New Paper that Addresses Historical & Doctrinal Issues

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

My intent was not to dismember his credibility, but to present reasons including past work to be cautious about his current conclusions and his paraphrases/summaries (iow check originals for yourself, which is always wise, but a necessity with many and in this case, let believers of all stripes as well as critics tell their own story).

I find him quite credible for relating certain stories, less capable of keeping bias from creating unintentional misrepresentations in other cases.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth Calm, and yes, I could have said it better. However, I think the effect to some extent is that Bill's cred took a hit. Anyway, I hope he takes your criticisms to heart as constructive criticisms and learns from them rather than feeling personally attacked. I thought you were very even handed for what it is worth. I also feel several other posters gave honest critiques - such as Buckeye. I am not saying Bill shouldn't continue with this paper, but right now I don't see much application for it except for some self-serving ones. He apparently wants honest criticism, and that is mine so far. Maybe it will grow into something far better which can actually serve to bring disparate members of the Church closer together, and I think that would be a good thing.

[Calm]

Rev, I thought the rest of your post was fine, it was just that particular phrasing that might be confusing and I didn't view it as putting words in my mouth, but a possible misunderstanding of my purpose.

I appreciate the feedback.  I do work at documenting most claims I make (wouldn't be just not to since I ask it of others), don't always succeed.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My post was not directed at any single poster but was a general statement at the disintegrating tone of this thread and the boards personal attacks directed towards Bill Reel

So why not engage the posts that were not personal attacks to lift the tone?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 hours 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.

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".

Do you think it is possible to present an unbiased view of mormonism and its history? Or is it always going to be muddled in bias? However, is the concept of bias merely a way to maintain boundaries? Claiming bias is a good way to defend against unwanted facts. Sure bias exists in all of us, but it exists in some more than others. Also, doesn't having to maintain a certain conclusion lend toward more bias, especially when faced with inconvenient facts?

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rev, I thought the rest of your post was fine, it was just that particular phrasing that might be confusing and I didn't view it as putting words in my mouth, but a possible misunderstanding of my purpose.

I appreciate the feedback.  I do work at documenting most claims I make (wouldn't be just not to since I ask it of others), don't always succeed.

I believe you are one of the best posters I have ever had the pleasure of running across, and an invaluable member of the forum. You are extremely bright, articulate, honest, fair, informed and several other good things  Probably a much better poster than myself. I can get rather opinionated, and occasionally  a bit abrasive. On this occasion I posted too quickly and didn't fully think through my post, and I did end up speaking for you, which again was not my intent, and I was not accurate. I can be a pretty darn good writer but not superfast. I tend to need time to mull over what I have written. Anyway, I guess I am trying to apologize, because if I were you I may have been a little annoyed at what I said, and I definitely don't want to speak for you - I think you are best at that!

I was just somewhat annoyed at the charge of ad hominem brought up, and thought it may have been directed at you. I don't really feel it applies to any of the posters on this thread. I think the criticisms have been directed at the quality of the paper and its deficiencies, which I thought was the point of the thread in the first place. I thought feedback was being solicited - maybe all they expected was positive feedback. Anyway, people like Buckeye definitely have no axe to grind in this presentation, and I think Bill would do well to listen to them. I personally understand his frustration - it is definitely difficult to write things which will please all the people - especially in religion. I believe he was hoping for a warmer reception tho. I think part of his quandry is that he is trying to be a leader. However, his attempt may grow into something interesting - that would probably be more work than he was hoping for. One suggestion I would have for him is to allow links to be added to the general statements of theological outlooks so that additional detail can be added on separate pages which don't clog up the simple statements of theological outlooks he is trying to maintain. That would definitely allow people of other viewpoints to feel they are being more accurately represented. I don't want to discourage him, but I personally feel his effort will be for naught soon anyway... forces of change will overwhelm it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think it is possible to present an unbiased view of mormonism and its history? Or is it always going to be muddled in bias? However, is the concept of bias merely a way to maintain boundaries? Claiming bias is a good way to defend against unwanted facts. Sure bias exists in all of us, but it exists in some more than others. Also, doesn't having to maintain a certain conclusion lend toward more bias, especially when faced with inconvenient facts?

It will always be muddled with bias.  We can control some for it. We can also work with it if we are quite open about what our bias is and how it might affect our work, though not for the basis to make excuses for our bias or to suggest that now the bias has been identified, it should be ignored as irrelevant.

 Our best first step is being very up front on what our personal bias is to the best of our knowledge.

In fact, one major detractor from the value of Reel's work for the general public is that he provided no explanation that his personal POV was the "Progressive" category in some form of introduction that should have explained both that and how he came up with the categories and their labels, so that people could relatively accurately conclude on their own how much thought, how much study, how much research, and how much bias was being included in the paper from the beginning, whether the categories were actually useful or were overly vague or narrow or based on partial or pure speculation without solid research footing.  For example, "critics" is a huge category that contains secular and religious and social and personal and endless combos.  Some arguments will be embraced by one set of critics while rejected by others.  And there is a massive impact on how a critic approaches his arguments if he is an exmormon as opposed to never Mormon.

While fixating on bias can certainly be used to create boundaries, that does not somehow remove the impact of bias on choice of narrative, research, on all exploration....there is always a starting point.  Good, solid, useful scholarship requires a good, solid examination of bias on oneself and the sources one is using to support one's premises.  Misuse by others is no excuse for abandoning standards of scholarship.

I am not sure what you mean by "having to maintain a certain conclusion".  Perhaps you are thinking of critics who desire to demonstrate the Church is false, who therefore might weight resources heavier if they see them as contributing to that conclusion.  The same might occur for the reverse position.  If this is what you mean, my opinion is that being open about bias in oneself and others is the best way to ensure inappropriate weighting of evidence doesn't not occur because one is more likely to be questioning each choice in terms of bias...do I view it this way solely because it appeals to me or is there historical or other data that indicate this item shouldn't be weighted so much.  For example if someone's bias is that there are no such things as angels, that God does not exist and they are not open about these faith positions, then their commentary may be understood in a very different way than it would be if they were open about their beliefs.  Think of a comment on the First Vision where they say 'in looking at all the evidence we can find nothing that suggest Joseph actually had a vision of an angel or talked with God'...if one knows that they would never consider this was even a possibility since in their paradigm angels don't exist, they aren't actually open to any interpretation that angels were there and a good part of the evidence will never be included in an examination.  If a bias is believed to be reasonable, there should be no fear in being completely open about it.  On the other hand as you say, bias exists indifferent amounts and different directions and some can allow for open conversation between believers and disbelievers and some cannot.  Identifying those that will not is essential.  Again for an example, a bias that there are no angels, no God automatically structures the argument to exclude believers from participating.  A believer with the bias that truth can only come through God-given revelation excludes a massive amount of data, beliefs, and ideas from being explored in religious terms.

Placing your biases front and center at the beginning of any exploration will help set up correct assumptions, signal to others what approaches for argument will have value and which ones have none and will just confuse or draw scorn.

----

I am not particularly interested in maintaining boundaries by categorizing individuals or groups in these kinds of discussions.  I find most of us are eager to label oneself, I don't see much value in me expending energy in an activity better suited for another.  I am not the one who has divided up those interested in LDS discussion into four groups.  I prefer to deal with behaviours rather than creating boundary groups, demonstrate the process of behaviours, the assumptions they may come with and the likely consequences they will entail.  I find that approach focuses on more useful identifiers and allows for a variety of combinations where categorizing people create the boundaries and the boxes that many of those doing the categorizing claim they wish to remove.  The habit can be difficult to break, but if one recognizes it isn't particularly useful in predictive value unless it is an extremely complicated and detailed effort, it may be easier to put aside for more effective approaches.

[Calm]

Dup

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

I skimmed the pages, but I did not find a response yet to Calm's assessment of Bill's proposal - did I miss it?  If not, can we just see the response and forget about all of the "you hurt my feelings" diatribes?

Bill, I thought her comments can easily be viewed as constructive.  You asked for such and it would seem a relatively easy fix.  What do you think?

You are a public personality and you have a body of public work from which individuals can easily draw conclusions.  It is naive to think that those conclusions will be, or even should be, set aside because you have produced something else.  If you are seeking personal opinions, I think the objective of producing a paper that attempts to cover what some think are challenges and to provide a range of typical responses one might hear from four subsets of LDS or those related to the Church in some way.  The difficulty is to portray those separate perspectives in a way that is neutral and without any degree of caricature.  However, you are more than capable of doing so.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Storm Rider

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I stand by what I said...the church is on the record for admitting that they have made mistakes...ad hominem is to use personal attacks to discredit the argument of an individual...not an organization plus I haven't attacked the church nor any argument they've presented here...so I honestly don't know what you're talking about 

I was hoping you would comment on the actual content of the document or that somebody would. 

[stemelbow]

I know I'm late to this.  But so be it.

I liked the piece, but admittedly, I'm quite close to the progressive view (I don't like the trendy term progressive, but no big deal) that seems favored in the approach.  I think the idea that someone else write the summaries for each perspective is great.  To paint the orthodox view as ignorant in each case is not helpful and not accurate.  There are plenty of well informed members who post here who are orthodox and are just as informed as the rest of us.

It's also likely that some people jump from view to view and that should be acknowledged.  A brief discussion of the views, how they relate and how people can interact amongst them would be useful.  I think I read where Calm suggested the differing views should show overlap, points of agreement, or how they might be reconciled together in some cases.  Maybe I misunderstood her.  But that seems reasonable too.     

The problem of course is generalizing for each perspective.  That's tough.  I'd say some of the criticism offered here is pretty good.  I have no clue why people are after whether Bill is credible or not, or if they can trust him.  That is a weird Mormon thing it seems to me.  We shouldn't worry about that.  Let it speak for itself, I say. 

I wouldn't throw this away. I'd build on it.  Get more people involved and keep it short and efficient as it is.  If you were already familiar with the issues in the CES letter, it is a boring and pointless read.  I would hate to see this turn into the same. 

 

 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

The topics are all interesting.

At what point does a person with faith-related questions begin to approach them from the standpoint of settling a controversy, as if faith can be nurtured by engaging in the techniques of prolonged, public and heated disagreement? Getting embroiled in such dispute, argument, debate, dissension, contention, disputation, altercation, wrangling, quarreling, a war of words, cause célèbre, etc. (yes, I used a Thesaurus!) typically do not involve the spirit of charity and unity.

I do not think it is helpful to encourage someone with questions of faith to identify with, or label others as belonging to, one of four camps that seem to have been categorized by contrivance in the first place in a competitive stance. This approach seems to favor a spirit of contention and I would say the majority of people with questions do not identify with any of these camps or labels and might feel uncomfortable being encouraged to “pick one.”

It would depend on their question as to how I would approach it, but I tend to take the ministry route, so I would be more likely to take a very individualized approach.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours 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.

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.

Are there alternate terms you would suggest? I wouldn't have thought "progressive" would denote a positive bias. To a conservative I think it would be viewed with a negative bias? Juliann also argued against the idea of having different groupings but that doesn't make much sense to me. How would you differentiate between different groups of people without labeling?

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

When I reviewed I found that some of the progressive sections were longer than others, but many were not. It comes across to me as a summary of each position, progressive included, but I think you may have a point that the progressive section may be a bit more fleshed out since that is more likely the bias of the author. I don't think it's intentional, but even so, it may still exist.

"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.

Again, in some cases this is true, but not always. This seems like something that could be fixed in the document.

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."

This may be a bit of a caricature.

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".

I think it is exceptionally hard for a person to recognize their own bias. I'm sure this is just as true for Bill as it is for me. I think the author's voice will always come through in various ways, and that's not all bad, yet it should be recognized.

You made a comment elsewhere that suggested that because the different categories weren't fully accurate, and as Bluebell said, are sometimes "insulting", it seems like future updates could include sections about one particular group that is written by someone who self-identifies with that group. The quest is whether or not orthodox, apologists etc would contribute to the work. Based on some of the vitriol on this thread I am not confident others would engage. For example, Calm, would you be willing to submit a few short summary sections that would replace the ones you find particularly unfair? Would anyone else be willing to do that? Bluebell? Juliann? StormRider?

Bill, would you accept submissions from others who self-identify in these different groups?

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The topics are all interesting.

 

At what point does a person with faith-related questions begin to approach them from the standpoint of settling a controversy, as if faith can be nurtured by engaging in the techniques of prolonged, public and heated disagreement? Getting embroiled in such dispute, argument, debate, dissension, contention, disputation, altercation, wrangling, quarreling, a war of words, cause célèbre, etc. (yes, I used a Thesaurus!) typically do not involve the spirit of charity and unity.

Well done!!

I do not think it is helpful to encourage someone with questions of faith to identify with, or label others as belonging to, one of four camps that seem to have been categorized by contrivance in the first place in a competitive stance. This approach seems to favor a spirit of contention and I would say the majority of people with questions do not identify with any of these camps or labels and might feel uncomfortable being encouraged to “pick one.”

How does one talk about different perspectives without attempting to identify different perspectives. I'm a bit perplexed by this criticism. Is it more a function of you not liking the way the different POV's are defined and labeled?

It would depend on their question as to how I would approach it, but I tend to take the ministry route, so I would be more likely to take a very individualized approach.

 

 

[JulieM]

59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I skimmed the pages, but I did not find a response yet to Calm's assessment of Bill's proposal - did I miss it?  

I think what happened is that Calm posted her initial shorter post and then an hour later edited it to add her actual review of the piece (after she had a chance to read through it).  By then, there were 2 more pages of comments (some about her original, short post).  

But her review was added 17 hours ago now, and she's mentioned that she edited her post.  So people should go back and read her edited section before they continue or want to comment on it.  It just got confusing because people moved on and didn't see the edit.

I honestly feel that Bill has gotten some good feedback (from both sides) and he should just skip any posts that aren't critiques of or specifically related to his paper.

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...it  seems like future updates could include sections about one particular group that is written by someone who self-identifies with that group. The quest is whether or not orthodox, apologists etc would contribute to the work. Based on some of the vitriol on this thread I am not confident others would engage. For example, Calm, would you be willing to submit a few short summary sections that would replace the ones you find particularly unfair? Would anyone else be willing to do that? Bluebell? Juliann? StormRider?

Bill, would you accept submissions from others who self-identify in these different groups?

Great questions and I hope some that you named respond.  I love the idea of others contributing.  A representation from each "group" who writes their beliefs is less bias and more accurate.

So, would any of you help Bill with those sections?

I actually found myself NOT in just one group, but could relate to the beliefs of each group depending on the topic or chapter.

Edited May 2, 2017 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Great questions and I hope some that you named respond.  I love the idea of others contributing.  A representation from each "group" who writes their beliefs is less bias and more accurate.

So, would any of you help Bill with those sections?

I actually found myself NOT in just one group, but could relate to the beliefs of each group depending on the topic or chapter.

I want to hear from the horses mouth (or in Calm's case the mole's mouth) when it comes to what they believe.  It's that simple for me on this.  I don't mind Bill summarizing the positions, but by far a better approach is to get someone else to write for each position that they favor. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by stemelbow

[Johnnie Cake]

Ok I've taken the time to read (Most of it).  What I appreciated was first the time that Bill Reel has taken to produce this work that in and of itself is a daunting task.  I like how he has divided the topic's into the 4 points of view.  Orthodox, Critic, Apologetic and Progressive.  What I found particularly helpful by adopting this format is the contrast between the various points of view.  First we have the Orthodox, the version of historical events we were all taught in Sunday School intended to promote faith and belief in the LDS truth claims, The critic's viewpoint which contrasts with the orthodox in that it removes the faith promoting aspects of the history and exposes it in all of its rawness and flaws. Followed by the apologetic which attempts to justify the faith promoting and finally the progressive viewpoint which attempts to make sense of the other often conflicting points of view through nuance, shading and subtlety in an attempt to maintain faith and belief despite the messiness of it all.

This paper is not intended for the hard core orthodox believer who maintains a traditional POV but the once orthodox believer who has stumbled upon the messiness of Mormon history which conflicts with the traditional Sunday School stories we were all taught and though experiencing doubt in those truth claims is still attempting to hold on to their faith.  I believe that Bill's work is a noble exercise and instead of criticizing him, he should be complimented for his compassionate efforts to bridge the gap between faith and doubt.

As someone who members of this board have "pidgin holed" as a critic, I am actually surprised that so many here are so critical of one of your own, someone who is actually attempting to help those in a faith crisis maintain belief in the church truth claims.  It seems to me as an non-believer that you would all be rallying around Bill offering encouragement and support instead of focusing on the faults you see in this effort. 

I see this work as a breath of fresh air, an honest attempt to help bridge the gap between claimed truth and reality.  If only the church essays had been so honest.

As someone who lost my faith after discovering that the version of events I was taught in Sunday School was less than factual and turned to the apologetic sight FAIR for answers only to have my worst fears confirmed...I wonder what might have been had this work been available then. Would it have been enough to maintain belief, I'll never know, but at least it would have been something

Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok I've taken the time to read (Most of it).  What I appreciated was first the time that Bill Reel has taken to produce this work that in and of itself is a daunting task.  I like how he has divided the topic's into the 4 points of view.  Orthodox, Critic, Apologetic and Progressive.  What I found particularly helpful by adopting this format is the contrast between the various points of view.  First we have the Orthodox, the version of historical events we were all taught in Sunday School intended to promote faith and belief in the LDS truth claims, The critic's viewpoint which contrasts with the orthodox in that it removes the faith promoting aspects of the history and exposes it in all of its rawness and flaws. Followed by the apologetic which attempts to justify the faith promoting and finally the progressive viewpoint which attempts to make sense of the other often conflicting points of view through nuance, shading and subtlety in an attempt to maintain faith and belief despite the messiness of it all.

This paper is not intended for the hard core orthodox believer who maintains a traditional POV but the once orthodox believer who has stumbled upon the messiness of Mormon history which conflicts with the traditional Sunday School stories we were all taught and though experiencing doubt in those truth claims is still attempting to hold on to their faith.  I believe that Bill's work is a noble exercise to and instead of criticizing should be complimented for his compassionate efforts to bridge the gap between faith and doubt.

As someone who members of this board have "pidgin holed" as a critic, I am actually surprised that so many here are so critical of one of your own, someone who is actually attempting to help those in a faith crisis maintain belief in the church truth claims.  It seems to me as an non-believer that you would all be rallying around Bill offering encouragement and support instead of focusing on the faults you see in this effort. 

I see this work as a breath of fresh air, an honest attempt to help bridge the gap between claimed truth and reality.  If only the church essays had been so honest.

Perhaps I was a little too harsh on his piece.  I liked it.  I found it rang true in many cases.  But I also felt like there was room for improvement.  Perhaps others see it that way.  Others were far more critical and some questioned things like, "can I trust him?" (which I don't get)

As an excited teen I happened upon a friend's house one afternoon (this memory will come out as accurate as I have it).  The dad of that friend lay on an antique looking love seat moaning a bit after having partaken in what must have been a long day  (maybe even yard work or some such thing was involved).  The dad of this friend was always welcoming, fun and inviting, and was looked up to and admired by the teens I knew.  one such friend (initials TS) engaged the dad in some jocular dialog.  that dad (joking I presume) asked the boy to rub his feet, as he stuck his feet in the air.  the teen offered to help, disappeared for a moment and came back with some rubber gloves, some lotion and a kitchen scrubbing tool.  The scene was funny and the conversation was even funnier as I recall, even if the whole concept of rubbing feet and smooshing gooey stuff on, shall we say older looking feet, was a bit revolting to me.  Some gagging reflex started within me, but I held it back.  The rubbing finished and we went on our way, chuckling as we went.

That dad, was none other than our beloved (by most of us) johnnie Cake.  the teens were some boys, me included, one Johnnie's oldest, maybe 3 or 4 of us.  That scene comes to me often as I see Johnnie's posts, even though I take his posts quite seriously (most of the time).  I realize he's the same good guy (older and a critic of the Church rather than a local leader as he was back then, as I recall).  I hope we all realize we're each someone who wants the best for us, our people and others.  This ain't personal.

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok I've taken the time to read (Most of it).  What I appreciated was first the time that Bill Reel has taken to produce this work that in and of itself is a daunting task.  I like how he has divided the topic's into the 4 points of view.  Orthodox, Critic, Apologetic and Progressive.  What I found particularly helpful by adopting this format is the contrast between the various points of view.  First we have the Orthodox, the version of historical events we were all taught in Sunday School intended to promote faith and belief in the LDS truth claims, The critic's viewpoint which contrasts with the orthodox in that it removes the faith promoting aspects of the history and exposes it in all of its rawness and flaws. Followed by the apologetic which attempts to justify the faith promoting and finally the progressive viewpoint which attempts to make sense of the other often conflicting points of view through nuance, shading and subtlety in an attempt to maintain faith and belief despite the messiness of it all.

This paper is not intended for the hard core orthodox believer who maintains a traditional POV but the once orthodox believer who has stumbled upon the messiness of Mormon history which conflicts with the traditional Sunday School stories we were all taught and though experiencing doubt in those truth claims is still attempting to hold on to their faith.  I believe that Bill's work is a noble exercise and instead of criticizing him, he should be complimented for his compassionate efforts to bridge the gap between faith and doubt.

As someone who members of this board have "pidgin holed" as a critic, I am actually surprised that so many here are so critical of one of your own, someone who is actually attempting to help those in a faith crisis maintain belief in the church truth claims.  It seems to me as an non-believer that you would all be rallying around Bill offering encouragement and support instead of focusing on the faults you see in this effort. 

I see this work as a breath of fresh air, an honest attempt to help bridge the gap between claimed truth and reality.  If only the church essays had been so honest.

As someone who lost my faith after discovering that the version of events I was taught in Sunday School was less than factual and turned to the apologetic sight FAIR for answers only to have my worst fears confirmed...I wonder what might have been had this work been available then. Would it have been enough to maintain belief, I'll never know, but at least it would have been something

Several have mentioned that having all of the views would be helpful for helping those in crises. That has confused me, but I didn't understand why till your last paragraph. 

If having your worst fears confirmed caused you to lose your faith then how could any of the views actually help you to get your faith back? 

Or is it not so much that the history problems existed that caused you to lose faith, but the way they were viewed? And if it is the way they are viewed then how does the view of a critic (with Bill's definition) help one to view it in a way that helps them keep their faith?

And if the critic cannot maintain faith then what is the point of this document? To help others maintain faith or just show the info that is out there, with no concerns about maintaining faith?

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps I was a little too harsh on his piece.  I liked it.  I found it rang true in many cases.  But I also felt like there was room for improvement.  Perhaps others see it that way.  Others were far more critical and some questioned things like, "can I trust him?" (which I don't get)

As an excited teen I happened upon a friend's house one afternoon (this memory will come out as accurate as I have it).  The dad of that friend lay on an antique looking love seat moaning a bit after having partaken in what must have been a long day  (maybe even yard work or some such thing was involved).  The dad of this friend was always welcoming, fun and inviting, and was looked up to and admired by the teens I knew.  one such friend (initials TS) engaged the dad in some jocular dialog.  that dad (joking I presume) asked the boy to rub his feet, as he stuck his feet in the air.  the teen offered to help, disappeared for a moment and came back with some rubber gloves, some lotion and a kitchen scrubbing tool.  The scene was funny and the conversation was even funnier as I recall, even if the whole concept of rubbing feet and smooshing gooey stuff on, shall we say older looking feet, was a bit revolting to me.  Some gagging reflex started within me, but I held it back.  The rubbing finished and we went on our way, chuckling as we went.

That dad, was none other than our beloved (by most of us) johnnie Cake.  the teens were some boys, me included, one Johnnie's oldest, maybe 3 or 4 of us.  That scene comes to me often as I see Johnnie's posts, even though I take his posts quite seriously (most of the time).  I realize he's the same good guy (older and a critic of the Church rather than a local leader as he was back then, as I recall).  I hope we all realize we're each someone who wants the best for us, our people and others.  This ain't personal.

This memory brought both an audible chuckle to my lips and a tear to my eye...so much water under that bridge.  As I recall it...that foot rub never did take place...it was never intended as a serious request that anyone would have undertaken...with the exception of my son...but (TS) jumped at the opportunity at the utter delight of each of us...those rubber gloves, absolutely hilarious...I loved you boys...still do, ok I need to go get a tissue. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Several have mentioned that having all of the views would be helpful for helping those in crises. That has confused me, but I didn't understand why till your last paragraph. 

If having your worst fears confirmed caused you to lose your faith then how could any of the views actually help you to get your faith back? 

Or is it not so much that the history problems existed that caused you to lose faith, but the way they were viewed? And if it is the way they are viewed then how does the view of a critic (with Bill's definition) help one to view it in a way that helps them keep their faith?

And if the critic cannot maintain faith then what is the point of this document? To help others maintain faith or just show the info that is out there, with no concerns about maintaining faith?

As a believer I firmly believed that my testimony was bullet proof...there was nothing that could have destroyed it.  I was well informed, or so I thought, had heard all the usual arguments against the church and had satisfactory work arounds to them, in a manner that still allowed faith to be maintained.  Part of this maintenance required me to set somethings aside that just couldn't satisfyingly be reconciled...that proverbial shelf.  I won't go into the details...but as a long time subscriber of both Sunstone and Dialogue...I encountered articles that asked questions that over time cut the legs of my faith out from under me.  It wasn't one thing...but a series of things that brought into question the foundations of what my faith had been build on.  It was in the search for answers to these questions that I lost my belief in Mormonism. It was not what I wanted...but it certainly is where I've ended up.  It was probably the most difficult process I've ever or will encountered in my life. Once exposed to the non traditional reality of Mormon truth claims...the believer must find a new foundation upon which to rebuild that faith.  Bill is offering one such place from which to build.  The position that Bill offers is not satisfying to me, for me if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be then I want nothing to do with it...where as he still finds value in the book.

Losing faith in the church is not an event but a process.  If a seeker can find safe ground in that process perhaps faith can be salvaged...Bill is offering that safe ground.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Tacenda]

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/courage-convictions

This is a good read by Patrick Mason. I believe the only way I can stay in the church is if I'm a nuanced believer. Because as the article mentions the cart got too full. Too bad the church didn't let a few of the warts get out long ago and truthfully. Now it's a train wreck, I'm seeing the wreckage in my ward. One the other day and another yesterday, disillusioned members. Brigham Young's polygamy never phased me, if it had been taught that JS lived it also or was part of the recognizable history, I wonder if I'd had a crisis of faith. 

I appreciate Bill's work and I think he, like others, have Mormonism addiction, and this isn't always a good thing, very consuming. I'm guessing here, but he like many are addicted to not letting the truth stay in the dark. It's time to let it out and then figure out a way to deal with it. 

As Patrick's article mentioned, LDS members turned prophets and apostles into demigods. This is where some problems lie. It's time to take back our lives now, IMO. 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Tacenda

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How does one talk about different perspectives without attempting to identify different perspectives. I'm a bit perplexed by this criticism. Is it more a function of you not liking the way the different POV's are defined and labeled?

It is not a criticism, but an observation that the approach of packaging many perspectives into four contrived labels or camps in a controversy-charged atmosphere accentuates differences and fosters competition and enmity. That is simply the dynamic that is set up, and doesn't seem to draw much on the role of a person's faith or strengthening his faith in the fundamentals so as to direct it in resolving his concerns.

The subtitle allows for the article to be taken as an objective position, but I think the division into the four categories undermines that. I think the material could be presented in a less controversial manner!

The article isn't presented as objective research (i.e., evidence-based support for defining the actual categories is lacking; credentials, etc.), and doesn't come across as such, so some license can be expected to be taken in laying out controversies in this format. But I think question-answering faith is best nurtured by diffusing controversy, not leveraging it. That is why the article is not an approach I would support for addressing faith-related questions, or helping someone else to. I think individual ministering serves that purpose much better.

The article seems to be neither spiritual nor scholarly in nature, so it doesn't seem to foster words of wisdom or inspire one to seek learning by study and also by faith.

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

As a believer I firmly believed that my testimony was bullet proof...there was nothing that could have destroyed it.  I was well informed, or so I thought, had heard all the usual arguments against the church and had satisfactory work around them in a manner that still allowed faith to be maintained.  Part of this maintenance required me to set somethings aside that just couldn't be satisfyingly be reconciled...that proverbial shelf.  I won't go into the details...but as a long time subscriber of both Sunstone and Dialogue...I encountered articles that asked questions that over time cut the legs of my faith out from under me.  It wasn't one thing...but a series of things that brought into question the foundations of what my faith had been build on.  It was in the search for answers to these questions that I lost my belief in Mormonism. It was not what I wanted...but it is certainly is where I've ended up.  It was probably the most difficult process I've ever or will encountered in my life. Once exposed to the non traditional reality of Mormon truth claims...the believer must find a new foundation upon which to rebuild that faith.  Bill is offering one such place from which to build.  The position that Bill offers is not satisfying to me, for me if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be then I want nothing to do with it...where as he still find value in the book.

Losing faith in the church is not an event but a process.  If a seeker can find safe ground in that process perhaps faith can be salvaged...Bill is offering that safe ground.

But how does what I bolded square with what you said here: "I wonder what might have been had this work been available then "?

That's what confuses me.  If people feel this way then how will this document help people keep their faith? How does including the critic help make it a safe place for those who are trying to keep their faith?

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is not a criticism, but an observation that the approach of packaging many perspectives into four contrived labels or camps in a controversy-charged atmosphere accentuates differences and fosters competition and enmity. 

Contrived?  That's not at all true, IMO.  These different ways or levels of belief exist within members of the church.  You might not like the names that Bill has given them, but I doubt he "contrived".

And, members are searching for answers. Wouldn't you rather they read something like this rather than the CES letter, for example?  

You can't just pretend that only faithful answers will be sufficient anymore for many who are searching for truth and help.  There's too many places where they can find the information now.

Would you be willing to help Bill write the sections for where your beliefs are?  That's been suggested and I do like that idea.