectable, and more psychologically effective -- people are far more likely to understand and agree with him if he maintains civility and decorum in such matters.  A respectful debate is always a plus, and I am strongly in favor of them. Unfortunately, in Utah the polarized atmosphere makes that very difficult to achieve.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If a man married thirty wives today. the way Joseph Smith did, he could start his own reality show. It would be just one more show among the many.

If a man claimed that he had received golden plates from an angel and translated characters from them, people probably would be skeptical, until they had the chance to examine the plates themselves, then they just might sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that they had seen them. If the man said that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God and invited people to pray about it, he would get just about the same response that people do with the Book of Mormon. Some do and most don't

However, Joseph was not given a free pass in his day. He was challenged at just about every turn. It was those who received a testament through the Holy Ghost that Joseph was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God that accepted him as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Joseph did not get a free pass on polygamy among his followers. There were many who rejected it. It was those (both men and women) who received a testament through the Holy Ghost that plural wives was/is a true principle that accepted it and some that actually practiced it.

That is true of the members of the church today. There are those who have received their testaments via the Ho;y Ghost and are firm in their beliefs. But there also are many who are struggling with the rational (and emotional) problems that accepting polygamy or the Book of Mormon as an inspired historical tome of scripture.

No doubt there is a tension between rational and spiritual. It is part of God's design. It starts with Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, with the evidence of a much older earth than six thousand years to start that tension. The story of the flood, a universal flood that covered the earth according to the Bible.

In all honesty, if absent the spiritual experiences that have shaped my life, my rational mind would have rejected much that I have read in the Bible. I do not know about an accidental beginning of the universe because of the rational things I have learned. I say that I do not know, because I really do not know how I would think absent the religious background in which I was raised.

Does this make sense to anyone?

 

Glenn

 

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure what you're getting at.  But what you say has made sense.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mason seems very tolerant and considerate, while Dehlin takes the low road, striking out at any opportunity with negative spin and straw men.  How different the dialogue when it involves non-Mormon scholars like Jan Shipps or Margaret Barker.  Too bad that Dehlin doesn't want to keep it on a high plane.

Dehlin's playing pretty nice.  You have to grant some space for his opinion in all of this.  I don't see that as a bad thing.  I've appreciated what's been given so far. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am referring specifically to Dehlin's comments:

That is not mutual respect.  It is saying that Mormons are basically unfair.  How can one have a rational discussion with someone who makes that automatic assumption?  Only Mason's long-suffering tolerance for that sort of consistent Dehlin negative spin can lead to a nice discussion.  This is something Dehlin has done for years.

I'm at a loss as to what is so offensive about that which you quoted from Dehlin.  I think he's right.  We wouldn't give some guy who married other women, some of them teenagers, a pass.  We simply would not, nearly to a man or woman. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, oremites said:

What translation(s) did Joseph do with a rock/hat that have been denounced as completely wrong by modern linguists?

Good catch.  He's seriously mixed that one up.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sorry but I can't respect Dehlin as participating in good faith in dialoguing about the church.

I give too many passes to people, I guess--probably why I'm Mormon.  I always expect people to do better and better.  So, in this I'm all for it.  In spite of what some have complained about him as saying in this blog so far, I don't see any reason to question his sincerity. 

I'm eager to see how this continues. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The topic is an interesting one and worthy of discussion.  It is not a topic I would ever deign to discuss with this Mr. D, but we don't run in the same circles, same country, same land so I don't have to worry about that. 

In my life I think that I am more aware of my personal beliefs and that fact allows me to see different religions and teachings in a more neutral manner.  Does it surprise me that Mohammed claimed to be taught by the angel Gabriel or that Bernadette Soubirous claimed to see the Virgin Mary?  No, it doesn't I listen and strive to find truth wherever truth is found.  I accept that God has talked and talks with others.  Joseph was used for a specific purpose, but that does not limit what God has done with other peoples in other countries. 

Agreed.  I think many LDS agree. 

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sorry but I can't respect Dehlin as participating in good faith in dialoguing about the church.

You are too kind.

In my own blunt way, I ask myself why I would participate in a discussion on Christian doctrine where Judas Iscariot is the moderator.

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I thought it was very respectfully done.  I didn't see any roads high or low..just two people communicating.

If your priori is that JS was a fraud then it is much more than just two people communicating.

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are too kind.

In my own blunt way, I ask myself why I would participate in a discussion on Christian doctrine where Judas Iscariot is the moderator.

I think this type of hostility is exactly what the linked blog is trying to do away with.  We can of course be better to each other than to treat each other as Judas'. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by stemelbow

[Rivers]

I see Mason and Dehlin as very similar people.  They are both vocal about many social justice issues and have a lot of the same goals.  One just happens to be a believer while the other is not.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure what you're getting at.  But what you say has made sense.

The first part I was basically responding to Dehlin's comments. You and many other LDS posters on this board and on the LDS bloggernacle are pretty good evidence that "progressive" LDS (whatever that is) are not giving Joseph Smith a free pass  on the LDS church truth claims.

I noted that there are LDS who have strong testimonies and have been exposed to negative "facts" about the LDS truth claims (which include Biblical truth claims) that choose to put faith on a higher plane than reason.

John goes on to to say something that has not been proven, which has already been called out by another poster.

I do not think that this series of podcasts is going to produce anything productive. Those who are struggling with their faith or have already given up may find some comfort in John's musings. I don't see him saying anything differently.

But to each their own.

Glenn

 

[Rivers]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wouldn't it be the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon? What else is there?

Only the Book of Abraham since we don't have the gold plates to compare with the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Rivers

[stemelbow]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

The first part I was basically responding to Dehlin's comments. You and many other LDS posters on this board and on the LDS bloggernacle are pretty good evidence that "progressive" LDS (whatever that is) are not giving Joseph Smith a free pass  on the LDS church truth claims.

Oh.  Good point. 

Just now, Glenn101 said:

I noted that there are LDS who have strong testimonies and have been exposed to negative "facts" about the LDS truth claims (which include Biblical truth claims) that choose to put faith on a higher plane than reason.

Again.  Good point.  I agree. 

Just now, Glenn101 said:

John goes on to to say something that has not been proven, which has already been called out by another poster.

I do not think that this series of podcasts is going to produce anything productive. Those who are struggling with their faith or have already given up may find some comfort in John's musings. I don't see him saying anything differently.

But to each their own.

Glenn

 

It's working for me so far.  I think Patrick is offering some great balance.  In my mind, when ideas are shared, differences are expressed and commonalities are acknowledged we all win.  This has always been difficult--having balanced conversations that do not degrade down into something useless as hurt feelings or misunderstanding prevails. 

We all win if we can really understand where we each are coming from.  These expressed ideas can help us each articulate where we're coming from.  I guess for those who already have it figured out, this might not be as useful though.