Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[Calm]

I don't think any of us feel a real need to make our belief range somehow the focus.  They are useful in responding to the variety of posters who write in with questions and in the discussion we have amongst ourselves.  Our purpose isn't to brag about what makes FM tick, but to get on with the work we feel needs to be done.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Calm

[churchistrue]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think any of us feel a real need to make our belief range somehow the focus.  They are useful in repounding to the variety of posters who write in with questions and in the discussion we have amongst ourselves.  Our purpose isn't to brag about what makes FM tick, but to get on with the work we feel needs to be done.

Who is your target audience? LDS members in real, honest faith crisis or old, conservative, white members with not a single doubt the Church is everything my dad taught in the 1980's?

 

 

[Scott Gordon]

This was mentioned in the talk given by Steve Densley and Garet Giles. There are numerous reasons given for people leaving the church. While your personal experience,, or even the experience of your friends,  might be best addressed by one group of speakers, there are others out there who have different issues and interests. We try to mix it up. And yes, we get hate emails from both sides. Even this year I got emails saying our speakers are too liberal and emails saying our speakers are too conservative. Of course, this was before anyone spoke at all.

I just hope to pick up something from every speaker. I don't have to agree with everything they say, and I often don't.

I hope people don't throw out entire talks because of one or two items in the talk they disagree with.

 

 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I don't understand your point. A non-literalist can lead with testimony and follow with intellect the same as a literalist.

FairMormon is an intellectual endeavor. I'm not sure what this testimony vs intellect thing has to do with this discussion.

 

Maybe I do not understand what you mean by non-literalist. I am assuming that you mean that scriptures like the Book of Abraham and the book of Mormon are somehow inspired but not literally historically true. If that is the case, a non-literalist is leading with his or her intellect in that they accept the arguments against historicity but yet have some type of testimony of the gospel.

I count myself as a testimony leading type of person in that I obtained a testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I believe that is is what it claims for itself and am a Heber J. Grant type of TBM in that I believe most firmly that any supposed problems will eventually be ironed out in the favor of the Book of Mormon.

I have never really prayed about the Book of Abraham, but have had it affirmed, whatever its provenance, as being historically accurate. Whatever problems that people see with it will be eventually ironed out in Joseph Smith's favor, whether in this life of the next, I do not know.

If you do not mind my asking, do you believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet and in his story of how the Book of Mormon was produced?

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I'm  not totally clear on what these liberal or "neo" voices are saying, but I think to some apologists, saying "The Book of Mormon might not be historically true" is the same as saying "The Church might not be true." 

So someone who is open to that idea isn't on the same team.  They're on the opposing team.

Until it wins, 50 years down the road. It is inevitable, like evolution and the Scopes trial, and Bellarmine vs Galileo. Literalism simply doesn't work, and we have seen it again and again.

As long as people think that religion is science, they are bound to be disappointed. It's the Western mentality. Until Westerners understand this we will always have these scuffles. We have had them for over 500 years and literalism always loses.

When scholars spend their entire careers with a single view in mind, unaware that history is not the Spirit, reticence toward change is expectable. God bless him. It must be difficult.

Edited August 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I just finished watching the John Gee presentation today provided online by FairMormon. First of all, thanks for offering that for free. 

I was really disappointed by the presentation. It felt like a punch in the gut. He's not addressing critics. He's addressing faithful non-literalists within Mormonism. He was critical of Mormon scholars who take a middle ground approach, viewing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham as non-historical or even bracketing historicity. 

A couple years ago Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason gave presentations that were very friendly or conciliatory to Progressive Mormons or "Neo Apologists". I know that term is loaded because John Dehlin popularized the term. But let's not focus on that for this thread please. Let's just allow that to represent faithful Mormons who hold non-literal views of one or all of Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament, First Vision, etc.

My question: can FairMormon be a big tent allowing people like me or other "Neo Apologists" or Progressive Mormon scholars who defend the church in non-traditional ways? Or is it only for Apologists who defend the Church with the very most traditional perspectives?

He even was vaguely critical of Church leaders who published the essay on the Book of Abraham for including the catalyst theory.

I have non-literal views of things, but it works for me and for a lot of other people. I serve in a calling. I pay tithing. I have a temple recommend. All my kids are active in the church, my three oldest served missions and attend BYU. I'm small potatoes online, but I have many people tell me my perspective has helped them stay in the church, and two Exmormons that resigned from the church that are getting rebaptized have told me my blog was instrumental in turning them around. 

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS?

Thoughts?

 

edit: I know this is not the official FairMormon board, but many people here are tightly integrated with FairMormon and most of the long time posters here have strong overlap with the perspectives of FairMormon

 

Your positions are on the edge of what an apologetic focused organization will tolerate.  Your positions are threatening to the more conservative and orthodox types.  Many people that begin to understand the complexity of the problems in the way that you understand them, continue to move along a trajectory that leads them outside of the FAIR audience.  So they don't stay and continue to argue for the reason of the points you find most reasonable. 

You're essentially on the fringes of a very niche organization within the church.  I honor that you continue to vocally support your positions and your right to be included, just know that it is a very lonely road for now.  

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There is a divide there, that I see anyway. A divide between people who lead with their testimonies and follow with their intellect  and those who lead with their intellect and follow with their testimonies.

I'm not sure I agree with this opposition. Testimonies can be rather rigorously rational after all.

[Kevin Christensen]

Nibley has talked about how his colleagues at BYU used to excoriate him for daring to criticize Brodie in public.  He talked about how lonely it was for a long time to be the only one doing the kind of work he was doing.   Toward the end, he was very much encouraged by the rise of FARMS.  Doubtless, he would have had much to say regarding the shift of audience and loyalty and interest.  More recently, Bill Hamblin talked about how he was constantly reprimanded at BYU for being engaged in apologetics, even being denied raises.  So it's not just those more skeptical with respect to historicity that have to take social heat and pressure.  At FAIR a few years back, when I was invited to introduce Margaret Barker, I had a longtime BYU scholar tell me that I had the advantage in my non-affiliated position to be able to say whatever I wanted without having to look over my shoulder.  I had not even considered that aspect.  I just assumed that since I got published, it was okay, even when it was not orthodox.  I noticed that the editorial hand at FARMS was never as heavy as what I got at Sunstone.  Indeed, a few of my FARMS essays were first rejected at Sunstone.  Even a forthcoming essay that I think is one of my best pieces. The Sunstone editors simply did not get it.  So it's coming out in a book from Interpreter.  In the wards I have attended, I have been criticized in one California ward by a man who thought I should not go beyond the manuals, and within a few months, in a Kansas ward, got a call to be the instructor because the next leader wanted interesting lessons.

Kuhn observes that paradigm choice is also a choice of society and community.  If you understand that this sort of thing is the reality of living in among a diverse set of human beings, with different interests, ages, education, background, opportunity, temperament, and personal development, rather than not the Ideal of being surrounded by like-thinking people who would not dream of entertaining different thoughts or offering a different opinion, it's not only much easier to cope with, but also far more interesting.  It also has a lot to do with why we raise our hands to "sustain" one another.  If you look up the word "sustain" in a good dictionary, you may be in for a shock.  It doesn't mean, "blindly follow and agree on every point," but rather "put up with the crap."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

I was really disappointed by the content of his presentation.  I found it lacking in so many ways.  He didn't really give anyone anything to chew on, as far as I'm concerned, but if someone has something I'm all ears.  

When he said:  "“Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars."

I was pretty astounded.  What archaeological evidence for the BoA could he possibly be thinking of?  

I know members say things like, "well asking questions if fine, but attacking the Church is wrong" or some such things.  His presentation made it seem like asking questions is the real evil.  Towards the end he pretty much concluded by saying something like, trust me the BoA is true scripture.  Or something.  Bleh...that was pretty bad.

[stemelbow]

I wasn't there, obviously, but someone else indicated that when Gee said, "Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars"

someone, presumably Midgley, shouted out "BOKOVOY" in derision, and that garnered some laughs.  If so, that's pretty disgusting.  

Any confirmations of that from the attenders?  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I wasn't there, obviously, but someone else indicated that when Gee said, "Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars"

someone, presumably Midgley, shouted out "BOKOVOY" in derision, and that garnered some laughs.  If so, that's pretty disgusting.  

Any confirmations of that from the attenders?  

I heard that, too. If true, that's really strange. David is one of the good guys, and I've never understood why some people have such disdain for him.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I heard that, too. If true, that's really strange. David is one of the good guys, and I've never understood why some people have such disdain for him.

Considering the content of Gee's speech, it fits.  According to what was said not only is there no room for a perspective like Bokovoy's but any such people should be identified and treated with scrutiny if not completely tossed out of the community.  Maybe I took the message a little more to heart than most, and therefore am misunderstanding to some extent but that's about what I got out of it.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I was really disappointed by the content of his presentation.  I found it lacking in so many ways.  He didn't really give anyone anything to chew on, as far as I'm concerned, but if someone has something I'm all ears.  

When he said:  "“Now, by comparison, there’s more archaeological evidence for the Book of Abraham than there is for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is so prevalent among Old Testament scholars."

I was pretty astounded.  What archaeological evidence for the BoA could he possibly be thinking of?  

I know members say things like, "well asking questions if fine, but attacking the Church is wrong" or some such things.  His presentation made it seem like asking questions is the real evil.  Towards the end he pretty much concluded by saying something like, trust me the BoA is true scripture.  Or something.  Bleh...that was pretty bad.

The nice thing about when people put their true feelings out there, then more critically minded people can judge clearly what their bias is, and how they interpret evidence.  

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'm in the faith crisis trenches, and I rarely hear "I went through faith crisis and John Gee really helped me." or Hancock or Peterson or other fill in the blank popular FM speaker. 

I hear that quite regularly. Although I think part of what FAIR tries to do is get people interested in such matters so that doubts don't reach the level of a full faith crisis. So if you're just looking at people who don't believe, probably they're people unconvinced by standard apologetic arguments for whatever reason. That doesn't mean they aren't having an effect. There's a selection bias at work here.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Until it wins, 50 years down the road. It is inevitable, like evolution and the Scopes trial, and Bellarmine vs Galileo. Literalism simply doesn't work, and we have seen it again and again.

As long as people think that religion is science, they are bound to be disappointed. It's the Western mentality. Until Westerners understand this we will always have these scuffles. We have had them for over 500 years and literalism always loses.

When scholars spend their entire careers with a single view in mind, unaware that history is not the Spirit, reticence toward change is expectable. God bless him. It must be difficult.

Still holding out hope for a literal physical Second Coming before my faith sinks that low.

[Kevin Christensen]

I just checked to see how much Gee I have read over the years.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/john-gee/

Quite a bit, it turns out.  Several of these I like very much, which means, if I ran across something of his I didn't heartily endorse, (which I have done) I would not blow a gasket.  Another that I like is from BYU Religious Studies, rather than Maxwell Institute, in the Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures.

Different social circles and information networks can and do get different mileage, with and without reading the material.  I've occasionally mentioned an encounter I had with a friend at a Sunstone in SLC in 2002.  A lawyer, who presumably knows something about evidence and eye-witness versus hearsay, saw me in the hall and said, "What are you doing here?"  For an answer, I held up a copy of my newly published "Paradigms Regained."  She said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction and nothing you say could ever change my mind. I never read anything from FARMS.  It makes me mad."  Taken aback, I asked if my NDE essay had made her mad, and she admitted that it hadn't but said no more and moved on.  I reflected that she had once told a group of us that she had never read the Book of Mormon.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Until it wins, 50 years down the road. It is inevitable, like evolution and the Scopes trial, and Bellarmine vs Galileo. Literalism simply doesn't work, and we have seen it again and again.

As long as people think that religion is science, they are bound to be disappointed. It's the Western mentality. Until Westerners understand this we will always have these scuffles. We have had them for over 500 years and literalism always loses.

As I've said, the issue fundamentally isn't literalism. Even literalists are selective about where they're literalists. The question is over whether it's all fiction or whether there is some historic truth to scripture. To say "it's inevitable" is just to presuppose it's all historically false. To presuppose that all scripture is false seems demonstrably false. After all while the historic sections of the Bible aren't always historically accurate, neither are they fictional. (I'm here excluding Genesis but rather Chronicles and 1 & 2 Kings and perhaps Acts) 

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I've said, the issue fundamentally isn't literalism. Even literalists are selective about where they're literalists. The question is over whether it's all fiction or whether there is some historic truth to scripture. To say "it's inevitable" is just to presuppose it's all historically false. To presuppose that all scripture is false seems demonstrably false. After all while the historic sections of the Bible aren't always historically accurate, neither are they fictional. (I'm here excluding Genesis but rather Chronicles and 1 & 2 Kings and perhaps Acts) 

Clark Clark Clark, 

Quite honestly you have surprised me.

Define truth. Of course there is historic truth to scripture. It speaks of many people and places for whom we have documented evidence of their existence.

Surely you understand the difference between fiction and inspired words.

Surely you understand the difference between poetry and science.

Surely you understand the difference between the historic event of Christ dying and it's importance as the atonement in forgiving your sins.

Surely you understand that eye witnesses to  the crucifixion did not understand that that historic event could forgive their sins.

They had absolute visual evidence before their eyes of the crucifixion of Jesus and never understood its spiritual dimension.

Are you saying there's no distinction there between historic evidence and spiritual evidence?

When have I ever said that all scripture is false? I would never use the word "false" to describe ANY Scripture LDS Buddhist Hindu or Baha'i.  I do not even comprehend what such a thing would mean.   if someone was reading a dictionary and calling it scripture and was getting benefit from it, I still would not call it false.

Scripture is written language that Improves your life.

I guess I touched a nerve but I'm not sure where you're getting any of this.

What would Pierce say about the predictability of the historic event of the crucifixion causing your sins to be forgiven?

Does the historic event make the forgiving of sins predictable?

 Did the Copernican Revolution make all scripture false? 

Edited August 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

Note I said historically false, not false. So I was trying to be careful. 

Peirce's conception of truth was based upon counterfactual tests. So it was true a diamond was hard if tests you could conduct would show it hard. It was thus a prediction about possible future inquiry and experience. Historical facts would be the same. 

But put a different way, there are religious claims akin to "George Washington was the First President of the United States." We call that an historic truth although I'm open to use whatever language you wish. What makes religious claims about history different?

I may well be misreading you though. It sounds like you're trying to make a definition of religion I'm not sure I agree with. Whether the people present at Jesus' crucifixion (or at Gethsemene) understood it, seems different from whether Christ did the atonement. The latter seems a historic claim of some sort. I'm not quite understanding the attempt to make it non-historic. Again, perhaps I'm misreading you but I'm having a hard time understanding you here.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Still holding out hope for a literal physical Second Coming before my faith sinks that low.

The key word is "hope"  And I share that hope.

I really do not for one second understand why no one on this board could comprehend that a statement can be both historic and metaphorical of something else at the same time.

For me the second coming maybe when I die.

Or maybe I will see Christ come with my natural eyes.

I see both possibilities. But it seems no one else here is capable of that. I totally don't get it.

If one is true the other must be false.

Who thinks that way?

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note I said historically false, not false. So I was trying to be careful. 

Peirce's conception of truth was based upon counterfactual tests. So it was true a diamond was hard if tests you could conduct would show it hard. It was thus a prediction about possible future inquiry and experience. Historical facts would be the same. 

But put a different way, there are religious claims akin to "George Washington was the First President of the United States." We call that an historic truth although I'm open to use whatever language you wish. What makes religious claims about history different?

I may well be misreading you though. It sounds like you're trying to make a definition of religion I'm not sure I agree with. Whether the people present at Jesus' crucifixion (or at Gethsemene) understood it, seems different from whether Christ did the atonement. The latter seems a historic claim of some sort. I'm not quite understanding the attempt to make it non-historic. Again, perhaps I'm misreading you but I'm having a hard time understanding you here.

Paradigms, language games, contexts.

You don't mix them.

It's as simple as that.

Later Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Derrida, Gadamer et al

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-language/

In other words Alma 32 plus D&C 93.

Truth exists in spheres and you don't mix the two. Truth is what fulfills the purpose of the utterance.

It's all right there if you just open your eyes.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I just finished watching the John Gee presentation today provided online by FairMormon. First of all, thanks for offering that for free. 

I was really disappointed by the presentation. It felt like a punch in the gut. He's not addressing critics. He's addressing faithful non-literalists within Mormonism. He was critical of Mormon scholars who take a middle ground approach, viewing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham as non-historical or even bracketing historicity. 

A couple years ago Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason gave presentations that were very friendly or conciliatory to Progressive Mormons or "Neo Apologists". I know that term is loaded because John Dehlin popularized the term. But let's not focus on that for this thread please. Let's just allow that to represent faithful Mormons who hold non-literal views of one or all of Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament, First Vision, etc.

My question: can FairMormon be a big tent allowing people like me or other "Neo Apologists" or Progressive Mormon scholars who defend the church in non-traditional ways? Or is it only for Apologists who defend the Church with the very most traditional perspectives?

He even was vaguely critical of Church leaders who published the essay on the Book of Abraham for including the catalyst theory.

I have non-literal views of things, but it works for me and for a lot of other people. I serve in a calling. I pay tithing. I have a temple recommend. All my kids are active in the church, my three oldest served missions and attend BYU. I'm small potatoes online, but I have many people tell me my perspective has helped them stay in the church, and two Exmormons that resigned from the church that are getting rebaptized have told me my blog was instrumental in turning them around. 

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS?

Thoughts?

 

edit: I know this is not the official FairMormon board, but many people here are tightly integrated with FairMormon and most of the long time posters here have strong overlap with the perspectives of FairMormon

 

Let me emphasize upfront that in no way do I speak for FairMormon. But as I have understood it over the years, FairMormon aligns itself with the doctrines and positions of the Church of Jesus Christ. Given that a “non-literalist” approach to the Book of Mormon, as you style it, would be at odds with the teachings of the Church, it would seem to me quite inconsistent with FairMormon’s self-identity were it to adopt such a “big-tent” approach as you envision and describe it here. 

For the sake of clarity and emphasis, let me stress again that I am not a spokesman for FairMormon.  

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Paradigms, language games, contexts.

You don't mix them.

It's as simple as that.

Later Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Derrida, Gadamer et al

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-language/

In other words Alma 32 plus D&C 93.

Truth exists in spheres and you don't mix the two. Truth is what fulfills the purpose of the utterance.

It's all right there if you just open your eyes.

 

What does this mean?

D&C 93

"30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I may well be misreading you though. It sounds like you're trying to make a definition of religion I'm not sure I agree with. Whether the people present at Jesus' crucifixion (or at Gethsemene) understood it, seems different from whether Christ did the atonement. The latter seems a historic claim of some sort. I'm not quite understanding the attempt to make it non-historic. Again, perhaps I'm misreading you but I'm having a hard time understanding you here.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Surely you understand that eye witnesses to  the crucifixion did not understand that that historic event could forgive their sins.

Just my two cents, but I would add that who are we to say that the people who were present at the crucifixion or Gethsemene didn't "understand" it.  They understood it just fine, they just understood it differently of course than a 21st century person understands something through the lens that we are looking at things.  

Mark, I don't understand how you're making a claim here for some universally correct understanding of historical events.  If paradigms are the way we view the world, why would your paradigm be any more "correct" than the paradigm of a first century Jew?  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Paradigms, language games, contexts.

You don't mix them.

It's as simple as that.

Later Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Derrida, Gadamer et al

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-language/

In other words Alma 32 plus D&C 93.

Truth exists in spheres and you don't mix the two. Truth is what fulfills the purpose of the utterance.

I thought Derrida was all about grafting things in new contexts. That is there is no originary sphere, whether paradigm, language game or context. To write is to graft and thus to create. Or, put an other way, every writing, every glyph, is a new sphere.

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble