Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sorry about the format problem, just annoying when I specified not to carry any over and it still happens. Unfortunately I have yet to figure out how to view code with the most recent board updates, so can't edit it out.

Best to read the article itself for full context anyway.

Haight was a stake president if you hadn't picked that up, but he was acting in his militia role, not Church one (one can tell because Dame was the same in church hierarchy while higher in the militia and he was the one Haight was trying to win over).  I have no doubt Church standing added to the respect people had for these men and likely even more than it would today given the lifetime job many church callings were then.  It is impossible to separate out the influence each role people held as our brains don't work that way...we respond to people based on our whole experience with them and do not turn off our memories of what happens during the week when we sit in classes or the chapel on Sunday or the reverse, but it is best not to confuse the roles they were acting in as that confuses the picture IMO.  It was the militia that was called out, not the local ward or stake even if they overlapped in a huge way, the same people holding leadership roles in both.  That Haight was mayor, major, and stake president added to his influence, but he was acting as major at the time.  Would not be surprised though if his being 'top dog' in his other roles (mayor, stake president) contributed to his arrogance in ignoring the wishes/orders of his commanders.

It's pretty interesting that Brigham Young shows almost no remorse, if these are truly his words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrances_of_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre

During a tour of southern Utah Brigham Young, along with some 60 other Saints visited the massacre site in May 1861. After viewing the inscription on the cross, Wilford Woodruffrecorded President Young as saying “it should be vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.” The cross was then torn down and the rocks of the cairn were dismantled, leaving little of the original marker.^[4] Sally Denton, in her book, records Young as saying "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little" before having the monument torn down.^[5]

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's pretty interesting that Brigham Young shows almost no remorse, if these are truly his words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrances_of_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre

During a tour of southern Utah Brigham Young, along with some 60 other Saints visited the massacre site in May 1861. After viewing the inscription on the cross, Wilford Woodruffrecorded President Young as saying “it should be vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.” The cross was then torn down and the rocks of the cairn were dismantled, leaving little of the original marker.^[4] Sally Denton, in her book, records Young as saying "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little" before having the monument torn down.^[5]

Seriously???  Why is it that the many quotes from BY seem so cold??  I love his intelligence and city planning and what he did for the state..but I have a hard time with the man as a person.  Is it just me??

[Tacenda]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Seriously???  Why is it that the many quotes from BY seem so cold??  I love his intelligence and city planning and what he did for the state..but I have a hard time with the man as a person.  Is it just me??

No..

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously???  Why is it that the many quotes from BY seem so cold??  I love his intelligence and city planni ng and what he did for the state..but I have a hard time with the man as a person.  Is it just me??

Language has changed.  That might be part of it.

I am neutral in feelings towards BY, always have been.  I used to think he worked too hard to sound like a prophet, but since learning that Watts edited him in that fashion, I wonder how much of that is what others wanted him to sound like and recorded their version and how much was actually himself.

[Calm]

Also this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_was_Brigham_Young's_attitude_toward_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_in_1861%3F

 

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_was_Brigham_Young's_attitude_toward_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_in_1861%3F

 

From the link:

Quote

He was angered that blame for this massacre was being placed on him and the whole church. While he did not yet know all of the details, he certainly knew that he and the majority of the Latter-day Saints were innocent. Furthermore, he did not like Carleton as Carleton showed great animosity and contempt toward the Mormons, writing an extremely mean-spirited report about the massacre site. (For more information see: Mountain Meadows: The Aftermath.)

Carleton is on record in that report as advocating a Boggs-like etemination order against all Mormons throughout the territory. And he was capable of that, having led a massacre of Indians earlier in his military career.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/6/2016 at 9:03 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

How about just telling them the truth...

Truth about what? 

It is relatively easy to research historical facts. How are you going to persuade anyone of Christ Resurrection when (said) 500 peoples witnessing it? Or believing which version of "First Vision" is true (if any of them). Christians make a huge deal about some of the LDS discrepancies, and yet, they are perfectly OK overlooking narrative differences of "Four Gospels" or the Books of "Genesis". As I'd say; "The Truth is Relative".

[HappyJackWagon]

There's a new 2-part Mormon Matters podcast about Improving Our Conversations about Important and Emotional Topics. Thought some on this thread my appreciate the perspective.

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/12/08/358-359-improving-our-conversations-about-important-and-emotional-topics/

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Christians make a huge deal about some of the LDS discrepancies, and yet, they are perfectly OK overlooking narrative differences of "Four Gospels" or the Books of "Genesis". 

Good point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mormon's shouldn't justify themselves by what other Christians do (and vice-versa).  I'd say investigate both of those topics.  The discrepancies about the resurrection at the end of the Gospel of Mark should give Christians a reason to investigate the possibility that the accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels may have become more embellished over time.  

Edited December 9, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[hope_for_things]

On 12/7/2016 at 6:45 PM, mfbukowski said:

I included the link in the post.  Again, you did not see it as ususal.

Read it.  He does see truth as contextual especially in the context of religion vs science.  And I already quoted that- it seems you did not read the quotes either.

"What works" in families is eternal.  Human children must be raised with love or they end up wackos or criminals and society cannot tolerate that. The 10 commandments are requirements for a peaceful society- and that is why those truths have evolved.  They simply work.  You commit adultery and someone might blow your head off.  That is not good for the survival of the species.

If one believes in Absolute Truth about these matters, then they are right.  Within their context and community those truths are absolute the same way A=A is true.

That is the way they have defined truth so absolute truth is true by definition for those who believe it.  Unfortunately they have not thought through what that all means, but the issue then becomes semantic and a disagreement about definitions, not anything of substance.

I missed the link you shared to the Kimball talk, but I went back and read through it and found it a very interesting talk.  To have such a candid discussion from the perspective of the President of the Church was really refreshing.  

After reading the talk I came away thinking that he's very inconsistent and his thesis doesn't make sense to me.    While he talks about truth in its context, he also asserts that absolute truths exist and apply to everyone universally.  He then asserts that Mormonism has access to these universal truths and if anyone disagrees with these absolutes that they are mistaken and still subject to the truths regardless.  

Kimball's essay is a great example of how mixing all kinds of contemporary ideas together to try and produce a systematic "plan" and then assign that plan to God, is a failing prospect from the beginning.  Trying to harmonize a multitude of divergent perspectives together is impossible and doesn't stand up to serious study.  The cop out response after all is said and done, is just an appeal to Mormon authority, and a rejection of any intellectual reason and inquiry.  

His premise is that a person can't know divine truth through intellect, and then he defines divine truth as whatever the current Mormon leaders define it as.  Point out inconsistencies and contradictions and those are always in the past, never in the present.  Past mistakes were made, but we know with 100% certainty that the current position is God breathed and pure absolute doctrine.  Its all about allegiance to the institution and anything that contradicts it is flawed from the beginning, and all things in harmony with the institution are divine and absolute truths that can't change.  

They can't change right up until they do change, and then the newly defined position instantly becomes the new absolute truth.  What's the point of calling something absolute and universal then?  Those words end up having no real meaning.  

Edited December 9, 2016 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I missed the link you shared to the Kimball talk, but I went back and read through it and found it a very interesting talk.  To have such a candid discussion from the perspective of the President of the Church was really refreshing.  

After reading the talk I came away thinking that he's very inconsistent and his thesis doesn't make sense to me.    While he talks about truth in its context, he also asserts that absolute truths exist and apply to everyone universally.  He then asserts that Mormonism has access to these universal truths and if anyone disagrees with these absolutes that they are mistaken and still subject to the truths regardless.  

Kimball's essay is a great example of how mixing all kinds of contemporary ideas together to try and produce a systematic "plan" and then assign that plan to God, is a failing prospect from the beginning.  Trying to harmonize a multitude of divergent perspectives together is impossible and doesn't stand up to serious study.  The cop out response after all is said and done, is just an appeal to Mormon authority, and a rejection of any intellectual reason and inquiry.  

His premise is that a person can't know divine truth through intellect, and then he defines divine truth as whatever the current Mormon leaders define it as.  Point out inconsistencies and contradictions and those are always in the past, never in the present.  Past mistakes were made, but we know with 100% certainty that the current position is God breathed and pure absolute doctrine.  Its all about allegiance to the institution and anything that contradicts it is flawed from the beginning, and all things in harmony with the institution are divine and absolute truths that can't change.  

They can't change right up until they do change, and then the newly defined position instantly becomes the new absolute truth.  What's the point of calling something absolute and universal then?  Those words end up having no real meaning.  

Well I partially agree with you and now you perhaps understand my frustration on this board where everyone does the same thing.

On the other hand, from my perspective there "are" absolute truths because cerain moral maxims always work.   I think for example that the Golden Rule always works.  It does not work because it is an abstract entity floating around in some realm of "absolute truth" but because in simply being HUMAN we want to be treated as others want to be treated.  We have this sense of fairness which tells us that a culture based on, say, slavery is not "just" because people are not treated the way we would like to be treated ourselves.  And that is the extreme- we generalize it nowadays to everyone someone can imagine is "opressed" in any way.

Should we discriminate against people?  No.  Everyone knows that, everyone affirms that.  It has become an "Absolute Truth".   Liberals generalize it into the belief that cruelty to others is the worst possible offense, one should have "safe spaces" and "gun free zones" etc etc.   So ironically in our denial of "absolute truth" we actually AFFIRM it every day.

It is an "absoute truth" to many that all species on earth should be saved and none allowed to become extinct.  Those same folks would scoff at the idea of absolute moral truth and yet they live it every day of their lives.   We should not eat meat- because that is cruel to animals.  Sleep with anyone you like, as long as you don't eat meat or use leather or any meat products.

I just see that as another religious belief in absolute truth.

But we have to look at what people MEAN by what they say.   In that infamous Rorty video I post, he says that "We know how to use the word truth, we know what justified belief is, we can tell you that, but there just isn't much we can say about TRUTH.  It is ineffable, like speaking about God, there just isn't too much we can say about "TRUTH"

So on the other hand, I have no problem with the way President Kimball uses language.

Like us, and like everyone, he is not speaking as a philosophy professor, he is speaking in ordinary English where we know the meaning of the word "truth".   We ask a child or a defendant in a trial if they are "telling the truth" and we know what that means.  We know what it means for someone to say "It is always true that......" without having it imply that the person believes in Abstract Transcendent Truth Floating Around as a Platonic Form, or some other silly notion.

That's why I get on you about language- I expect you to be able to speak more as a philosopher and I think you are getting the hang of it but in doing so you notice how sloppy ordinary language is on these matters and therefore how sloppy ordinary thinking is about these matters.

People are just not used to speaking in ways they do not even know are imprecise.

That is why Wittgenstein speaks of "language games" or contextual language.   We speak differently to a 4 year old than we speak to adults and when we are speaking philosophical language that is still another context.  

So I am grateful that President Kimball uses the language he does, but we still know what he means.  We would not see him as a prophet or the general membership of the church would not understand him if he spoke Rortyian Philosophese.  What is important to me is that he definitely does understand contextual truth, even though he does not carry that forward in every word he speaks.

But none of us do either.

Ya unnastan' wot Ahm sayin'?

I happen also to believe that in a general way the prophet will not lead us astray.  Could he? of course- that is why we have to verify all he says in our gut or "by the spirit"

But I have great confidence in their wisdom and leadership, noting the are human and make mistakes as ordinary humans do.

Do I reify that view into Prophet Infallibility?  Absolutely not.   I just view it as a general statement to take very seriously what they advise and pray about it if it seems funky.   Nothing more, nothing less.  And I see the admonition that "he will never lead you astray" as advice to look VERY seriously at what is being preached and take it seriously, but then make your own decisions

EDIT- one more point 

You said

Quote

Trying to harmonize a multitude of divergent perspectives together is impossible and doesn't stand up to serious study. 

That is why Wittgenstein, having had that realization, decided that all philosophical discussion was seeing the conflict between those divergent perspectives and pointing them out.  That is also what Rorty is saying, that truth is completely linguistic- and that all philosophical problems are semantic. 

Once you see that- and really see it, you see that President Kimball is no different from the rest of us and his language is no more or less consistent than anyone else's

This is summarized as "There are no facts, only interpretations"

That means you and I are no more right or wrong about this than President Kimball.  Everyone is right and no one is right, there is no truth outside of language and language is a mess, therefore truth is.....

You figure it out!

The bottom line is all we have is our "gut" or the "spirit"- choose your definition

Steve Stills:  Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

It all started with "You are beginning to SEE already".   That's where it all went off the tracks.  

Edited December 9, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I partially agree with you and now you perhaps understand my frustration on this board where everyone does the same thing.

On the other hand, from my perspective there "are" absolute truths because cerain moral maxims always work.   I think for example that the Golden Rule always works.  It does not work because it is an abstract entity floating around in some realm of "absolute truth" but because in simply being HUMAN we want to be treated as others want to be treated.  We have this sense of fairness which tells us that a culture based on, say, slavery is not "just" because people are not treated the way we would like to be treated ourselves.  And that is the extreme- we generalize it nowadays to everyone someone can imagine is "opressed" in any way.

Should we discriminate against people?  No.  Everyone knows that, everyone affirms that.  It has become an "Absolute Truth".   Liberals generalize it into the belief that cruelty to others is the worst possible offense, one should have "safe spaces" and "gun free zones" etc etc.   So ironically in our denial of "absolute truth" we actually AFFIRM it every day.

It is an "absoute truth" to many that all species on earth should be saved and none allowed to become extinct.  Those same folks would scoff at the idea of absolute moral truth and yet they live it every day of their lives.   We should not eat meat- because that is cruel to animals.  Sleep with anyone you like, as long as you don't eat meat or use leather or any meat products.

I just see that as another religious belief in absolute truth.

But we have to look at what people MEAN by what they say.   In that infamous Rorty video I post, he says that "We know how to use the word truth, we know what justified belief is, we can tell you that, but there just isn't much we can say about TRUTH.  It is ineffable, like speaking about God, there just isn't too much we can say about "TRUTH"

So on the other hand, I have no problem with the way President Kimball uses language.

Like us, and like everyone, he is not speaking as a philosophy professor, he is speaking in ordinary English where we know the meaning of the word "truth".   We ask a child or a defendant in a trial if they are "telling the truth" and we know what that means.  We know what it means for someone to say "It is always true that......" without having it imply that the person believes in Abstract Transcendent Truth Floating Around as a Platonic Form, or some other silly notion.

That's why I get on you about language- I expect you to be able to speak more as a philosopher and I think you are getting the hang of it but in doing so you notice how sloppy ordinary language is on these matters and therefore how sloppy ordinary thinking is about these matters.

People are just not used to speaking in ways they do not even know are imprecise.

That is why Wittgenstein speaks of "language games" or contextual language.   We speak differently to a 4 year old than we speak to adults and when we are speaking philosophical language that is still another context.  

So I am grateful that President Kimball uses the language he does, but we still know what he means.  We would not see him as a prophet or the general membership of the church would not understand him if he spoke Rortyian Philosophese.  What is important to me is that he definitely does understand contextual truth, even though he does not carry that forward in every word he speaks.

But none of us do either.

Ya unnastan' wot Ahm sayin'?

Yes, this makes sense to me, however, I don't think Kimball understands the concept of contextual truth very well based on the entire context of his essay. 

I can always hope that someone with a philosophical background makes his/her way into church leadership, that would be amazing.  

Also, I loved President Kimball as a child though as my parents loved him so much, and they passed on that great admiration for this man to me.  His "do it" attitude and "lengthen your stride" mantra are both truths that I strive to live by in my life.  I wouldn't call them absolute or universal, but they are pretty close in my book.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, this makes sense to me, however, I don't think Kimball understands the concept of contextual truth very well based on the entire context of his essay. 

I can always hope that someone with a philosophical background makes his/her way into church leadership, that would be amazing.  

Also, I loved President Kimball as a child though as my parents loved him so much, and they passed on that great admiration for this man to me.  His "do it" attitude and "lengthen your stride" mantra are both truths that I strive to live by in my life.  I wouldn't call them absolute or universal, but they are pretty close in my book.  

 

Note that i did some late edits after you quoted this.  I cannot stop editing things, that's a problem I have!

Re: a philosopher prophet:  It's not going to happen because culturally the church avoids the "philosophies of men" because previously those philosophies have been antithetical to the church.

Through 2000 years, philosophy has been based on the idea that "truth corresponds" to some reality beyond our ability to perceive that reality, in some unknowable world.  So Cardinal Bellarmine saw the sun going around the earth- a scientific assumption- called it "true" and then thought that it was therefore against the bible to think the earth could possibly go around the sun.  Because there is "One Absolute Truth" that is beyond the perspective of mere humans, believing that the earth orbits the sun is therefore against the bible and cannot be "TRUE"

Ironically that is the exact argument Dawkins makes but he reverses it.  Now the priority is science, not religion.  Science is always right and reveals "Absolute Truth" in the modern perspective of ordinary people.  

So Dawkins comes along and says "God cannot exist because we cannot see him"

Bellarmine says "Science cannot be right because that is not what we see"  AND Joshua said the "sun stood still", therefore Galileo is wrong and against God.

Even science and your typical atheist only work in the world AS WE SEE IT and ASSUME that is the world "as it is"

Of course both are "right" and both are "wrong" from their individual perspectives.

Truth is not about how the "world" is- it is about HOW WE SEE THE WORLD, and that is inescapable.   Everything is based on the observer and their point of view- there is nothing we can speak of that is BEYOND someones ability to see it.

The world is out there, we know, and that is where we get the typical attempted rebuttal that "if you fall off a cliff you know the world as it is"  but the minute we speak about it, we are in human socially constructed reality, wearing our "rose colored glasses" that make reality "as it is" (without our humanly perceiving "glasses" on) unknowable.  Your perspective while you go over the cliff will be entirely unlike mine- it will not be YOUR life flashing through MY mind, for example.

So statements do not refer to reality- they refer to other statements.  Interpretations refer to interpretations and you cannot get outside interpretations

And yes, I totally agree with you- those truths he stated in my view ARE "absolutely true" in their context.   Even if there are exceptions to "You ought to lengthen your stride" is only NOT true IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR EXCEPTIONS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD and beyond the context of the statement.

If we take it literally, some people cannot walk, so it doesn't apply to them.  That misses the context and is the wrong interpretation.  Again it is interpretations!

So please continue loving President Kimball, he was an incredibly wise man.

Edited December 9, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is why Wittgenstein, having had that realization, decided that all philosophical discussion was seeing the conflict between those divergent perspectives and pointing them out.  That is also what Rorty is saying, that truth is completely linguistic- and that all philosophical problems are semantic. 

Once you see that- and really see it, you see that President Kimball is no different from the rest of us and his language is no more or less consistent than anyone else's

This is summarized as "There are no facts, only interpretations"

That means you and I are no more right or wrong about this than President Kimball.  Everyone is right and no one is right, there is no truth outside of language and language is a mess, therefore truth is.....

You figure it out!

The bottom line is all we have is our "gut" or the "spirit"- choose your definition

Steve Stills:  Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

It all started with "You are beginning to SEE already".   That's where it all went off the tracks.  

Ha!  This is good stuff.  I'm finding myself frustrated that I'm understanding you better and agreeing with you more than I would have a few months ago.  Primarily because there is a part of my brain/soul/spirit that just doesn't like this idea of "no fact, only interpretations".  Its a discomfort I have with that concept that goes down deep.  Yet in spite of that deep visceral response, my brain is starting to push back a little and acknowledge the logic of this perspective.

oh boy...  I should have followed the "spirit" and ignored your philosophies of men earlier when I had the chance!  Now I'm doomed....  :-)

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  This is good stuff.  I'm finding myself frustrated that I'm understanding you better and agreeing with you more than I would have a few months ago.  Primarily because there is a part of my brain/soul/spirit that just doesn't like this idea of "no fact, only interpretations".  Its a discomfort I have with that concept that goes down deep.  Yet in spite of that deep visceral response, my brain is starting to push back a little and acknowledge the logic of this perspective.

oh boy...  I should have followed the "spirit" and ignored your philosophies of men earlier when I had the chance!  Now I'm doomed....  :-)

Nah, you will find that you have a bullet proofed perspective to construct your own beliefs with total confidence even if that includes also being Mormon.

THAT is what Rorty would call an "ironist"- one who knows truth is his own construction even if it includes the perspectives and philosophies of others as well.

Without "facts" Mormonism is as true as any other perspective- that is the strength of this view for apologetics that very few understand.  Those who do see Mormonism with a new perspective.

If humans are the measure of all things, so is a Human God.  The perspective makes humans into gods- which is- guess what--  Mormon doctrine.

The perspective makes humanism the height of religion because now making humans into gods is the key to the best humans we can be- straight humanism AND straight Mormonism

By constructing out own reality as an ironist,  we emulate God by "creating worlds by means of intelligence in organizing matter unorganized"- a totally Mormon perspective.  The first world we create is ours, right here and right now!

This Rorty stuff works for atheists of his stripe, yes, but it also works for Mormons.  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007QXW7SW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Emphasis added:

Quote

 

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

The lively dialogue that concludes this volume, moderated and edited by Santiago Zabala, analyzes the future of religion together with the political, social, and historical aspects that characterize our contemporary postmodern, postmetaphysical, and post-Christian world.

That's post TRADITIONAL Christianity.

Quote

 77 And again I say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you friends, it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my friends in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power;

 

D&C 84, plus many others.

Seeing Jesus as our "friend" and literal brother and God as the literal father "of our spirits" turns the traditional view of Christianity on its head.

This is the perspective I first saw when I started investigating the church.  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Good point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mormon's shouldn't justify themselves by what other Christians do (and vice-versa). 

See above posts

[strappinglad]

I am currently plowing through a book by David Berlinski  called " The Devil's Delusion , atheism and it scientific pretensions " . It is a bit of a response to Dawkin's ' The God Delusion ' It even mentions Rorty at least once. Talk about interpretations !

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I am currently plowing through a book by David Berlinski  called " The Devil's Delusion , atheism and it scientific pretensions " . It is a bit of a response to Dawkin's ' The God Delusion ' It even mentions Rorty at least once. Talk about interpretations !

I'll have to check it out- I have heard of it but not read it

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I am currently plowing through a book by David Berlinski  called " The Devil's Delusion , atheism and it scientific pretensions " . It is a bit of a response to Dawkin's ' The God Delusion ' It even mentions Rorty at least once. Talk about interpretations !

Oh.

THAT Rorty.   Yeah he talks like that too.  The problem is fundamentalism.  I pretty much agree with him really- fundamentalism is essentially a very naive version of the correspondence theory.

I can't disagree with him on that.

[cdowis]

On 12/8/2016 at 6:18 PM, Tacenda said:

It's pretty interesting that Brigham Young shows almost no remorse, if these are truly his words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrances_of_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre

During a tour of southern Utah Brigham Young, along with some 60 other Saints visited the massacre site in May 1861. After viewing the inscription on the cross, Wilford Woodruffrecorded President Young as saying “it should be vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.” The cross was then torn down and the rocks of the cairn were dismantled, leaving little of the original marker.^[4] Sally Denton, in her book, records Young as saying "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little" before having the monument torn down.^[5]

I disagree that this has anything to do with "remorse", but with the snarky message on the memorial itself.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I disagree that this has anything to do with "remorse", but with the snarky message on the memorial itself.

It shows no remorse to me, you can have your own opinion. The way BY said vengence is his and he has taken a little, after reading this on the memorial to those that were massacred... "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord", is disturbing. Brigham Young should have been devastated to know that his own people could do such evil. He should have broke down and cried. This just shows a side of BY that isn't very decent or good. 

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It shows no remorse to me, you can have your own opinion.

Thank you.

The way BY said vengence is his and he has taken a little, after reading this on the memorial to those that were massacred... 

And who exactly is "mine" and "I" referring to?  Certainly not BY, unless you fall for the old Bloody Brigham thing.

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord", is disturbing. Brigham Young should have been devastated to know that his own people could do such evil. He should have broke down and cried. This just shows a side of BY that isn't very decent or good. 

Citing God's vengeance is immoral?   He was not referring to "his own people", to what happened,  but to the snarky, bitter message of the memorial itself.   You and I have a very interpretation of this event, with hoards of angry, vengeful Mormons screaming Allah Akbar as they destroy the infidels.  This is the antiMormon narrative of events as shown in the movies.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by cdowis

[Teancum]

On 12/5/2016 at 2:25 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it is disingenuous to ask a member to read a text that is specious or unreliable, unless that member is given the proper background and shown how the item uses fallacious argumentation or out-of-context quotation or other forms of sophistry. To that I would apply the scriptural phrase "lying in wait to deceive."

I have said here recently and I reiterate now that Sunday School or other Church venues are not appropriate settings for debates or for advocacy of false doctrines or opposition to the Church or its doctrines, principles and beliefs. Those are settings for nurturing faith and for learning how to apply true gospel principles in one's day-to-day living.

If one must bring up material that in opposition to the Church, one should do it on his own time and turf.

 

 

 

1:  It depends what one is being asked to read. The book that made it fairly clear to me, the linchpins so to speak, that the Church was not what it claims were written be believing Mormons.  The post above makes an a priori assumption that such books are fallacious or out of context.  This is not the case. Books like Rough Stone Rolling, Emma Smith-Mormon Enigma and David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism DO NOT fall into such a category.

 

2:  The idea that a Sunday School setting is not the place to bring up or ask questions that may challenge the "party line" is typically bad argument for the LDS apologist and certainly demonstrates the fact that the Church is not an open and welcome place to have a healthy safe space discussion on controversial issues.  Further it is a fine specimen of how entrenched believing Mormons approach such things.  There i not safe space to ask changeling questions.

[Jeanne]

Well if a class is ever studying the Doctrine and Covenants...I think is wise to have the best question and answer period.  And full reign!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

2:  The idea that a Sunday School setting is not the place to bring up or ask questions that may challenge the "party line" is typically bad argument for the LDS apologist and certainly demonstrates the fact that the Church is not an open and welcome place to have a healthy safe space discussion on controversial issues.  Further it is a fine specimen of how entrenched believing Mormons approach such things.  There i not safe space to ask changeling questions.

How is it a "bad argument for the LDS apologist"?

What does it mean to be a "safe space" for "discussions on controversial issues"?  How is it a safe space if it's goal is to be a place for controversy?

That's like making a hospital ward a safe space for the mrsa virus, or the Democratic Party having a safe space for Republican strategists to speak.

In the "free market of ideas" I have never seen any organization offer "safe space" for the opposition.

Edited December 10, 2016 by mfbukowski