Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not bad. Of course, it’s not just literalism that falls but metaphor, subjectivism—all expression that collapses on itself. By Derrida’s conception, even the “raw experience” of the spirit is in its very experience already working at deconstructing itself. 

Of course.  Three versions of the first vision then are perfectly reasonable. There should be more as it deconstructs itself.

It is the expectation that such things would NOT change that is foolishness. 

Honestly apologists need to learn this stuff- it is the best tool they have instead of all this worrying about historicity which any critic thinks he can shoot down.  But no one sees the way out of the fly-bottle and so they leave the church because of "Mormon TRVTH Claims"

Gosh it is just so frustrating that they cannot see this. 

That fits with what he says even here, a tidbit about "memory" and therefore history as well. Qualia are still qualia even after having gone through the meat grinder but that's the best we have to work with.

It's all here in two minutes if you can put it into a context because of previous familiarity with the material.   It's what I try to say ever day in nine million words.

Frustrating.

Edited August 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course.  Three versions of the first vision then are perfectly reasonable. There should be more as it deconstructs itself.

It is the expectation that such things would NOT change that is foolishness. 

Honestly apologists need to learn this stuff- it is the best tool they have instead of all this worrying about historicity which any critic thinks he can shoot down.  But no one sees the way out of the fly-bottle and so they leave the church because of "Mormon TRVTH Claims"

Gosh it is just so frustrating that they cannot see this. 

That fits with what he says even here, a tidbit about "memory" and therefore history as well. Qualia are still qualia even after having gone through the meat grinder but that's the best we have to work with.

It's all here in two minutes if you can put it into a context because of previous familiarity with the material.   It's what I try to say ever day in nine million words.

Frustrating.

I hear you. The trouble arises when we try to assign meaning to the qualia.

It seems to me that if historicity doesn’t matter, the work of apologetics is, although perhaps interesting, pointless. Strip away the historicity and “objective evidence,” and it comes down to whether the church builds or damages your soul. 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Am unclear how you can think no one else here is capable of seeing both possibilities.  Do you know everyone here so well?

After many years I have come to certain conclusions.  The most important is that God lives and Jesus is the Christ.  In addition to this is the strong conviction that in my great knowledge I know very little.  I seek to know everything, however, and in the finding out I expect to discover that many of my assumptions will prove to be incomplete or even be completely wrong.  There is a Universe of possibilities out there, and I hope to know all about them in due time.  Alma 12:9,10.

You are right- I apologize for that.

But I honestly think you are one of the few.

I am so tired of "there is no evidence for....." as if that is relevant.  

It seems to be like a broken record coming from every citic and then you see it from the members who insist on evidence themselves.  They want that sign saying "welcome to Zarahemla" and if it doesn't exist they think there is no God.  So we have to turn logic inside out to make it appear out of sand.  And then we have a house built on sand and wonder why some think it is crumbling.

Our own assumptions play directly into the critics hands because they also hit us for lack of "evidence"

I mean that is what the whole thread is about isn't it?

And it would be so easy if we just learned a little bit about the philosophy of language.  But after all that's the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" so of course it is evil.   "Read the best books" as long as they are not about philosophy.

And yet it is our best salvation.

It's sad.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are right- I apologize for that.

But I honestly think you are one of the few.

I am so tired of "there is no evidence for....." as if that is relevant.  

It seems to be like a broken record coming from every citic and then you see it from the members who insist on evidence themselves.  They want that sign saying "welcome to Zarahemla" and if it doesn't exist they think there is no God.  So we have to turn logic inside out to make it appear out of sand.  And then we have a house built on sand and wonder why some think it is crumbling.

Our own assumptions play directly into the critics hands because they also hit us for lack of "evidence"

I mean that is what the whole thread is about isn't it?

And it would be so easy if we just learned a little bit about the philosophy of language.  But after all that's the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" so of course it is evil.   "Read the best books" as long as they are not about philosophy.

And yet it is our best salvation.

It's sad.

According to Bill Reel, his connections at the COB tell him the church is planning to move away from an insistence on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. From what you’ve said, that sounds like a promising step. 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I hear you. The trouble arises when we try to assign meaning to the qualia.

It seems to me that if historicity doesn’t matter, the work of apologetics is, although perhaps interesting, pointless. Strip away the historicity and “objective evidence,” and it comes down to whether the church builds or damages your soul. 

I find building my soul important and like to explain it rationally with evil guys like Derrida.

I don't find that "pointless".

And there is no "trouble" in assigning significance to qualia.  It is what we do every minute of every day and I would wager while driving on the freeway it has saved your life many times in a nanosecond, quite pre-linguistically.

 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I find building my soul important and like to explain it rationally with evil guys like Derrida.

I don't find that "pointless".

And there is no "trouble" in assigning significance to qualia.  It is what we do every minute of every day and I would wager while driving on the freeway it has saved your life many times in a nanosecond, quite pre-linguistically.

I don’t find that pointless, either. As I said, it comes down to whether the church builds or damages your soul. That’s what matters. 

What I think is pointless is trying to prove historicity as proving or disproving the validity of the gospel. Apologetics seems to assume that historicity matters.

And what I meant by the trouble with assigning meaning to qualia is that we assume that meaning is inherent. Yes, we do it all the time because it is the best we can do, an approximation of meaning that usually works but is always tentative. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are right- I apologize for that.

But I honestly think you are one of the few.

I am so tired of "there is no evidence for....." as if that is relevant.  

It seems to be like a broken record coming from every citic and then you see it from the members who insist on evidence themselves.  They want that sign saying "welcome to Zarahemla" and if it doesn't exist they think there is no God.  So we have to turn logic inside out to make it appear out of sand.  And then we have a house built on sand and wonder why some think it is crumbling.

Our own assumptions play directly into the critics hands because they also hit us for lack of "evidence"

I mean that is what the whole thread is about isn't it?

And it would be so easy if we just learned a little bit about the philosophy of language.  But after all that's the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" so of course it is evil.   "Read the best books" as long as they are not about philosophy.

And yet it is our best salvation.

It's sad.

Well said.

However, not everyone is as smart as you and those with whom you have had those very elevated discussions on the philosophy of language. I count myself at least somewhat smart, but when it came to those particular conversations I was left in the dust trying to follow it all.  There is a reason why the "normal" IQ is set at 100, and that is because half the population is on one side and the other half is on the other side.  Some of us just do not follow philosophy, nor is it taught in school except exceptionally.  We must make do with what we have.  

It comes down to trust -- trust in the Lord, and a desire to acquire faith.  If understanding the philosophy of language is our best salvation, I am sorry to have to tell you that we're doomed.  Few there be that can find an interest or even a reason to acquire an interest.  So while we must seek understanding out of the best books, we must first  and foremost seek the Spirit and hold fast to what we learn through it.   Unfortunately, it's a narrow path and many fail to find it.  

It's past 2 am here, and I have to get to bed or else I'll be falling asleep in Sacrament meeting in a few hours.

I mentioned Alma 12:9-10.  And add to that 11:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

According to Bill Reel, his connections at the COB tell him the church is planning to move away from an insistence on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. From what you’ve said, that sounds like a promising step. 

Not really.

It will be seen as a retreat when it need not be.  I take historicity on faith.  I take the historicity of the atonement on faith.  That Christ died on a certain date does not prove the atonement's SIGNIFICANCE

Significance is one thing, facts are another.

An Archduke was killed on a certain date.  Sad but no biggie.  That the event started WWI is hugely significant.

It would be better if the church simply explained why "evidence " is irrelevant in matters of faith because spiritual content does not depend on history

There is a great talk by President Kimball on Absolute Knowledge that doesn't quite hit it on the head, but using DC 93 and scriptural interpretation about everything being created by the "Word" in terms of social construction, they could easily save historicity along with spirituality by assigning each to a different "sphere" like plumbing and finance.

Thank God the prophet is not a philosopher- but here it is

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t find that pointless, either.

Quote

It seems to me that if historicity doesn’t matter, the work of apologetics is, although perhaps interesting, pointless. 

Yeah John.  I know.

Whatever

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Not really.

It will be seen as a retreat when it need not be.  I take historicity on faith.  I take the historicity of the atonement on faith.  That Christ died on a certain date does not prove the atonement's SIGNIFICANCE

Significance is one thing, facts are another.

An Archduke was killed on a certain date.  Sad but no biggie.  That the event started WWI is hugely significant.

It would be better if the church simply explained why "evidence " is irrelevant in matters of faith because spiritual content does not depend on history

There is a great talk by President Kimball on Absolute Knowledge that doesn't quite hit it on the head, but using DC 93 and scriptural interpretation about everything being created by the "Word" in terms of social construction, they could easily save historicity along with spirituality by assigning each to a different "sphere" like plumbing and finance.

Thank God the prophet is not a philosopher- but here it is

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

I would think that if historicity doesn’t matter, then evidence of historicity doesn’t, either. If the Book of Mormon is revelation, the presence of horses or steel is quite irrelevant. I see that as a positive step forward, not a retreat. YMMV.

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

According to Bill Reel, his connections at the COB tell him the church is planning to move away from an insistence on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. From what you’ve said, that sounds like a promising step. 

I don't find that credible.  Who are his connections, anyway?  Members of the janitorial staff?  Not to be disrespectful to janitors -- the world needs them, desperately.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't find that credible.  Who are his connections, anyway?  Members of the janitorial staff?  Not to be disrespectful to janitors -- the world needs them, desperately.

I’m not opining on his credibility, just noting that is what he has said. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah John.  I know.

Whatever

Most apologetics I’ve seen try to prove textually or archaeologically that LDS scripture is grounded in historicity. If historicity doesn’t matter, then such activity is pointless in proving the value of the gospel. 

Whatever, indeed. 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not opining on his credibility, just noting that is what he has said. 

Didn't take it that way.  You're just the reporter, and I'm just reacting to the report.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Didn't take it that way.  You're just the reporter, and I'm just reacting to the report.

IIRC, he said the effort is being led by Elder Gong. If true, it’s a fascinating development. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

According to Bill Reel, his connections at the COB tell him the church is planning to move away from an insistence on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. From what you’ve said, that sounds like a promising step. 

 

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would think that if historicity doesn’t matter, then evidence of historicity doesn’t, either. If the Book of Mormon is revelation, the presence of horses or steel is quite irrelevant. I see that as a positive step forward, not a retreat. YMMV.

 

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not opining on his credibility, just noting that is what he has said. 

 

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

IIRC, he said the effort is being led by Elder Gong. If true, it’s a fascinating development. 

Please see the following blog post by Daniel C. Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/08/regarding-the-supposed-creation-of-a-whole-new-mormon-narrative.html

Quoting here:

A vocal critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has revealed the existence of a formal plan, to be realized over the next ten to twenty years — his informants apparently differ as to the timetable — that will move the Church, among other things, from a literal understanding of the Book of Mormon as actual history to a metaphorical view.

 

This is said to be in accordance with a program laid out by Professor Richard L. Bushman, who has declared “the dominant narrative” of Mormon history to be “false.”

I commented on this alleged declaration almost precisely one year ago:

 

“Is the fundamental story of the Restoration, as the Church has taught it, false?”

 

For those who imagine that Professor Bushman regards the founding stories of the Restoration as metaphorical and that he is attempting to move Latter-day Saints away from the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the literality of the early revelations, I can only say that, as of my most recent conversation with him — which extended over two or three hours on Tuesday — this seems to be very, very far from the truth.

 

 

 

The above-mentioned critic has also revealed that Elder Gerrit W. Gong, who was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in March (and who has served as a General Authority since April 2010), is to play a central role in unveiling The New Non-Literal Mormonism.

I don’t want to exaggerate our closeness, but I’ve known Gerrit Gong for a very long time, and, prior to his call to full-time Church service, was even involved with him in a very significant presentation at Church headquarters.  With that as a background, let me simply say that you can color me very, very skeptical about the notion that Elder Gong is part of a plan to make Mormon claims metaphorical — and you can then double and triple that skepticism.

 

***

 

Part of the new, revised Mormon doctrine — if we’re to believe what this critic is telling us (which I don’t) — will be an understanding of the Book of Mormon as a revelation, rather than as a translation.

 

Well of course it’s a revelation.  The Church has never taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by ordinary human learning, with the help of grammars and dictionaries, but, instead, has always insisted that he was given “power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:29).

That, however, doesn’t mean that it’s non-historical.  It doesn’t mean that it’s not a translation.  It is a revealedtranslation.

 

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What happened afterwards?

Long story, short, went through faith crisis, lost literal belief, still loved the church, still had testimony, reconstructed faith through a metaphorical paradigm.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see the following blog post by Daniel C. Peterson:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/08/regarding-the-supposed-creation-of-a-whole-new-mormon-narrative.html

As l said, I don’t know any more than you do. He could be full of crap. I don’t know. If something like this ever happens, it would be fascinating. 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Long story, short, went through faith crisis, lost literal belief, still loved the church, still had testimony, reconstructed faith through a metaphorical paradigm.

That’s great that you’ve worked out a way to believe. Sometimes I wish I could have, too. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Atheist Mormon]

2 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Long story, short, went through faith crisis, lost literal belief, still loved the church, still had testimony, reconstructed faith through a metaphorical paradigm.

I respect your faith path for sure........We....most of us have different journeys....

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Well, whatever else is going on in this thread, there is no way for the flood to have covered Mount Everest. That amount of water would have been many times the current volume of water in all the world's oceans.  So, where did it all go when the dry land was revealed?  Another problem is that there would be no fresh water left upon the surface of the earth.

Those advocating for it see it as a miracle.  Typically they're pretty skeptical of science entirely and embrace a kind of young earth creationism. So pointing out these issues is irrelevant to their minds. Although the biggest issue is demonstrably no water in caves that would have been inundated. The other problem is continuous habitations of cities during the era in question.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Literalism will inevitably fall because it IS an alleged "Mirror of Nature" and presumes, wait for it....... the correspondence theory of truth, which is untenable.

I think you're conflating two different language games, to use one paradigm. Or, in other words, are missing the context.

The issue for Derrida is literal vs. metaphor and which one is foundational. In Peircean terms (which largely inspired this distinction by Derrida) the question is whether speech is a Peircean sign which is a trichotomy process or a kind of dualistic reference ala Saussure or (as an other example) reference in a correspondence metaphysics. You see this best in Derrida's "White Mythology." Ricouer famously critiques Derrida here although I think the difference between the two is extremely subtle. While Derrida doesn't explicitly refer to Peirce in that paper, he lurks in the margins. The idea is that a sign or thirdness has no beginning and no end. Thus there's no originary moment to lock a meaning into the literal and no end that will give us the literal. That said, and Derrida makes this explicit in the interview at the end of Limited Inc, there is selection by greater powers. That is we don't choose what a metaphor means. This selection by greater powers though can stabilize on meaning which is as close to truth as one needs (either by Peirce or Derrida).

The issue in scriptural hermeneutics is whether a text is written in the style and expectations of everyday speech of the reader. That's why I really dislike the word "literal" in that context as it obscures what's going on. No so-called literalist reads the poetry and imagery in Isaiah or Psalms literally. They clearly make extensive use of metaphor, allegory and so forth. 

In any case literalism in hermeneutics need not be tied to the correspondence theory of truth and frequently isn't.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Literalism in religion just cannot survive- and we see the reasons right here, in this thread,  in its opposition.

Literalism in religion is just language like, "do you need me to mow your lawn" as you speak to a family that is sick. The issue isn't literalism it is context. "Do you need me to mow your lawn" takes a very different meaning if it's summer with overly long grass or winter with 3 feet of snow on the ground. Relative to scripture literalism is never the issue but rather it's the context out of which we interpret.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT goes with the Derrida video above - it is what is lurking in the corner of the system which will itself bring the system down.

That corner tends to be ambiguity of context for a passage. That is the system as text is always missing something. That supplement which is missing changes the meaning. It's what is "outside" the text. This introduces a temporal element into any text such that meaning is never final since there is always context external to the text.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Religion is dynamic and personal and subjective and beyond clear definition which is precisely the opposite of literalism, cast in stone in the false temple of TRVTH.

What is odd is that literalists take the Tower of Babel literally which shows that language is confounded, yet literalism is the presumption that language is perfect and that words written thousands of years ago are the WORD of God- in natural language.

I'd note that for Derrida science is affected by all this too. This highlights the problem of raising the "literal" since all of this ends up being a matter of degree and questions of context. I'd also dispute that religion is personal and subjective. I'd say religion - especially Mormonism - is essentially communal.

 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As l said, I don’t know any more than you do. He could be full of crap. I don’t know. If something like this ever happens, it would be fascinating. 

Whether this is an intentional strategy by church HQ or a natural progression away from the fundamentalists, doesn’t matter to me.  It’s clearly the trajectory things have to go towards.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Whether this is an intentional strategy by church HQ or a natural progression away from the fundamentalists, doesn’t matter to me.  It’s clearly the trajectory things have to go towards.  

Not necessarily. Insistence on historicity has worked for almost 200 years. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not necessarily. Insistence on historicity has worked for almost 200 years. 

While I see evidence of peeks and valleys, like Armand Mauss talks about (retrenchment and assimilation), I see the long term trend away from literalism and from superstition.  Look at how many early Mormon practices like speaking in tongues are completely absent from the contemporary church.  

Edited August 5, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, 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?

My question for you would be, Is there a big enough tent for both you and John Gee to coexist, or do you insist that Gee shut up?  Is his approach simply too deleterious to the needs of some people?  Much as I sympathize with your plea to allow a much broader purview, I constantly encounter those who insist that only their POV is allowable and useful.  I have met a number of Mormon apologists who cannot abide any hint of bracketing matters of faith simply so that a secular discussion can take place -- they instantly pounce and claim "apostasy," without an honest allowance for true scholarly values.

On 8/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, churchistrue said:

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

I missed that. Are you sure that he said that?  Or did you "vaguely" suppose it?  In any case, LDS leaders did not write the Gospel Topics Essays.  They had it done by scholars.

On 8/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, churchistrue said:

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. 

Excellent!!  However, Elder Holland has explicitly stated that there is plenty of room in the Church for such diverse perspectives, and that no one is going to be exed for those POVs.  Are you conversant with that fact?

On 8/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, churchistrue said:

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?................

Old school FARMS was heavily oriented to hard scholarship, not to narrow and superficial views on anything, so I'm not sure what you are insinuating here.  I'm not even sure what a "liberal," "progressive," or "Neo Apologist" might be, and am not sure that you know what they are.  Moreover, I do not believe that there is actually a "traditional apolgetic" view.  Or maybe you think that Hugh Nibley and Thomas S. Ferguson both produced "traditional" apologetics -- than which there could not be anything farther from the truth.  After all, one was competent, the other a yokel.  The same would apply to a comparison of John Sorenson and Venice Priddis.