Why is belief so important?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree that polygamists tend to look at things from an extreme POV, but I think Mormons do as well as many other fundamentalists of all persuasions even atheist fundamentalists.  And I agree that humans tend to extremes.  I'm not sure Paul was very balanced or ancient NT apostles, and I don't see a lot of balance coming from our current leaders, at least not enough for my liking.  

I did not suggest by "balance" that they agree with your personal point of view on anything, hope.  Balance in the sense in which I am using it refers to the subject-matter under discussion.  They all carry on wide ranging discussions, rather than only focusing on only one narrow subject -- such as priesthood.  This is a characteristic of modern as well as ancient apostles, and you have only to read the NT or the comments of the Brethren in recent Conference sermons to realize that fact.  The Pligs are narrow and dysfunctional, which is why they find themselves in trouble and on the run.  Using the term "fundamentalist" for every group, no matter what the facts are, only brings confusion to the debate.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about this statement you made.  I didn't mean to get sidetracked on the my use of the word inside your head, my language skills throwing off the discussion here unintentionally.  (I get the Rorty position and well enough to know what you're saying).  It does sound like you got the gist of what I was trying to say anyway.  

I do hold out the possibility for the existence of God, and for me it just rings true, however, I still have questions about this, and I'm still exploring and holding this belief up to scrutiny.  

For example, you've connected the power of belief with peace and knowledge of God's love.  I'm thinking many Atheists experience peace  and comfort within their paradigms.  I just don't know why the belief in God has to be privileged over those without that belief so frequently in religious circles.  I"m perfectly happy saying that my belief works well for me and even expressing why, but I don't feel the need to look down on those with different beliefs.   Not saying you are doing that, but that is the implication in the Marlin Jensen quote as I understand it.  

Pascal's wager I think worked much better in the time and place that he inhabited, than it does in our world today.  The understanding we have about the universe is vastly greater.  The default position for a belief in deity that existed prominently within the culture of Pascal, has changed very much in our society today.  If it works for anyone, I have not problem with it.  It isn't compelling for me though.  

1- I am not Marlin Jensen and he is not me.  I will take what is in my head above my interpretation of what might be in his head all day long.

2- of course many atheists find peace.  That is irrelevant- they have found a different paradigm which works.  Good for them.  I never said we were more right than they are.  You keep thinking I am speaking about some outer world beyond our perception which is invisible and not perceivable.  I am not.  I work in the real world of human experience only, and yes, we can make mistakes in the world of experience. There are optical illusions.  Oh well. Acting on them doesn't work well and we call those "mistakes".  Going after a mirage in the desert can be a big one unless it says "Wynn" on top.

3- I see how I confused you- but for me "know" presumes a mental state of certainty- not anything to do with the world "as it is", which is unknowable- just my interpretation of the world. Technically I should have said "when I have a mental state of certainty" instead of "Know" for someone who is used to thinking the other way.

4- "The understanding of the universe is NOT "greater"- we have paradigms which work better.  This is irrelevant to what he said about religion.  That works as well as it ever did and is in complete coherence with the greatest philosophical minds of the 20th century.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Edited October 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not suggest by "balance" that they agree with your personal point of view on anything, hope.  Balance in the sense in which I am using it refers to the subject-matter under discussion.  They all carry on wide ranging discussions, rather than only focusing on only one narrow subject -- such as priesthood.  This is a characteristic of modern as well as ancient apostles, and you have only to read the NT or the comments of the Brethren in recent Conference sermons to realize that fact.  The Pligs are narrow and dysfunctional, which is why they find themselves in trouble and on the run.  Using the term "fundamentalist" for every group, no matter what the facts are, only brings confusion to the debate.

I understand that, but also recognize that balance is largely a matter of opinion.  If you talked to a polygamist, I doubt they would consider that their leaders aren't balanced.  Similarly you believe that the current Mormon church leaders are balanced in their approach, and I believe they aren't.  For me, they aren't balanced with respect to Christian scholarship, political affiliation, or discussion of the secular.  Their very efforts to always present a united front is antithetical to the idea of balance.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/18/2016 at 8:14 AM, hope_for_things said:

I understand that, but also recognize that balance is largely a matter of opinion.  If you talked to a polygamist, I doubt they would consider that their leaders aren't balanced.  Similarly you believe that the current Mormon church leaders are balanced in their approach, and I believe they aren't.  For me, they aren't balanced with respect to Christian scholarship, political affiliation, or discussion of the secular.  Their very efforts to always present a united front is antithetical to the idea of balance.  

Once again the meaning of "balance" as I used it escapes you.  The balance I am speaking has nothing to do with the narrow opinions expressed by sectarians, but only with the range of views discussed by normal people.  I mentioned that at first only to reply to the ignorant notion that the LDS Brethren were unbalanced the same as the Pligs in that both only spoke of priesthood.  This is manifestly untrue, and the person making that claim was actually interested only in polemic, not in making factual observations.  The subject matter discussed by the Brethren today and 2 thousand years ago is broad rather than narrow.  Raving and ranting extremists and lunatics have great difficulty in living and speaking of a broadly based life.  This applies to LDS, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Hindus, and most other religious groups.  All have as a normal characteristic that they do not narrowly approach human life, but instead discuss the full range of concerns which we all have.  They may differ on the conclusions and explanations, but they discuss a great variety of aspects of concerns.  

Where you see a supposed "united front" I see great variety.  You may be unable to tell the difference between totalitarian dictatorship and free agency, but most of us have no problem readily understanding the difference.  Mormons live full and diverse lives.  The Pligs do not.  I feel very sorry for them.  Unlike you and me, they are not allowed to make free choices.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again the meaning of "balance" as I used it escapes you.  The balance I am speaking has nothing to do with the narrow opinions expressed by sectarians, but only with the range of views discussed by normal people.  I mentioned that at first only to reply to the ignorant notion that the LDS Brethren were unbalanced the same as the Pligs in that both only spoke of priesthood.  This is manifestly untrue, and the person making that claim was actually interested only in polemic, not in making factual observations.  The subject matter discussed by the Brethren today and 2 thousand years ago is broad rather than narrow.  Raving and ranting extremists and lunatics have great difficulty in living and speaking of a broadly based life.  This applies to LDS, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Hindus, and most other religious groups.  All have as a normal characteristic that they do not narrowly approach human life, but instead discuss the full range of concerns which we all have.  They may differ on the conclusions and explanations, but they discuss a great variety of aspects of concerns.  

Where you see a supposed "united front" I see great variety.  You may be unable to tell the difference between totalitarian dictatorship and free agency, but most of us have no problem readily understanding the difference.  Mormons life full and diverse lives.  The Pligs do not.  I feel very sorry for them.  Unlike you and me, they are not allowed to make free choices.

I don't think you're being objective or self reflective with your observations and your condemnation of the polygamists.  Your use of the derogatory term "Pligs" should have tipped me off at first that your prejudice is clouding your judgement.  I have polygamist ancestors, and our Modern Mormon church is built upon a polygamist foundation that largely still exists.  I personally won't practice polygamy, and I'm not defending it as an ethical practice, but I try to be charitable towards their position, and you certainly aren't.  

Your inability to see what seems like an straight forward observation about the non-diverse LDS leadership was surprising to me, and I think its typical in-group apologetic nonsense.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think you're being objective or self reflective with your observations and your condemnation of the polygamists.  Your use of the derogatory term "Pligs" should have tipped me off at first that your prejudice is clouding your judgement.  I have polygamist ancestors, and our Modern Mormon church is built upon a polygamist foundation that largely still exists.  I personally won't practice polygamy, and I'm not defending it as an ethical practice, but I try to be charitable towards their position, and you certainly aren't.  

Your inability to see what seems like an straight forward observation about the non-diverse LDS leadership was surprising to me, and I think its typical in-group apologetic nonsense.  

I too was surprised that Robert said "pligs". My nephew on my husband's side grew up in a polygamist family but joined the church before serving an LDS mission. I would never call his family "pligs". And it comes so close to sounding like "pigs".

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I too was surprised that Robert said "pligs". My nephew on my husband's side grew up in a polygamist family but joined the church before serving an LDS mission. I would never call his family "pligs". And it comes so close to sounding like "pigs".

To be fair, many polygamists I have known and read about refer to themselves as "plygs".  I've even heard polygamist kids refer to themselves as "plyglets".
They think it's funny.

Kind of like how "Mormon" started out as an insult.
We all worry about offense a bit too much.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/18/2016 at 8:14 AM, hope_for_things said:

I don't think you're being objective or self reflective with your observations and your condemnation of the polygamists.  Your use of the derogatory term "Pligs" should have tipped me off at first that your prejudice is clouding your judgement.  I have polygamist ancestors, and our Modern Mormon church is built upon a polygamist foundation that largely still exists.  I personally won't practice polygamy, and I'm not defending it as an ethical practice, but I try to be charitable towards their position, and you certainly aren't.  

Your inability to see what seems like an straight forward observation about the non-diverse LDS leadership was surprising to me, and I think its typical in-group apologetic nonsense. 

Well, if you insist on being charitable to Warren Jeffs and his ilk, be his guest or visitor at his prison.  After a conversation with him, then tell me that my reference to Pligs is simply evidence of prejudice.  For you they may be just another mainstream religious group.  For others they are deeply flawed and engage in blatantly illegal conduct.  A simple reading of LDS conference reports over the years would show plainly to any unbiased observer that the Brethren deal with the broadest possible range of issues and they see things in a variegated light.  That may not suit your polemic purpose, but hope springs eternal . . .

Edited October 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if you insist on being charitable to Warren Jeffs and his ilk, be his guest or visitor at his prison.  After a conversation with him, then tell me that my reference to Pligs is simply evidence of prejudice.  For you they may be just another mainstream religious group.  For others they are deeply flawed and engage in blatantly illegal conduct.  A simple reading of LDS conference reports over the years would show plainly to any unbiased observer that the Brethren deal with the broadest possible range of issue and they see things in a variegated light.  That may not suit your polemic purpose, but hope springs eternal . . .

I think you kind of showed this viewpoint to actually be prejudice.
There are many more polygamists than the FLDS and Warren Jeffs out there.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you kind of showed this viewpoint to actually be prejudice.
There are many more polygamists than the FLDS and Warren Jeffs out there.

That is certainly true, Prof.  But I was speaking in particular of those who narrowly speak only of priesthood and exercise dictatorial powers over the members of their community.  hope-for-things apparently cannot distinguish one group from another.  I suspect that is part of his polemic purpose.  If he wishes to discuss the various polygamous groups by name and characteristics, I am quite willing to do so.  However, that does not seem to be his purpose, which is To tar and feather the LDS.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is certainly true, Prof.  But I was speaking in particular of those who narrowly speak only of priesthood and exercise dictatorial powers over the members of their community.  hope-for-things apparently cannot distinguish one group from another.  I suspect that is part of his polemic purpose.  If he wishes to discuss the various polygamous groups by name and characteristics, I am quite willing to do so.  However, that does not seem to be his purpose, which is To tar and feather the LDS.

We are required just as the polygamist to sacrifice our time, talents and all we have to the church if we are to go to the CK, pretty similar. And at one time our lives if need be.