Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[california boy]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ain't dogmatism grand? It makes life so simple and black and white.

Without it, we would  have a pretty boring discussion board.  I find it fascinating when members claim a revelation that doesn't exist.  It is like they need one to validate their position and the church's position on gay marriage, so they declare the Proclamation on the Family to be a revelation when no church leader has been willing to do so.  Why can't members just accept the fact that the decision to attack gay marriage and forbid it in the church came from the strong opinions of church leaders?  They are running the church after all.  Members allow them to make such decisions on all kinds of matters.  It seems like a simple thing to just say, "the church doesn't allow gay marriage because the president of the church said so."  End of discussion.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Pogi

Can you give me your thoughts on the excerpt from a book I am reading called Faith vs Fact?

“To evaluate any of these claims, we’ll first need to define “truth” and “knowledge,” which I’ll admit can be tricky, for these concepts are historically mired in philosophical controversy. For consistency, I’ll again use the Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions, which correspond roughly to most people’s vernacular use. “Truth” is “conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity (of statement or thought).” Because we’re discussing facts about the universe, I’ll use “fact” as Stephen Jay Gould defined “scientific facts”: those “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” Note that these definitions imply the use of independent confirmation—a necessary ingredient for determining what’s real—and consensus, that is, the ability of any reasonable person familiar with the method of study to agree on what it confirms. Mormons confirm the verities of their faith by revelation and authority, but everyone else, including members of other faiths, withholds their assent. That’s simply because there are no widely accepted observations that confirm Mormon dogma. It therefore fails to qualify as truth, scientific or otherwise. Finally, “knowledge” is simply the public acceptance of facts; as the Dictionary puts it, “The apprehension of fact or truth with the mind; clear and certain perception of fact or truth; the state or condition of knowing fact or truth.” What is true may exist without being recognized, but once it is it becomes knowledge. Similarly, knowledge isn’t knowledge unless it is factual, so “private knowledge” that comes through revelation or intuition isn’t really knowledge, for it’s missing the crucial ingredients of verification and consensus.
According to these criteria, science certainly finds truths and yields knowledge, for it includes not only procedures for generating theories about the universe, but the testability and repeatability that brings—or erodes—consensus. The consensus need not be absolute: there are a very few scientists who reject the truth of evolution. And there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat. But the rejection of evolution almost invariably rests on religious grounds, and the rejection the rejection of a round Earth is based on a kind of fanaticism that’s blind to all evidence. While I’d hesitate to call these people “perverse,” I’d certainly call their behavior irrational.

“As I’ve noted, the conceptual tools of science (though not the title of “scientist”) are available to everyone. I see science as a method, not a profession. Science construed in this broad way embraces all acts,including those of plumbers and electricians, that involve making and testing hypotheses. Indeed, that’s exactly what we do when fixing our cars or trying to find lost objects by retracing our steps rather than looking elsewhere or praying for the answer. Any discipline that studies the universe using the methods of “broad” science is capable in principle of finding truth and producing knowledge. If it doesn’t, no knowledge is possible.”

Excerpt From: Jerry A. Coyne. “Faith Versus Fact.” Penguin Publishing Group, 2015-04-21. iBooks

 

 

 

Your whole assumption is ridiculous that the man in the street can define truth any more than he can define quantum physics.

Study the subject or stay as ignorant as the man on the street, and Coyne, or remain ignorant.

 Unbelievably your post starts out saying truth is a complex issue and then says but let's just think about it the way the man in the street thinks about it.

 Quantum physics is a complicated issue but let's just talk about it the way the man-in-the-street talks about it, to refute it.

 Not exactly a credible approach.

You refuted your own argument in the first paragraph.

Coyne is a scientist not a philosopher and he thinks like a scientist. That's like asking an obstetrician about astronomy.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Bob has many many publications to his credit and actually knows how to spell "hear". 

Well that is why I have responded to Bob's posts.  I enjoy hearing what he has to say.  But that doesn't mean I am willing to take his insults.  I hope to interact with him again sometime in the future.  But I am through putting up with his insults and personal attacks.  

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your whole assumption is ridiculous that the man in the street can define truth any more than he can define quantum physics.

Study the subject or stay as ignorant as the man on the street, and Coyne, or remain ignorant.

 Unbelievably your post starts out saying truth is a complex issue and then says but let's just think about it the way the man in the street thinks about it.

 Quantum physics is a complicated issue but let's just talk about it the way the man-in-the-street talks about it, to refute it.

 Not exactly a credible approach.

You refuted your own argument in the first paragraph.

Coyne is a scientist not a philosopher and he thinks like a scientist. That's like asking an obstetrician about astronomy.

 

It's not my assumption.  It's Coyne's.  he actually has some ideas on how philosophy adds to search for truth.

yes Coyne's is a scientist.  Are you philosopher?  I think the answer is no based on what you told me about your profession.  So why should I trust what you say about philosophy and truth?  What is your training in philosophy?   Do you have a degree in it?  Have you writtten books or articles about It?  And why do you think philosophy is the end all of end all.  I don't think it is. 

It seems to me this is a hobby for you and you like to toss a lot put that you may have read and such.  And those of us who have not read as much think ooooo Mark reeally knows his philosophy.   But I am not convinced.  

So what are your credentials in this space?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Without it, we would  have a pretty boring discussion board.  I find it fascinating when members claim a revelation that doesn't exist.  It is like they need one to validate their position and the church's position on gay marriage, so they declare the Proclamation on the Family to be a revelation when no church leader has been willing to do so.  Why can't members just accept the fact that the decision to attack gay marriage and forbid it in the church came from the strong opinions of church leaders?  They are running the church after all.  Members allow them to make such decisions on all kinds of matters.  It seems like a simple thing to just say, "the church doesn't allow gay marriage because the president of the church said so."  End of discussion.

If that is not Revelation what is your basis than for claiming that same-sex marriage is supported by God? Was that a revelation to you? Or is it your personal strong opinion which is unprecedented in all of Christianity?

Your argument based on semantics cuts both ways. If it was called a revelation would you then follow it? What good would it do calling it a revelation?

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If that is not Revelation what is your basis than for claiming that same-sex marriage is supported by God? Was that a revelation to you? Or is it your personal strong opinion which is unprecedented in all of Christianity?

Your argument based on semantics cuts both ways. If it was called a revelation would you then follow it? What good would it do calling it a revelation?

I have NEVER claimed that same sex marriage is supported by God.  I have no idea how God feels about same sex marriage.  I don't think anyone does.  

Wanting something to be a revelation does not make it a revelation.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It's not my assumption.  It's Coyne's.  he actually has some ideas on how philosophy adds to search for truth.

yes Coyne's is a scientist.  Are you philosopher?  I think the answer is no based on what you told me about your profession.  So why should I trust what you say about philosophy and truth?

Oh gosh.

You really want to get into this? How well did you do the other time you decided to discuss my qualifications in business?

I have a bachelor's degree from UCLA in philosophy and three years of graduate study on these particular issues in philosophy with two of the major experts in this area, Robert C Solomon and John McDermott. Look them up. McDermott is an expert on William James and related teachings and Solomon is an expert in phenomenology and existentialism. Those are the philosophies I espouse. When I discovered that the philosopher Wittgenstein showed conclusively in my opinion that philosophical problems were nothing but semantic problems precisely like the nonsense we are now discussing I gave up academic philosophy and went to business because at that time I concluded that teaching philosophy would be an inauthentic life choice for me, as far as earning a living.

I left formal philosophy in 1973 and found the church in 1980. During that time I also did graduate study in art history one of my other loves.

I have never stopped studying Philosophy.  That would make it 51 years since philosophy 101.

 If that makes me not a "philosopher" then so be it. I just know a heck of a lot more about truth than Coyne does.

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have NEVER claimed that same sex marriage is supported by God.  I have no idea how God feels about same sex marriage.  I don't think anyone does.  

Wanting something to be a revelation does not make it a revelation.

Oh goodie.

Now you get to define the epistomology of revelation, how we know what one is, and that includes personal revelation.

I have my popcorn here, Mr.Theologian, and anxiously await your reply.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I never insult your intelligence.  I never attack you personally.  I never say "your problem here is your failure to pay attention in High School English class". 

The reason I am on this site is to here and understand different views from my own.  I enjoy hearing them.  I learn from seeing other points of view.  What I am not here for is to be falsely called anti-Mormon, have my intelligence insulted and told I lack an education.  I am more than happy to hear other people challenge my statement.  I am not willing to be insulted.  At that point, I really don't care what the person says.  It is not like you just did this once.

What is worse?  To have no proper education and to therefore misstate what someone has said?  Or to have a good education, and deliberately misstate what someone has said?  If you don't want your intelligence insulted, then it is a simple matter to be completely sincere, and to take your hits when deserved.  And, yes, it is not like you did this just once.  Really, california boy.  It doesn't have to be that way.  You can choose to be even-handed, and to opt for a pluralistic society.  That is where I am at, and you can join me in brotherhood, or you can choose anger and the blame-game.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh goodie.

Now you get to define the epistomology of revelation, how we know what one is, and that includes personal revelation.

I have my popcorn here, Mr.Theologian, and anxiously await your reply.

 

I am not a theologian, so I will not reply.  Enjoy your popcorn.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is worse?  To have no proper education and to therefore misstate what someone has said?  Or to have a good education, and deliberately misstate what someone has said?  If you don't want your intelligence insulted, then it is a simple matter to be completely sincere, and to take your hits when deserved.  And, yes, it is not like you did this just once.  Really, california boy.  It doesn't have to be that way.  You can choose to be even-handed, and to opt for a pluralistic society.  That is where I am at, and you can join me in brotherhood, or you can choose anger and the blame-game.

What is worse is resorting to insults.  

And who said I was angry?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Church has had a professional historian, with a paid staff for many, many decades.  He is called by the Brethren and works right there in SLC with them.

The first professional LDS  Church historian was hired in 1972.  He and his newly minted professional staff spent a decade of archival and research work before they were moved to BYU, Provo.  There has been no let up in the rapid progress made by all professional historians (LDS and on-LDS) since then, with serious articles and books being produced by the dozens.  All of us have been riding on the results of that golden age of serious research, but the Brethren have not thereby become professional historians.  They are mere consumers, just like the rest of the hoi polloi.                         

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Interesting that you don't think the Brethren could manage to publish the type of information that dozens of bloggers and podcasters managed to do WITHOUT anywhere remotely close the resources of the church. 

The Historical Dept of the LDS Church is one of many departments, and it is not the primary concern of the Brethren, and it is not their job to be professional historians, theologians, archeologists, or the like.  As to the bloggers (like us?) and podcasters, they are rarely professional historians.  Most bloggers have nothing coherent or meaningful to say, anyhow, and they could use some of the academic discipline which the professionals employ as a matter of course.  This would vastly improve their work-product, which currently is of such poor quality that it has negative value for everyone -- except the anarchists.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is worse is resorting to insults.  

And who said I was angry?

I did.  I saw all the signs in some of your posts, and called you on it.  I thought it would be a favor to you for me to mention my perceptions -- since you appeared unaware of the fact, and since I believe that you would prefer not to be angry.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It's not my assumption.  It's Coyne's.  he actually has some ideas on how philosophy adds to search for truth.

yes Coyne's is a scientist.  Are you philosopher?  I think the answer is no based on what you told me about your profession.  So why should I trust what you say about philosophy and truth?  What is your training in philosophy?   Do you have a degree in it?  Have you writtten books or articles about It?  And why do you think philosophy is the end all of end all.  I don't think it is. 

It seems to me this is a hobby for you and you like to toss a lot put that you may have read and such.  And those of us who have not read as much think ooooo Mark reeally knows his philosophy.   But I am not convinced.  

So what are your credentials in this space?

Why I am not a philosopher- according to you--

Pragmatism.  This is pure pragmatism as LIVED and I like to think I LIVE it as an authentic existential choice with all that goes with it.  My goal is to create myself from matter unorganized and become an Ideal Human and that is why humanistic Mormonism coheres so well with me

Were it not for this guy I probably would have wasted my life in philosophy 101 classes and not become a Mormon.  (He was a spiritual atheist- yes those are compatible)

It's primarily this guy's fault- my friend and professor Robert C Solomon professor of Business and philosophy and the philosophy of business and the business of philosophy and what clear thinking applied to one's life can make you.

In other words Alma 32 and D&C 93 and Moroni 10.  This video is 5 minutes.

 

 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The first professional LDS  Church historian was hired in 1972.  He and his newly minted professional staff spent a decade of archival and research work before they were moved to BYU, Provo.  There has been no let up in the rapid progress made by all professional historians (LDS and on-LDS) since then, with serious articles and books being produced by the dozens.  All of us have been riding on the results of that golden age of serious research, but the Brethren have not thereby become professional historians.  They are mere consumers, just like the rest of the hoi polloi.                         

The Historical Dept of the LDS Church is one of many departments, and it is not the primary concern of the Brethren, and it is not their job to be professional historians, theologians, archeologists, or the like.  As to the bloggers (like us?) and podcasters, they are rarely professional historians.  Most bloggers have nothing coherent or meaningful to say, anyhow, and they could use some of the academic discipline which the professionals employ as a matter of course.  This would vastly improve their work-product, which currently is of such poor quality that it has negative value for everyone -- except the anarchists.

I'm struggling to follow your position Robert. 

It was said that the church was late in publishing a more accurate and complete narrative. 

You countered that the information was available to those who were interested enough to find it. 

I said that the average member would have no reason to go searching because they already thought that they had been taught a complete picture. 

Now you seem to be arguing that the Church did not have the resources to acquire an accurate historical understanding of the church, much less the ability to publish is.  

So, was the information (meaning a complete and accurate church narrative) available and the Brethren chose not to widely publish it to members or is it something that "professional historians" are just now figuring out. 

As for me:  I graduated seminary, graduated from BYU, served a mission, held numerous callings, and taught early morning seminary.  Yet, I learned most of the information in the Gospel Topics Essays from bloggers and podcasters LONG before I heard it from the church.  As I said earlier, I don't find that to be a reason to praise the Brethren.  They were reactive rather than proactive with the information. 

[mfbukowski]

Now you got me going

2 minutes- Solomon on creating yourself from matter unorganized and why I am a Mormon- well that last part is my interpretation....

He has students who are artists as well, hence the animation.

 Father in Heaven is such a self-created self realized being and we are to become Ideal Humans by self- creating out own "worlds"

This is why existentialism can be seen as a Mormon view

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And my professor John McDermott, nominal Catholic- Fordham U- who taught me much of this stuff back in the early 70's.  I moved to NYC to study with this guy in 1970- this of course is a contemporary video

Aren't you glad you asked??

Reality is experience "as it is" as it is LIVED- Alma 32- it's results in your life.  Things as they are are as they are lived in experience- language does not capture it experience is primary

Edited January 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did.  I saw all the signs in some of your posts, and called you on it.  I thought it would be a favor to you for me to mention my perceptions -- since you appeared unaware of the fact, and since I believe that you would prefer not to be angry.

You know if you would stick to presenting your point of view as clearly as possible, and less time projecting, we would probably get along better.  This is a  discussion board, not a personality guessing game.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm struggling to follow your position Robert. 

It was said that the church was late in publishing a more accurate and complete narrative. 

You countered that the information was available to those who were interested enough to find it. 

I said that the average member would have no reason to go searching because they already thought that they had been taught a complete picture. 

Now you seem to be arguing that the Church did not have the resources to acquire an accurate historical understanding of the church, much less the ability to publish is.  

So, was the information (meaning a complete and accurate church narrative) available and the Brethren chose not to widely publish it to members or is it something that "professional historians" are just now figuring out. 

As for me:  I graduated seminary, graduated from BYU, served a mission, held numerous callings, and taught early morning seminary.  Yet, I learned most of the information in the Gospel Topics Essays from bloggers and podcasters LONG before I heard it from the church.  As I said earlier, I don't find that to be a reason to praise the Brethren.  They were reactive rather than proactive with the information. 

As I have said repeatedly, the Brethren could not know what they didn't know.  In other words, only a professional historian would understand the nature of the sources and how to deal with them.  The mish-mash of rumor, misinterpretation, and raw early documents published out of context by the Tanners and more recently by bloggers and podcasters has had little or negative value.  Those without proper training and experience know nothing of historiography.

As for the average LDS member (like any ordinary Methodist, Presbyterian, or the like), they were not concerned with professional history-writing and most simply did not read such materials.  Those wishing to pursue such studies (on an ad hoc or professional basis) could always do so.  I always did, for example (beginning in the 60s).  However, the material published as manuals for Church use did not deal with the mysteries or controversial subjects because that had almost nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not fit in with the progressive milk-before-meat approach employed in most religious groups.  The rabbis are particularly hard on yokels who want to start their studies with the mysteries (Merkaba Mysticism and Qabbala, for example).

Your experience in so-called LDS "seminary" has no value in this context.  A grad of Princeton Theological Seminary, the Harvard Divinity School, or the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, on the other hand, likely does understand what this means.  Indeed, you admit that you learned all the important stuff from bloggers and podcasters, which is why you do not understand it and cannot place it in solid context.  That requires scholarship of the first order.  You could learn that on your own, or enter a long period of undergraduate and graduate education in order to accomplish the same objective.  It requires considerable sacrifice and frequent interchange with colleagues.  Same as any other profession:  Medicine, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, etc.  Sometimes, when we read the popular versions of some of these fields of research, we get the false impression that we actually understand the material.  That is seldom true.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

You know if you would stick to presenting your point of view as clearly as possible, and less time projecting, we would probably get along better.  This is a  discussion board, not a personality guessing game.

I am trying to be diplomatic about it here, but it was really no guessing game for me.  It was very clearcut.  Others might not call you on it, but I definitely will.

As to presenting my POV as clearly as possible, that hasn't been enough for some -- due to their strong preconceptions, which can lead to almost automatic misinterpretation.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Without it, we would  have a pretty boring discussion board.  I find it fascinating when members claim a revelation that doesn't exist.  It is like they need one to validate their position and the church's position on gay marriage, so they declare the Proclamation on the Family to be a revelation when no church leader has been willing to do so.  

It appears that you are unfamiliar with the logical fallacy, "Arguing from Silence".  

Yes, it is not canonized, but I suspect the only members who  deny that it is a revelation are those who worship at the altar of SSM.  (DC 1 16... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol) 

Edited January 14, 2017 by cdowis

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It appears that you are unfamiliar with the logical fallacy, "Arguing from Silence".  

Yes, it is not canonized, but I suspect the only members who  deny that it is a revelation are those who worship at the altar of SSM.  (DC 1 16... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol) 

So is the logical fallacy,"Arguing from Silence" mean that something is a revelation even though no church leader has called it that? 

I don't really have a dog in this fight.  Like I said, I really don't care what the church policy is on SSM.  I just have issues when members claim there has been some revelation on this subject when church leaders have made no such statement.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have said repeatedly, the Brethren could not know what they didn't know.  In other words, only a professional historian would understand the nature of the sources and how to deal with them.  The mish-mash of rumor, misinterpretation, and raw early documents published out of context by the Tanners and more recently by bloggers and podcasters has had little or negative value.  Those without proper training and experience know nothing of historiography.

As for the average LDS member (like any ordinary Methodist, Presbyterian, or the like), they were not concerned with professional history-writing and most simply did not read such materials.  Those wishing to pursue such studies (on an ad hoc or professional basis) could always do so.  I always did, for example (beginning in the 60s).  However, the material published as manuals for Church use did not deal with the mysteries or controversial subjects because that had almost nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not fit in with the progressive milk-before-meat approach employed in most religious groups.  The rabbis are particularly hard on yokels who want to start their studies with the mysteries (Merkaba Mysticism and Qabbala, for example).

Your experience in so-called LDS "seminary" has no value in this context.  A grad of Princeton Theological Seminary, the Harvard Divinity School, or the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, on the other hand, likely does understand what this means.  Indeed, you admit that you learned all the important stuff from bloggers and podcasters, which is why you do not understand it and cannot place it in solid context.  That requires scholarship of the first order.  You could learn that on your own, or enter a long period of undergraduate and graduate education in order to accomplish the same objective.  It requires considerable sacrifice and frequent interchange with colleagues.  Same as any other profession:  Medicine, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, etc.  Sometimes, when we read the popular versions of some of these fields of research, we get the false impression that we actually understand the material.  That is seldom true.

So your position is that even the Brethren did not have an accuarate understanding of the Church narrative?  And information on the narrative of the church wasn't available to the average member?  Just trying to understand your statements  

You misunderstand me:  I've had no problem understanding the narrative of the church and putting it in proper context.  But I had to get there without help from the Church. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have said repeatedly, the Brethren could not know what they didn't know.  In other words, only a professional historian would understand the nature of the sources and how to deal with them.  The mish-mash of rumor, misinterpretation, and raw early documents published out of context by the Tanners and more recently by bloggers and podcasters has had little or negative value.  Those without proper training and experience know nothing of historiography.

 

Sorry, but the recent Arrington bio makes it very clear that as far back in the 1970s there were historians in the History Department who knew that the Church's version of the "narrative" had huge gaps, and the Apostles and First Presidency at the time were very aware of what was being published and what wasn't, and several held very strong opinions on what should or shouldn't be made available. 

Those who favored a "narrative" that was primarily faith-promoting, with faith-unpromoting stories and information deliberately excised, won the day, giving us several more decades until the internet came along and forced the issue.

But the Brethren very well knew what they didn't know, and made the choice for the Church and themselves to not know it.

[cdowis]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I just have issues when members claim there has been some revelation on this subject when church leaders have made no such statement.

Fair enough.