Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you do think that historicity is relevant to the spiritual value of the gospel? 

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

That's okay we're not communicating. It's not worth it.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you ask yourself if the Copernican Revolution "eviscerated" Catholicism.

You don't need to believe in a flat Earth to be a Christian even if the Bible says it.

I predict that within a hundred years both issues will be equivalently irrelevant.

I submit that a Christian can believe a whole lot of things that are wrong and still be considered a  Christian. Doesn’t make the errors any the less errors. 

Similarly, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could embrace a lot of error and his membership would nevertheless remain intact. Only if he undertook to teach, preach and advocate it in contradiction to true doctrine might it become an issue. 

And regardless of the number of centuries that pass away, the reality of the spiritual experiences of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the divine records brought forth through his instrumentality will never become irrelevant in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[jkwilliams]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

That's okay we're not communicating. It's not worth it.

You’re right. I’m done. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by jkwilliams

[churchistrue]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'm fine with a tent where Gee and I can coexist. That's what I'd like. What I don't like that he did was to attack my views, implying that the tent is not big enough for me. If I'm giving a presentation defending the church through my perspective, my focus would be my position vs critics of the church or Exmormons. Not my position vs other Mormons in the tent. That's unnecessarily divisive, imho. The goal is not to defend the church, the goal is to make the tent smaller and let people like me know we don't belong. 

The part where he "vaguely" criticized the church's essay I think was at the end in the Q & A period.

I'm a  "liberal," "progressive," or "Neo Apologist". Ask me anything.

[Calm]

19 hours 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.

I can accept the flood as a literal event, but unless there's some special (and unrecorded) post-flood supernatural handling of all that water, it wasn't the world-covering event some literalists want to insist upon.

There was no Mt Everest for many young earth global flood creationists.  Flood is pre-peleg so land is flat Gondwana in that view, Peleg's time coupled with water runoff somehow manages to split the world geologically and keep it moving without it melting it into one mass of sludge.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I'm fine with a tent where Gee and I can coexist. That's what I'd like. What I don't like that he did was to attack my views, implying that the tent is not big enough for me. If I'm giving a presentation defending the church through my perspective, my focus would be my position vs critics of the church or Exmormons. Not my position vs other Mormons in the tent. That's unnecessarily divisive, imho. The goal is not to defend the church, the goal is to make the tent smaller and let people like me know we don't belong. 

The part where he "vaguely" criticized the church's essay I think was at the end in the Q & A period.

I'm a  "liberal," "progressive," or "Neo Apologist". Ask me anything.

Gee is not the one who gets to define the tent for the Church.  Why would his opinion trouble you so much?

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no Mt Everest for many young earth global flood creationists.  Flood is pre-peleg so land is flat Gondwana in that view, Peleg's time coupled with water runoff somehow manages to split the world geologically and keep it moving with it melting it into one mass of sludge.

I understand that point of view, but I simply don't buy it.

There are three things that seem possible to me.

1. The world exists as we see it, and it looks 4.5 billion years old because it is 4.5 billion years old, because the universe is 13.5 billion years old, just as science has described it,
2. God created the world exactly as we see it, looking 4.5 billion years old, but in reality created just a few thousand years ago by a wave of His hand, or
3. It's the Matrix and what we see is a huge, impenetrable and overwhelmingly convincing illusion that has no actual physical existence.

In none of these scenarios is it at all needful that a flood covered Mt. Everest, nor do I believe Peleg refers to a geologic event. I used to, but no longer.

And my bet is that #1 is the way it is.

[churchistrue]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gee is not the one who gets to define the tent for the Church.  Why would his opinion trouble you so much?

Well it doesn't keep me up at night. It does bother me a little though, yes. FairMormon carries some weight. A general authority even came and commended its work and encouraged members to donate to it. I know FairMormon is not a monolith. I frequently defend the Church against critics in the same way. But if Gee doesn't represent FairMormon, it would be nice to have a speaker that offers a counter view. A couple years ago, the Hardy and Mason presentations seemed like maybe a new space or trend on this other side was emerging. But that seems to be quashed based on last two years talks and the alignment with Interpreter that was referenced frequently throughout the conference. Is that a misunderstanding or an accurate observation?

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that a Christian can believe a whole lot of things that are wrong and still be considered a  Christian. Doesn’t make the errors any the less errors. 

Similarly, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could embrace a lot of error and his membership would nevertheless remain intact. Only if he undertook to teach, preach and advocate it in contradiction to true doctrine might it become an issue. 

And regardless of the number of centuries that pass away, the reality of the spiritual experiences of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the divine records brought forth through his instrumentality will never become irrelevant in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Of course. That goes without saying. I am genuinely sorry we don't seem to be communicating well.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's two issues. One is the text, which can be defended as actual types of texts/legends from various periods. That is, how authentically ancient is it? (Recognizing again the looseness of translation and recognizing that ancient covers a lot of ground from early Iron Age though the Roman period) The second is the use of the two vignettes and hypocephalus as applied to the text. The third is defending how it's not irrational to believe the papyri and text are related. Again it's that issue of rationality not evidence that would be compelling to a non-believer that tends to be at the heart of apologetics. It's in that context that having Egyptologists, particularly one from a top department, who continues to believe is significant to someone not able to understand all the nuances of argument.

I don’t understand how any of this kind of imaginative apologetics has a connection to scholarly Egyptology.  

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I don't think I'd call this merely faith based, depending upon what you mean by that. Certainly key evidence for those who think they know is private religious experience. But the view that private experience can't ground knowledge seems deeply problematic.

It’s faith based because there isn’t credible scholarly evidence to make it anything else.  

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Gee's fairly forthright on this topic too. He notes Smith clearly believes he was translating the Book of Abraham from the papyri and that since he (Gee) has a testimony of Smith as a prophet it follows rationally that Joseph was correct. (I can give you the full quote if you wish) I'm not sure that's faith although it is interesting Gee doesn't claim a revelation on behalf of the Book of Abraham. Quite the contrary. (Admittedly I've not had a particular religious experience tied to it either) Now it may be wrong - there are other ways to draw inferences from that data. But to say there is "zero compelling evidence" again must be indexed to who we are speaking of and what other evidence they hold.

 As for "Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion" both Gee and Smoot come from respected programs. Gee's PhD from Yale is nothing to sneeze at. While University of Toronto isn't as prestigious as Yale, it's not exactly insignificant. It's ranked 21st in the world for archaeology and is extremely well regarded even if not one of the top schools. Again one can disagree with them but I'm not exactly sure how you can simply dismiss those achievements. (Smoot is of course still in school)

What you describe for Gee’s belief in Joseph is exactly a faith based belief.  Also, the credentials of Gee and Smoot are  precisely why their statements about the BoA are problematic, because uninformed members assume their opinions about this topic carry some epyptological scholarly support, when in reality they don’t.  

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are being very unfair to Gee.  Like me, he supports his position on the BofA strictly on a scholarly basis.  He even made clear during Q&A that, even though he has a spiritual testimony of the BofM, he does not have a spiritual testimony of the BofA.  Just the opposite of your apparent belief about him.  He argues that the BofA is not a conversion mechanism of the Church, and that a spiritual testimony of it is not necessary.

He rejects the argument that the intro to the PGP indicates in any way that the Church has changed its position on the BofA, and I agree.  He does say that the new intro simply broadens the purview to include both theories of translation.  Yet he also points out that the intro is not Scripture, and that the best explanation is the translation was made from an actual papyrus.  Again, I agree.

The burden of his paper was that we should not sell our birthright for a mess of plaudits.  Historical authenticity is not a minor matter, he said, asking whether we can bracket authenticity.  Is a neutral stance possible -- for the sake of dialogue.

Gee recalled that Nibley had pointed out two dangers:

1. Those who think they know enough to disprove the Scriptures, and

2.  Those who think they know enough to prove the Scriptures.

It is clearly much easier to disprove than to prove the authenticity of a document.

No offense to you or Gee personally, but I don’t see how you can say that his position is based on scholarly evidence.  The evidence is all apologetic speculations, none of it would make a peer reviewed publication.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think some are trying to move that direction. I'm really skeptical it's working. If anything I think things continue to go the other way. I also think that the fact most people who lose faith in historicity end up leaving the Church is an indication of why it's dangerous to embrace that position too much. (All apologies to those who maintain faith in the religious claims of the Church while disregarding historicity) I know some, like ChurchIsTrue, thinks as an apologetic endeavor pushing an "utility" view of scripture will stop faith crises. I remain pretty skeptical that would work myself. However I certainly don't begrudge them for trying. I suspect overall it'll drive more out of Church than it will rescue. But if it works for them more power to them. I suspect most of those in the crisis place will either have a religious experience confirming their testimony or else will fall away. As I've said in a few threads, to me the value of FAIR apologetics is for those not yet in a faith crisis.

I see the move away from a strictly historical approach happening in subtle, gradual and significant ways.  The change of the language around Native American’s no longer being the principle ancestors is one example, along with it the deemphasis on a Lamanite heritage identity being preached to native peoples in the mission field.  Even the discomfort with the primary song, Book of Mormon Stories, all point towards a less rigid approach to historicity, and a sensitivity toward native peoples which I think both go hand in hand on this topic.

 I don’t think we’ll have leaders directly discussing a non historical BoM in general conference any time soon, but the way we’re moving away from earlier paradigms has been happening, and I don’t expect that trajectory to reverse course.  I expect that mainstream apologists will begin to endorse this idea and write essays about its merits, and that will have a softening effect downstream to church leaders.  This is how all the ideas seem to work in a linear manner, not forgetting about ups and downs as the pendulum swings to the different polls, the overarching direction is consistent and I don’t see why this would change. 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you ask yourself if the Copernican Revolution "eviscerated" Catholicism.

You don't need to believe in a flat Earth to be a Christian even if the Bible says it.

I predict that within a hundred years both issues will be equivalently irrelevant.

Good point, I agree, its happening, the move away from historicity in Mormonism, and in general for organized religions.  I think there are a number of factors contributing towards this movement.  It’s the long hall trajectory we’re on.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'm fine with a tent where Gee and I can coexist. That's what I'd like. What I don't like that he did was to attack my views, implying that the tent is not big enough for me. If I'm giving a presentation defending the church through my perspective, my focus would be my position vs critics of the church or Exmormons. Not my position vs other Mormons in the tent. That's unnecessarily divisive, imho. The goal is not to defend the church, the goal is to make the tent smaller and let people like me know we don't belong. 

The part where he "vaguely" criticized the church's essay I think was at the end in the Q & A period.

I'm a  "liberal," "progressive," or "Neo Apologist". Ask me anything.

I support what you’re saying, but isn’t this just a matter of the subjective labeling of ideas as kosher for a believer to hold?  You’ve labeled certain ideas as “critical” or “exmormon” while Gee labels them differently than you do.  

I imagine you might consider my non-theistic approach to Mormonism too far out there, and you might put me outside the tent.  How is that any different than what Gee or others are doing to you?  

It seems to me, that to be truly inclusive you’d need to adopt an approach that doesn’t privilege any particular theological propositions on truth claims, and instead just asks people to commit to broadly defined orthoprax principles.  That’s what I’d like to see personally, but are you comfortable with that big of a tent?   

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

 A general authority even came and commended its work and encouraged members to donate to it. 

AHAH!!  This is great to hear.  I speculated that this kind of endorsing of FAIR happened by church leaders a while back in a thread and I got hammered for suggesting that this might happen by a few posters on the board.  I’m calling this a partial vindication for myself.  😀

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Good point, I agree, its happening, the move away from historicity in Mormonism, and in general for organized religions.  I think there are a number of factors contributing towards this movement.  It’s the long hall trajectory we’re on.  

Ironically the rise of secular religions are teaching us what religion is and is not, and if we don't get it, we will be lost in the dust. Google secular religion if you don't get it.

It us about purpose in life, not facts.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Well it doesn't keep me up at night. It does bother me a little though, yes. FairMormon carries some weight. A general authority even came and commended its work and encouraged members to donate to it. I know FairMormon is not a monolith. I frequently defend the Church against critics in the same way. But if Gee doesn't represent FairMormon, it would be nice to have a speaker that offers a counter view. A couple years ago, the Hardy and Mason presentations seemed like maybe a new space or trend on this other side was emerging. But that seems to be quashed based on last two years talks and the alignment with Interpreter that was referenced frequently throughout the conference. Is that a misunderstanding or an accurate observation?

 

 

 

I would say a misunderstanding.  From what I have seen over the past decade, talks are generally not that systematically sought after.  Often it is simply who runs into whom at other conferences or who has been working on projects with others and when the topic of FM conferences comes up, someone says "I know someone who would be a great speaker" or ..."has a book coming out".  

And the alignment with Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central is more, if I understand correctly, so we can more efficiently share resources as we pretty much all three draw from the same pool.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

AHAH!!  This is great to hear.  I speculated that this kind of endorsing of FAIR happened by church leaders a while back in a thread and I got hammered for suggesting that this might happen by a few posters on the board.  I’m calling this a partial vindication for myself.  😀

It was considered historic for a reason.  You probably cannot understand without knowing the inside story what a difference this talk has made for many of us FairMormons in opening up our ability to even discuss our group with other members (so few are interested or see a need for us until a family member runs into trouble).  The ChurchNews stories that have been going on for a number of years (thanks Scott), the references on lds.org, Sharon Eubank and Michael Otterson and Ally Isom speaking in their roles as current church employees, and the encouragement of CES employees to attend the conferences have been slowly leading up to this, but this is a huge step in demonstrating we are not a fringe organization and involvement with us could be problematic.

We would be rolling in dough if church leaders had been doing this type of endorsement on something even close to a regular basis.

I would be interested to see any protests that such endorsement would never happen; protests that it hadn't happened yet...I can see that.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course. That goes without saying. I am genuinely sorry we don't seem to be communicating well.

If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I perceived you to be saying that in a hundred years, the matter of whether the Book of Mormon is an authentic record or a made-up narrative will be irrelevant and that belief in its authenticity is comparable to belief in a flat earth. I would be relieved to learn you did not intend either meaning. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was considered historic for a reason.  You probably cannot understand without knowing the inside story what a difference this talk has made for many of us FairMormons in opening up our ability to even discuss our group with other members (so few are interested or see a need for us until a family member runs into trouble).  The ChurchNews stories that have been going on for a number of years (thanks Scott), the references on lds.org, Sharon Eubank and Michael Otterson and Ally Isom speaking in their roles as current church employees, and the encouragement of CES employees to attend the conferences have been slowly leading up to this, but this is a huge step in demonstrating we are not a fringe organization and involvement with us could be problematic.

We would be rolling in dough if church leaders had been doing this type of endorsement on something even close to a regular basis.

I would be interested to see any protests that such endorsement would never happen; protests that it hadn't happened yet...I can see that.

Sounds like a big achievement for FAIR, I’m happy for y'all. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like a big achievement for FAIR, I’m happy for y'all. 

I wouldn't call it an achievement.  It wasn't like we ever campaigned for it.    I believe he offered.  Said he was on assignment, iirc.  It was a very nice endorsement.  It will make our efforts more effective imo.

Edit:  rpn reported that he mentioned he was asked.  I haven't been able to watch his whole talk without interruption yet, will need to start over because I bet most of what I heard didn't take root anyway.  Very preoccupied with family stuff.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

8 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Well it doesn't keep me up at night. It does bother me a little though, yes. FairMormon carries some weight. A general authority even came and commended its work and encouraged members to donate to it. I know FairMormon is not a monolith. I frequently defend the Church against critics in the same way. But if Gee doesn't represent FairMormon, it would be nice to have a speaker that offers a counter view. A couple years ago, the Hardy and Mason presentations seemed like maybe a new space or trend on this other side was emerging. But that seems to be quashed based on last two years talks and the alignment with Interpreter that was referenced frequently throughout the conference. Is that a misunderstanding or an accurate observation?

 

 

 

It's a misunderstanding. In the time I was there, there was never an effort to coordinate speakers. We just went for what was current, who was available, who was asking, etc. This year was the first year we even had a correlated day....on Wed. I think that was an effective approach. For the life of me, I do not understand why people are so hell bent to turn FM into a monolithic corporate beast with a single heart, mind, and voice in another room apart from all of the disparate people within it. I suspect it is only because it makes it much more easy to pick out one speaker and demonize him/her as FM's spawn.  FM's speakers are not required to even turn in talks prior to giving them. And yes, there have been a few speakers over the years that I would have glady run off the stage. Not once in my 20 some years did I ever, ever, ever think that a once a year speaker was inside my brain, speaking for me or any other board member. 

What are you expecting? That Hardy/Mason/Grant speak every year?  If they don't, there just aren't a lot of Hardy/Mason/Grant clones. So why in the world would you expect that to happen every year?  Why should it have to? Every word they said is on the FM website. I am really so tired of this. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I perceived you to be saying that in a hundred years, the matter of whether the Book of Mormon is an authentic record or a made-up narrative will be irrelevant and that belief in its authenticity is comparable to belief in a flat earth. I would be relieved to learn you did not intend either meaning. 

No, what I was saying is that in a hundred years the understanding of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon will be no more relevant to its historicity than the bible's authenticity is relevant to belief in a flat earth.

In other words, as clearly as possible, just as the Bible's authenticity is not today seen as dependent on there being a flat earth, the Book of Mormon's authenticity will not be dependent on its historicity.

In neither case will spiritual validity be seen as relevant to historical content, just as the existence of Christ does not prove that He died for our sins.

The BOM could be perfectly historically accurate in every respect and still not be the word of God.

The BOM could also be the word of God and not be historically accurate, just as Bible science is not scientifically correct and the Bible is still the Word of God

Facts and spiritual significance are independent variables

Lack of evidence for the historical Book of Mormon does not invalidate it any more than lack of evidence for the Bible's science invalidates the Bible.

Edited August 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No offense to you or Gee personally, but I don’t see how you can say that his position is based on scholarly evidence.  The evidence is all apologetic speculations, none of it would make a peer reviewed publication.  

You cannot have read any of my or Gee's writings on that subject.  If you have any objection to my use or interpretation of standard Egyptology, I'd love to hear about it so that I can reevaluate it for accuracy.  Standard secular Egyptology does not in any way depend upon "apologetic speculations."  Not sure why you would make such a ridiculous assertion.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'm fine with a tent where Gee and I can coexist. That's what I'd like. What I don't like that he did was to attack my views, implying that the tent is not big enough for me. If I'm giving a presentation defending the church through my perspective, my focus would be my position vs critics of the church or Exmormons. Not my position vs other Mormons in the tent. That's unnecessarily divisive, imho. The goal is not to defend the church, the goal is to make the tent smaller and let people like me know we don't belong. 

In other words, Gee is not entitled to his POV since it endangers or disrespects yours.  In the free marketplace of ideas, there will naturally be clashes.  What made you think otherwise?  His expression of his views does in no way threaten your expression.  It merely enriches the discussion.  That is how ideas are expressed and evaluated.  You need to read and accept John Stuart Mill "On Liberty," online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901 .

11 hours ago, churchistrue said:

The part where he "vaguely" criticized the church's essay I think was at the end in the Q & A period.

Just as I thought when I said to you "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."  You clearly misunderstood Gee.

11 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'm a  "liberal," "progressive," or "Neo Apologist". Ask me anything.

How about a definition?  According to James 1:5, God is a liberal, but what does that mean?

As for "progressives," what about Jamie Ehrlich, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes for progressive 'sub-caucus',” CNN, July 16, 2018, online at https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/ocasio-cortez-advocates-for-progressive-sub-caucus/index.html .   Does this help us understand what a "progressive" might be?

And as for "Neo," wasn't that a primary character in The Matrix?