Some LDS scholars like to agree with Anti-Mormons

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/9/2017 at 0:44 AM, mfbukowski said:

Academics seek to be "objective" in studying religion.  It is not something nefarious, it is a scientific attitude which as I have point out many times, deliberately "brackets" the question of God and looks at things strictly naturalistically.  That is the scientific perspective in action, like it or not.

Not everyone is Mormon and for a serious discussion of the nature of religion to happen, there must be the presumption that objectivity is possible and that it is the ideal.

To me, that is a fantasy.  When I am emperor of the universe I will dictate that presumptions of objectivity will be banned, and everyone will just express their opinions openly and duke it out saying whatever they think.

That might take a little time though.  Just remember to vote for Bukowski when the next Universal Emperor election comes around

Of course it is not nefarious from their point of view. Or is it? How does one talk about a prophet and not allow the possibility of communication from God?

How are Mormons supposed to engage?

It's like critiquing the music of Witold Lutoslawski by studying his Polish background but not being allowed to mention he was a composer.

As Nibley wrote, 

Quote

But the commonest defense of the intellectual quest for God is that it was forced on the church as a necessary tool with which to meet the onslaughts of learned pagans - the world had to be met with its own weapons, fire fought with fire. But the early Christians had fought fire with water, not fire. Do not try to meet the world on its own grounds, the Apostolic Fathers had advised the saints; its weapons are not our weapons. The philosophic backfire which later churchmen set against heretic and pagan, quickly spread and by the fourth century got completely out of hand - a mighty conflagration, says the historian Socrates, with the Christians carrying the vices of the philosophers to greater extremism than the pagans ever had. To use another figure: when at an early time the intellectual virus threatened the church, certain men took it upon themselves to inoculate the church against it, heedless of the warnings of the Apostolic Fathers that the untried serum would prove fatal - and so it did. The church promptly came down with a first class case of the morbus scholasticus which broke all records for virulence, and from which it never recovered.

The World and the Prophets, 1974, p. 54.

Are we trying to set intellectual backfires? Are we heading for a case of morbus scholasticus?

And when you become Emperor, please remember us little people on whose backs you climbed in your quest for Power and Fame. May I be at least a minion?

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course it is not nefarious from their point of view. Or is it? How does one talk about a prophet and not allow the possibility of communication from God?

How are Mormons supposed to engage?

It's like critiquing the music of Witold Lutoslawski by studying his Polish background but not being allowed to mention he was a composer.

As Nibley wrote, 

Are we trying to set intellectual backfires? Are we heading for a case of morbus scholasticus?

This is a huge problem but on the other hand we have a responsibility (I think) to climb up Mars Hill and talk to these folks about the Unknown God.

That is kind of what my stuff is about and is the main reason for me posting, writing etc.

Guys who are total secular atheists can understand "religion" in terms unprovable ideas of what goodness is, and ethical values, and how to follow a "hunch" or "your gut" or how questions about having a meaning in life and a purpose can be answered, all the while not connecting this with God because that is not the fundamentalist God they learned about as a child whom they cannot see and so must not exist.  "All" they are lacking is an understanding of that force they may feel deep within themselves that connects to a sense of awe at looking at the ocean or night sky, or witnessing the birth of a child IS "the spirit"

It is really a terminological distinction without a difference- atheist say they feel "awe at the universe" and we say "we see the hand of God".  We see it personally and they see it anonymously because they think that understanding "God" is saying they believe in Santa Claus.  God has nothing to do with Santa Claus.  God is NOT Santa Claus, the dispenser of toys. The fact that they think the belief in God is similar to the belief in Santa Claus is in fact the problem.

It could be as simple as a name change to see that deep "unconscious" that puts them in touch with everything and everyone in the world, in those strokes of intuition we all receive as a force from God instead of some "emotional reaction"

Of course it IS an emotional reaction- but guess what, emotional reactions can be from God.

They do not even see the possibility

Rorty was one of those guys.  He found the solidarity of man as the highest good and said that he could believe in a God who was a "friend" of mankind instead of the imperious Transcendent Ruler of the Universe who caused wars simply by being a human concept that people argue over.

A human, immanent, Father he could have understood and he knew of Mormonism (his wife was raised Mormon) but he saw the gold plates and the fundamentalism, belief in the flood, no evolution, etc as superstition.

So it's the old problem we see here every day- people not seeing Mormonism as humanism in its highest form in the Human Family of God, a God of materialism where spirit and matter are one and the quest of mankind should be becoming perfected in a unified society called Zion.  We are Theistic, Humanist Materialists striving for a perfect human society, all led by belief in the only Perfect Human who ever lived and preached his way of life to a skeptical world, and who sacrificed himself to free us from guilt and the fear of death who taught us that this life energy we feel within us somehow goes on after death, if we but live as He lived.

Is a quest for that kind of world so different than living to save the whales or ending pollution, or stopping global warming?  All of those causes also have unprovable and in some cases improbable possible assumptions based on faith, and devotion to the cause is a purely subjective phenomenon based on belief in a very vague ideal.   I mean the political liberals want a central authority to protect all mankind- probably a good idea in some respects and the conservatives want the Bill of Rights enthroned as an infallible statement of how to build the ideal society.  

Both positions are based on faith and warriors for Marxism fight against the promoters of the Bill of Rights and die every day in that huge war, none of them seeing that their positions are "religious" in nature.  Each is in his way is just as faith-based as the fighters for militant Islam without seeing it.   All seek ideals which have never been accomplished in practice.

So as you suggest, I agree totally that the problem IS this rift between what people understand as "religion" and what people understand to be "science".  As I see it the difference between religion and science is the subject matter, religion seeking to explain why we have this need for a purpose in life and seeking that purpose while science seeks to explain regularities in our perceptions of the mechanics of the world.

Religion is about purpose, science is about mechanics.  Another analogy would be people who decide whether or not it is a good idea to colonize Mars while the scientist figure out how to do it.  They are two separate questions.

Finding a purpose to go to Mars is not at all like finding how to do it.

So what is the purpose of man?  What do YOU want out of life to feel fulfilled and peaceful and happy?  What beliefs give that to you in your life?  What experiences have you had that point you toward those beliefs which you find convincing?

It's similar to knowing why you chose your profession, what personally you get out of having that profession and what your purpose is.

It has nothing to do with what makes the bus or the electric car or the space ship  go to get you to work.

You can't have one without the other.  First comes the purpose why we need the gizmo, or sometimes the gizmo comes first and we figure out what its purpose should be.

So in my opinion, the academic scientific approach to religion makes the same confusion we are talking about here.  When speaking about what people do or believe without thinking about the purpose and significance of the belief in their lives- you are confusing how to get to work with why you go to work in the first place.

Divorcing the belief from what people GET from the belief totally misses the point.  It's like saying Catholics believe ABC while Muslims believe XYZ without ever SEEING the similarities in the FUNCTIONS of those beliefs in the human being's life, which may be VERY similar.

Once we look at the FUNCTIONS of religious belief- even comparing atheists with theists- we will start understanding which beliefs function better to achieve the goals of all of humanity

I have been thinking about that now for 40 years and have concluded that Mormonism DOES exactly that and my intuition makes me feel that right down to the bone.  That is the equivalent in Mormon Talk to " The Spirit has testified to me, and I now KNOW the church is TRUE"

In my universe there will be no confusion about that distinction and the importance of those two very different questions.  And yes I will also be your minion if you will be mine.

But we still gotta follow the prophet as long as we have a testimony that he is right, or if you will, that the course he is proposing resonates with us personally down to the very bones within us 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

On 6/7/2017 at 1:34 PM, hagoth7 said:

Please share - what background?

Stanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University, as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax. In the past he has had articles published on Georgian verb morphology and object–participle agreement in Old Spanish and Old Catalan. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax as it relates to Early Modern English and contributes, by means of textual analysis, to volume 3 of Royal Skousen’s Book of Mormon critical text project.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+(Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+(RSS))

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited June 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:04 AM, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

Because often the so called anti Mormons are correct.  Quite simple really.

[Marginal Gains]

On 06/06/2017 at 2:04 PM, champatsch said:

Why are some LDS scholars quick to agree with anti-Mormon arguments? Here is an example of what I mean.

Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book The Gift and Power, at the beginning of chapter 16, in a section on translation and grammatical structure, quotes a paragraph by M. T. Lamb, from his 1887 book titled The Golden Bible. Lamb didn't take the text of the Book of Mormon seriously, and the tone is mocking throughout. It is not a serious study, one full of errors in its grammatical criticisms. But Gardner doesn't tell the reader any of that. He tacitly agrees with Lamb's comments, using them as a springboard into making a few points in this short section. On the following page, page 184, he cites Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants, as part of a critique of tenses employed in 1 Nephi 19:13. Gardner silently opposes Skousen's interpretation, not letting the reader know. In fine, Gardner agrees with Lamb, who wasn't a grammarian and scorns the text, and disagrees with Skousen, who is a grammarian and respects the text.

The question I'm wondering about is why do we see this tendency among certain LDS scholars, to uncritically agree with anti-Mormon treatments of things? Some have probably seen this in other domains of scholarship.

The following used to be anti-Mormon arguments:

Joseph was a polygamist.

Joseph Married other women without Emma knowing about it.

Joseph used a rock in a hat to produce the Book of Mormon.

Polygamy continued after the 1890 manifesto, and was sanctioned by the Prophet.

Black skin is not an indicator of a curse from God.

The papyrus doesn't contain the Book Of Abraham.

Etc, etc, etc.

The bigger question should be around why the supposed anti-Mormon arguments of yesterday have managed to become today's historical truth.

[clarkgoble]

Most of these are still anti-Mormon arguments.

[cinepro]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Most of these are still anti-Mormon arguments.

If in the future the Church is struggling and people ask "When was the beginning of the end?", the answer will be "When the historical facts became anti-Mormon arguments."

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If in the future the Church is struggling and people ask "When was the beginning of the end?", the answer will be "When the historical facts became anti-Mormon arguments."

More how they try to use them. After all anti-Mormons aren't just dealing with the facts but typically are using them to make various arguments. Also there are selective in what facts get presented.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

More how they try to use them. After all anti-Mormons aren't just dealing with the facts but typically are using them to make various arguments. Also there are selective in what facts get presented.

Well, facts are facts.  A person's conclusions may be based on facts or not.  Sadly for so much of our existence, our individual members have been treating the facts that "anti-Mormons" have used in their arguments as falsehoods, mostly because the members have been told to think that way.  But I think that's mostly going away. 

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, facts are facts.  A person's conclusions may be based on facts or not.  Sadly for so much of our existence, our individual members have been treating the facts that "anti-Mormons" have used in their arguments as falsehoods, mostly because the members have been told to think that way.  But I think that's mostly going away. 

Again I think it's more complicated than that. No one denies Joseph Smith and others were polygamists for instance. But what that means is very much an interpretation. So I don't think you can take one thread out of the fabric and say that's the fact as if the surrounding facts don't matter and don't affect the meaning of any particular fact.

[cinepro]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

More how they try to use them. After all anti-Mormons aren't just dealing with the facts but typically are using them to make various arguments. Also there are selective in what facts get presented.

Keep telling yourself that.  It's getting to the point that I would bet that if everyone in the Church over the age of 18 were given an unvarnished history of the Church with both the good and the bad included, there would be serious, serious problems.  Obviously, the Church leaders felt the same way for the first 170+ years, and they're starting to change because they have to.  It's a noble sentiment to say "We have nothing to fear from the truth", but saying it doesn't mean it's true.  Sometimes the truth isn't nice.

Time will tell who was right and who was wrong.  

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, facts are facts.  A person's conclusions may be based on facts or not.  Sadly for so much of our existence, our individual members have been treating the facts that "anti-Mormons" have used in their arguments as falsehoods, mostly because the members have been told to think that way.  But I think that's mostly going away. 

Facts are a dime a dozen. It is the interpretation of those facts that mean something.

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I think it's more complicated than that. No one denies Joseph Smith and others were polygamists for instance. But what that means is very much an interpretation. So I don't think you can take one thread out of the fabric and say that's the fact as if the surrounding facts don't matter and don't affect the meaning of any particular fact.

I wish that made sense. or better yet, can you help me make sense of the above?

Edited June 13, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Facts are a dime a dozen. It is the interpretation of those facts that mean something.

interpretation of facts, if that's what you want to call it, are what provide us all the differing views we have today. 

[RevTestament]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Keep telling yourself that.  It's getting to the point that I would bet that if everyone in the Church over the age of 18 were given an unvarnished history of the Church with both the good and the bad included, there would be serious, serious problems.

Like what? What unvarnished history are you talking about? That JS was a sinner? That JS was polygamist? That JS was arrested for glass-looking? What exactly do you expect to come out that hasn't already been dug up by critics, and often twisted and distorted for their arguments? Should we believe just what they present, the way they present it? That's a laugh when one considers cases such as the Spaulding Manuscript story and how distorted it was made in order to sell books. I invite all to go see the real Spaulding manuscript in Oberlin College and see exactly how JS must have plagiarized from it!! Not. It is the perfect example of how critics operated in the 1800s and how much of the "facts" published by critics are distorted. There is no such thing as an "unvarnished history" of the Church. Even the Church's side with Church witnesses has inaccuracies and distortions. The plain fact of the matter is people often remember something different than what actually happened or was said. This is just a fact of life.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Keep telling yourself that.  It's getting to the point that I would bet that if everyone in the Church over the age of 18 were given an unvarnished history of the Church with both the good and the bad included, there would be serious, serious problems.  Obviously, the Church leaders felt the same way for the first 170+ years, and they're starting to change because they have to.  It's a noble sentiment to say "We have nothing to fear from the truth", but saying it doesn't mean it's true.  Sometimes the truth isn't nice.

Time will tell who was right and who was wrong.  

Again, I think it quite important to frame and contextualize things. So if you mean "unvarnished" as "interpreted in light of a view it's all made up" then I'd agree. Which is why I think it's still very worthwhile to warn people things are anti-Mormon even when anti-Mormons get the facts they present right. As anyone who has seen political spin knows, one can do a great job deceiving using only facts.

I'd also disagree that everyone adopted a "don't talk about it" mentality. It's just that enough did that made it hard to get the facts out. Now I do agree that facts can hurt. And that's why say Boyd K. Packer opposed teaching facts that were hurtful. But not everyone agreed with him and towards the end of his life he apparently changed his view.

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wish that made sense. or better yet, can you help me make sense of the above?

One can take facts and create a misleading picture. One can accept that Joseph practiced polygamy but argue he did it because God demanded it or argue he did it because he was a sexist womanizer taking advantage of his position. In both cases the facts are agreed upon. The picture they are put into differs.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

One can take facts and create a misleading picture. One can accept that Joseph practiced polygamy but argue he did it because God demanded it or argue he did it because he was a sexist womanizer taking advantage of his position. In both cases the facts are agreed upon. The picture they are put into differs.

I would agree to pigeon hole or define a person's intentions is merely one's conclusions or opinion based on the facts.  It could be that Joseph was not only commanded of God, but also sought to take advantage of his position to get women.  Not any of us are pure in our intentions, at least not all the time.  nearly everything we do and think is a result of a combination of different intentions. 

For instance I want to teach my daughter a lesson so I send her to her room.  It might be that my main purpose is to teach to a lesson.  but it also might be that I'm tired of her yelling/screaming/fighting and would also like to just get her separated from others so I don't have to hear it and get along with my task in peace...or something. 

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would agree to pigeon hole or define a person's intentions is merely one's conclusions or opinion based on the facts.  It could be that Joseph was not only commanded of God, but also sought to take advantage of his position to get women.  Not any of us are pure in our intentions, at least not all the time.  nearly everything we do and think is a result of a combination of different intentions. 

For instance I want to teach my daughter a lesson so I send her to her room.  It might be that my main purpose is to teach to a lesson.  but it also might be that I'm tired of her yelling/screaming/fighting and would also like to just get her separated from others so I don't have to hear it and get along with my task in peace...or something. 

Well I'm not arguing for only two choices. That'd be a false dichotomy. Merely noting that facts aren't enough. There have been for millennia well known techniques for making ones position better contrasted with opposing ones. Indeed Plato's The Sophist is all about that. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, I think it quite important to frame and contextualize things. So if you mean "unvarnished" as "interpreted in light of a view it's all made up" then I'd agree. Which is why I think it's still very worthwhile to warn people things are anti-Mormon even when anti-Mormons get the facts they present right. As anyone who has seen political spin knows, one can do a great job deceiving using only facts.

I'd also disagree that everyone adopted a "don't talk about it" mentality. It's just that enough did that made it hard to get the facts out. Now I do agree that facts can hurt. And that's why say Boyd K. Packer opposed teaching facts that were hurtful. But not everyone agreed with him and towards the end of his life he apparently changed his view.

What view are you saying Pres Packer changed?  That we should not teach facts that were hurtful?  How do you know he changed that view?  Just curious. 

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Well I'm not arguing for only two choices. That'd be a false dichotomy. Merely noting that facts aren't enough. There have been for millennia well known techniques for making ones position better contrasted with opposing ones. Indeed Plato's The Sophist is all about that. 

I guess I was confused by what you were saying because I'm only speaking about those things that have been concluded to be facts--not the opinions or personal conclusions.  Just after my wife and I got married, in a conversation, I had made note of Joseph being a polygamist, that he married or was sealed to many women, including teenage girls and other men's wives.  I had offered no conclusions, explanations or thoughts on those pieces of information when she was absolutely floored and broke down in tears.  Come to find out she thought I was an "anti-Mormon" because I had said things that she had only heard from anti-Mormons.  I learned how to share ideas and thoughts with her early on as a result.  All these years later and she knows about these pieces of history that she was previously not aware of.  She feels far more betrayed by the Church than I.  For some reason, I attribute mostly ignorance to the Church's terrible efforts to hide information, or create an unworkable narrative.  She blames the leaders for knowingly trying to control us.  Both are probably at least partly true, I'd guess, since over the many years so many people have been involved in creating the dominant narrative. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The following used to be anti-Mormon arguments:

Joseph was a polygamist.

Joseph Married other women without Emma knowing about it.

Joseph used a rock in a hat to produce the Book of Mormon.

Polygamy continued after the 1890 manifesto, and was sanctioned by the Prophet.

Black skin is not an indicator of a curse from God.

The papyrus doesn't contain the Book Of Abraham.

Etc, etc, etc.

The bigger question should be around why the supposed anti-Mormon arguments of yesterday have managed to become today's historical truth.

Because the Church cannot keep a lid on these things like it use to be able to do.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The following used to be anti-Mormon arguments:

Joseph was a polygamist.

Joseph Married other women without Emma knowing about it.

Joseph used a rock in a hat to produce the Book of Mormon.

Polygamy continued after the 1890 manifesto, and was sanctioned by the Prophet.

Black skin is not an indicator of a curse from God.

The papyrus doesn't contain the Book Of Abraham.

Etc, etc, etc.

The bigger question should be around why the supposed anti-Mormon arguments of yesterday have managed to become today's historical truth.

I think the Church feared, thinking the truth cannot set us free, but would actually hinder member's faith more than help.  We all know the Church lesson of once you lie once you have to lie more to cover up...soon it gets out of hand.  The Church gave us members a great lesson on that throughout it's existence. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

One can take facts and create a misleading picture. One can accept that Joseph practiced polygamy but argue he did it because God demanded it or argue he did it because he was a sexist womanizer taking advantage of his position. In both cases the facts are agreed upon. The picture they are put into differs.

The problem is that I think we're moving past that.  It's no longer about why he did it, or the "picture" that is created.  When people are learning about him being sealed to a 14-year-old girl, or marrying other men's wives, or marrying girls living in his house without Emma's knowledge etc., it's not about "accepting that he practiced polygamy" or even believing whether or not "God demanded it."  It's not about him being sexist, or the sexiest.  It's about whether or not our image of God, Joseph Smith, the Church, morality and honesty is big enough to include these types of things.  For some people they are.  For others, they aren't.

If the Church is willing to put it all out there and say "Joseph Smith did XY and Z, these are the facts that we agree on, and our theory is that God commanded him to do it" and people need to choose between the idea that God commanded him to do it or that it was something else, then good for the Church.  That's pretty much the point where were at.  Only time will tell what that means for long-term Church growth and viability.

There will always be faithful LDS who are willing to accept the situation with Joseph Smith's polygamy, and the Book of Abraham, and the Priesthood ban, on faith and the "picture" the Church presents.  As Scientology shows us, there is no limit to what people are willing to believe, even if it's not God's spoken truth.

Edited June 13, 2017 by cinepro