New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[HappyJackWagon]

Bill Reel at Mormon Discussion has created a new document aimed at addressing some of the messy history and doctrine of the church. I read it as being a kind of middle ground tone between the CES letter and FAIR, where both sides have valuable points of view but are very strident and divisive. This is an attempt to validate concerns while looking at the issues in an honest and constructive way by addressing the issues from multiple angles. This is a bold and ambitious attempt to address the issues and I appreciate the effort to include point and counter-point for these issues.

Quote

The major aim of writing this article is to display various perspectives on Mormonism’s most controversial issues.  Herein, we share the Orthodox, Apologetic, Critical, and Progressive viewpoints together with resources helpful to the reader at the end of each chapter, that the reader may explore each issue further.  This is a living document where edits and addendums are welcome.  Any revision suggestions can be emailed to reelmormon@gmail.com.  For the most current copy of this document please go to mormondiscussionpodcast.org and search for Mormon Primer.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Mormon-Primer.pdf

The issues addressed include-

1: Treasure Digging and Folk Magic of Joseph Smith and His Family

2: Joseph Smith’s First Vision

3: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

4: The Book of Mormon Historicity

5: The Book of Abraham

6: The Prophetic Mantle

7: Science

8: Tithing

9: The Word of Wisdom

10: The True and Living Church

11: Joseph Smith’s Practice of Polygamy

12: Polygamy after Joseph Smith

13: The Cessation of Polygamy

14: The Role of Women throughout Church History

15: Temples and Freemasonry

16: Scripture

17: The Race Based Priesthood and Temple Ban

18: Spiritual Witness as a Mode of Knowing Truth

19: Historical Jesus

To me this is a more productive approach than something like the CES letter and provides links to a variety of sources from FAIR to Mormonthink to show the different approaches.

Which of these topics are most interesting to you? Would you be more or less likely to refer someone with questions to this kind of document instead of the CES letter or FAIR?

*This thread is not about bashing Bill Reel. I know that is a favorite past-time of some here but I would like to discuss the paper and the specific question I raise, instead of litigating the character of Bill.

[bluebell]

The role of women through the history of the church is one that's interesting to me.  But I would be very unlikely to refer anyone to this document because I know nothing about the author and have no experience with his work.  I wouldn't refer anyone to a cite that I didn't completely trust.

Nothing against Bill.  That could change over time.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The role of women through the history of the church is one that's interesting to me.  But I would be very unlikely to refer anyone to this document because I know nothing about the author and have no experience with his work.  I wouldn't refer anyone to a cite that I didn't completely trust.

Nothing against Bill.  That could change over time.

I'm not suggesting anyone refer people to it without knowing what's in it. That's why I provided the link  

But this type of approach of addressing multiple POV's of these issues seems to be very useful in laying out some basic information and providing the resources for people to make their own decisions. It seems free of agenda or any attempt to injure testimony.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not suggesting anyone refer people to it without knowing what's in it. That's why I provided the link  

But this type of approach of addressing multiple POV's of these issues seems to be very useful in laying out some basic information and providing the resources for people to make their own decisions. It seems free of agenda or any attempt to injure testimony.

I'm not talking about not knowing what's in the link.  I'm talking about not knowing Bill's work.  It's not just about what is presented but also the source of the presentation.  

[Calm]

I know quite a bit of Reel's work.

It often is highly emotional and judgmental and I find it highly biased, an example is equating the Church to an abusive father with a picture of a beaten man (black eye iirc):

"The Church for me though is different.  Then it hit me.  The Church, to me, is not comparable to a spouse but rather a parent.  And not just any parent but rather an abusive father who was in need of help and encouragement to change."

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/05/church-farther-figure/

I would be highly unlikely to refer people to his work based on that assessment of his work in general.

Specific criticisms added later after viewing the article:

I find the use of the term "Progressive" as one of his categories as exhibiting his personal bias.  The progressive view in the few examples I looked at is written as the one given the most attention, appears due to content as most educated, most nuanced...and is his position for the ones I know.

Overall it comes across as less of a summary of all positions and more a promotion for the "Progressive" view.

"So while the Orthodox Saint sees a very rigid box of things that are allowed and things that are not, the Progressive sees much more room for agency to make personal informed decisions regarding what is healthy and what is not and to act accordingly."

He is much more likely to provide quotes and extended discussion of the "Progressive"view and shorter paraphrases of the others.

Orthodox are presented as uneducated and uninterested:  

"The Orthodox member is aware only vaguely that their founding prophet pracƕced polygamy. They likely can not name any of his plural wives nor any of the circumstances under which the said marriages took place or what they entailed. They believe that Joseph69 and his first wife Emma70 had a strong loving marriage71 unaware of any burden on their marriage, incurred by Joseph’s involvement with polygamy. Orthodox believers ołen place liƟle emphasis on learning any details beyond that."

I am not finding it particularly accurate in claims either, for example:

"The Orthodox LaƟer‐day Saints finds it crucial to be up to date on where the Church stands on soda pop, different types of tea, and whether sanka or postum are in the same category as coffee."

In all, I find this document's purpose to be not a fair presentation of multiple POVs, but to proselytize Reel's own preferred paradigm which he has deemed to be most "Progressive".

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Bill Reel at Mormon Discussion has created a new document aimed at addressing some of the messy history and doctrine of the church. I read it as being a kind of middle ground tone between the CES letter and FAIR, where both sides have valuable points of view but are very strident and divisive. This is an attempt to validate concerns while looking at the issues in an honest and constructive way by addressing the issues from multiple angles. This is a bold and ambitious attempt to address the issues and I appreciate the effort to include point and counter-point for these issues.

The issues addressed include-

1: Treasure Digging and Folk Magic of Joseph Smith and His Family

2: Joseph Smith’s First Vision

3: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

4: The Book of Mormon Historicity

5: The Book of Abraham

6: The Prophetic Mantle

7: Science

8: Tithing

9: The Word of Wisdom

10: The True and Living Church

11: Joseph Smith’s Practice of Polygamy

12: Polygamy after Joseph Smith

13: The Cessation of Polygamy

14: The Role of Women throughout Church History

15: Temples and Freemasonry

16: Scripture

17: The Race Based Priesthood and Temple Ban

18: Spiritual Witness as a Mode of Knowing Truth

19: Historical Jesus

To me this is a more productive approach than something like the CES letter and provides links to a variety of sources from FAIR to Mormonthink to show the different approaches.

Which of these topics are most interesting to you? Would you be more or less likely to refer someone with questions to this kind of document instead of the CES letter or FAIR?

*This thread is not about bashing Bill Reel. I know that is a favorite past-time of some here but I would like to discuss the paper and the specific question I raise, instead of litigating the character of Bill.

Thanks for posting this HHW!  I'm reading through it right now and I think it's excellent and balanced (love the variety of resources for the reader to continue with if they want to research a topic further).

There's new material here too (at least for me) and I'm finding it to be extremely interesting.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know quite a bit of Reel's work.

It often is highly emotional and judgmental and I find it highly biased, an example is equating the Church to an abusive father with a picture of a beaten man (black eye iirc):

"The Church for me though is different.  Then it hit me.  The Church, to me, is not comparable to a spouse but rather a parent.  And not just any parent but rather an abusive father who was in need of help and encouragement to change."

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/05/church-farther-figure/

I would be highly unlikely to refer people to his work based on that assessment of his work in general.

I find the use of the term "Progressive" as one of his categories as exhibiting his personal bias.

Again, I was hoping we would avoid making this discussion about a person.

What I'm hearing you say is that it matters more who says it, rather than what is said. That's disappointing. Why not judge it on the merit instead of what you think you know about a person? Is it too lengthy to read or is it easier to dismiss because of the person? I don't understand.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not suggesting anyone refer people to it without knowing what's in it. That's why I provided the link  

But this type of approach of addressing multiple POV's of these issues seems to be very useful in laying out some basic information and providing the resources for people to make their own decisions. It seems free of agenda or any attempt to injure testimony.

If it was an accurate, balanced presentation of multiple POVs rather than a biased, heavily weighted presentation of one POV while provided weak, underdeveloped descriptions of other paradigms, it might be useful.

Since it is the latter, I don't find it useful for much but understanding Reel's own paradigm and perceptions.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I was hoping we would avoid making this discussion about a person.

What I'm hearing you say is that it matters more who says it, rather than what is said. That's disappointing. Why not judge it on the merit instead of what you think you know about a person? Is it too lengthy to read or is it easier to dismiss because of the person? I don't understand.

I'd recommend taking the time to read through the document before passing judgement.

I feel it's good so far.  I have found at least one quote that I can't find the reference for (and I'm very interested in a source).  Other than that, I like it and it's very easy to read and follow, IMO.

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I was hoping we would avoid making this discussion about a person.

What I'm hearing you say is that it matters more who says it, rather than what is said. That's disappointing. Why not judge it on the merit instead of what you think you know about a person? Is it too lengthy to read or is it easier to dismiss because of the person? I don't understand.

don't you also find it odd that an entity that one has loyalty to should not be criticized and regardless of the merit of the experience of the person criticizing (If it harms, causes trauma, and marginalizes).  But a person whom one has no loyalty to can be criticized (too emotional, judgmental, and biased)  

Like Happy stated in the OP, I would rather we honor his request to discuss the project on its merit 

[DBMormon]

Just now, Calm said:

If it was an accurate, balanced presentation of multiple POVs rather than a biased, heavily weighted presentation of one POV while provided weak, underdeveloped descriptions of other paradigms, it might be useful.

Since it is the latter, I don't find it useful for much but understanding Reel's own paradigm and perceptions.

Could you point me to a document that represents as many sides as possible fairly and is less biased?  And if you can't does this not make your criticism unfair?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I was hoping we would avoid making this discussion about a person.

What I'm hearing you say is that it matters more who says it, rather than what is said. That's disappointing. Why not judge it on the merit instead of what you think you know about a person? Is it too lengthy to read or is it easier to dismiss because of the person? I don't understand.

Read the rest of my now edited post.

It has to be in part about the person because it was written within his paradigm.

If you read the rest of my post you will see the evidence I provide for my argument his bias has created a useful summary of his own perspectives of these issues, but not of others' paradigms.

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To me this is a more productive approach than something like the CES letter and provides links to a variety of sources from FAIR to Mormonthink to show the different approaches.

I like what I've read so far.  Certainly this isn't perfect and there is a lot of generalizing of issues in order to put things into categories.  I like the effort because it attempts to describe the differences in views about key church teachings.  In the very attempt to do this people from all the different viewpoints (Orthodox, Apologetic, Critical, and Progressive) will certainly have disagreements with the characterizations.  Yet, I find value in the conversation and for some people just learning that there are other viewpoints more than the typical Mormon vs. Anti Mormon viewpoint, will be a helpful exercise.

[Buckeye]

I like Bill a lot so I skimmed the article. At this point, I don't see the article as having too much value. There simply is not enough detail. For instance, in discussing the different first vision accounts, the orthodox is said to think the differences are "inconsequential"; the critic thinks the differences are "irreconcilable"; and the apologist tries to minimize the differences. These descriptions may be true, but they're not very helpful without actually setting out the differences so that the reader can judge. Hopefully the document expands (and I do like the idea of allowing for each 'group' to speak for itself) but at this point I don't see this document helping anyone.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it was an accurate, balanced presentation of multiple POVs rather than a biased, heavily weighted presentation of one POV while provided weak, underdeveloped descriptions of other paradigms, it might be useful.

Since it is the latter, I don't find it useful for much but understanding Reel's own paradigm and perceptions.

How is this different than anything else that is produced by humans?  Books, movies, blogs, etc.  They all represent the viewpoints of the authors.  You can't divorce POV from any equation.  Bill even said that he's open to feedback on the production.  If you have an issue with anything, why not provide feedback rather than dismiss it entirely?  

[juliann]

Apologetic view? Progressive view? Critic view? Really?

It is impossible to get past that. Anything with a goal to present complicated issues by dividing them up into broad brush stereotypes rather than presenting data and conclusions is highly suspect. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Could you point me to a document that represents as many sides as possible fairly and is less biased?  And if you can't does this not make your criticism unfair?

I haven't seen one yet for various LDS related POVs, but I haven't looked for one.  There could be one out there.

I have found in the past some relatively well presented summaries of faiths in general, for example religioustolerance.org I would and have recommended with the caveat it is always best to look to a faith's own people to describe their paradigm, especially the nuances.  It has been awhile since I visited their site so I don't know if that has changed. I find Pew useful in their research comparing faiths.

Why would there being a lack of unbiased summaries make my pointing out your work is highly biased unfair?

I generally like comparisons that allow each group to have their own representative speak for them most, such as the book "How Wide the Divide".

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I like Bill a lot so I skimmed the article. At this point, I don't see the article as having too much value. There simply is not enough detail. For instance, in discussing the different first vision accounts, the orthodox is said to think the differences are "inconsequential"; the critic thinks the differences are "irreconcilable"; and the apologist tries to minimize the differences. These descriptions may be true, but they're not very helpful without actually setting out the differences so that the reader can judge. Hopefully the document expands (and I do like the idea of allowing for each 'group' to speak for itself) but at this point I don't see this document helping anyone.

But isn't it a fair introduction to the topic with multiple sources for deeper digging?

I don't see the paper as the answer to all questions but more of a primer on these discussions.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Apologetic view? Progressive view? Critic view? Really?

It is impossible to get past that. Anything with a goal to present complicated issues by dividing them up into broad brush stereotypes rather than presenting data and conclusions is highly suspect. 

It sounds like you view the attempt to address multiple POV's as a fools errand. I don't know how one could provide multiple POV's without some sort of categorization. So if any attempt to categorize different POV's is dismissed, I'm guessing you wouldn't see any value in anyone attempting to describe different groups.

[Tacenda]

I've never read the CES letter because it's overwhelming with all the info. This seems more concise and I like the three different viewpoints.

I've yet to read it throughly. Bill if you're reading, is it something you would show someone who is doubting the church or who has questions? I think I probably know the answer, that you would. 

I'm amazed that you are still an active LDS that holds callings. I know your recent calling was as a teacher. Maybe your calling is different now? Apparently your bishop and stake president don't mind the stuff you put on your FB page as far as exposing the various issues with church history etc. 

You have always been extremely open with your views! And I'm fascinated that you still attend as if everything is fine and dandy. Take care!!

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How is this different than anything else that is produced by humans?  Books, movies, blogs, etc.  They all represent the viewpoints of the authors.  You can't divorce POV from any equation.   

Of course they do.  But if the claim is otherwise, if the claim is to accurately represent others' POV, that accuracy and the effort put into presenting an accurate view can be accessed.

Given the amount of space, the amount of effort put into showing nuances, the amount of quoting for documentation, the amount of absolutes include, it becomes obvious in my view that this is not a balanced presentation of 4 different viewpoints, but an argument for one viewpoint, Reel's, which he has labeled as "Progressive"...even the label is an argument that it is an more evolved, more elevated position.

[juliann]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The role of women through the history of the church is one that's interesting to me.  But I would be very unlikely to refer anyone to this document because I know nothing about the author and have no experience with his work.  I wouldn't refer anyone to a cite that I didn't completely trust.

Nothing against Bill.  That could change over time.

I got a kick out of the so-called orthodox view being painted in opposition to an apologetic view in all of this. Line me up 20 believing members who fit neatly into any of these categories. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But isn't it a fair introduction to the topic with multiple sources for deeper digging?

I don't see the paper as the answer to all questions but more of a primer on these discussions.

No, I don't see it as fair simply because it lists multiple sources because I don't see the commentary of the orthodox or apologist POV as that accurate or informative.  I don't see it as much of a primer either as I see those as simply Reel's unnuanced views of those positions.  I didn't read closely the critics' summaries as I think someone who holds those views would be better at appraising how well he spoke of them.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

I got a kick out of the so-called orthodox view being painted in opposition to an apologetic view in all of this. Line me up 20 believing members who fit neatly into any of these categories. 

Exactly, the division is artificial in many areas and ignores nuances of positions in everything I read of the believing stances save the Progressive, the author's own.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like you view the attempt to address multiple POV's as a fools errand. I don't know how one could provide multiple POV's without some sort of categorization. So if any attempt to categorize different POV's is dismissed, I'm guessing you wouldn't see any value in anyone attempting to describe different groups.

I don't view it as a fool's errand.  One can categorize by including a nuanced discussion of the important differences and shared characteristics of the categories.

I am not seeing that in this work.