Southerton Answers FARMS & FAIR

[smac97]

Corky,

> I think your "get over it" prescription for those Native Americans who feel misled about having been taught that Lehi & his group were their principal ancestor is a little harsh, especially for folks who at one time bought into LDS ideology in a substantial way, and who may have in turn preached to other Indians of their principal Israelite heritage.

==I think a Native American whose testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ turns on his provable genetic ancestry has his/her priorities a wee bit out of whack.

> Actually, I think many (if not most) have gotten past what they were taught - and perhaps at one time believed - but I'm afraid the LDS church and Mormons in general have not come out of the exchange in a particularly good light. The term I heard was "just another scheme of the white man" to deceive & exploit Indians, not the kind of image I think the LDS church or its adherents would desire, I would think.

==I'm curious, Corky. Who appointed you to be spokesperson for LDS Native Americans? Is there any particular reason why we should lend credence to your say so about what they think?

> But I don't blame Mormon folks who may be weary of hearing of these kinds of reactions.

==Perhaps you also won't blame us for being skeptical of broad generalizations and unsubstantiated claims made by anti-Mormons who self-appoint themselves to advocate on behalf of some LDS minority group.

> For example, even when I was a kid in the 70s I heard more than a few lessons about how the Catholic Church was a great abomination, etc. I don't think this is taught anymore.

==Funny, I was a kid in the 70s (and 80s), and I never heard a single lesson about the Catholic Church, let along "more than a few" of them.

-Smac

[Corky Wallace]

Pahoran,

Mea culpa on the sneering tone. That wasn't one of my more respectful posts, and I'm going to try to do better.

As for the "inspired fiction" concept, I could understand that anti-MOs may have originated this idea, but I believe there are some TBMs who are beginning to think about this idea seriously. I'm speaking of Van Hale in particular, and presumably there are others. (I'm not familiar with this Van Hale character & presume he's viewed as a saint in good standing.)

[Blink]

==I think a Native American whose testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ turns on his provable genetic ancestry has his/her priorities a wee bit out of whack.

Unless his testimony is based on the truthfulness of the church, in which case he's reeling a bit, if he believed the introduction to the BoM.

==I'm curious, Corky.  Who appointed you to be spokesperson for LDS Native Americans?  Is there any particular reason why we should lend credence to your say so about what they think?

Is there any reason to give credence to what any of us think, including what you think? Corky is giving his/her experience. Why do you leap to assume that he/she's attemping to represent all LDS Native Americans?

> But I don't blame Mormon folks who may be weary of hearing of these kinds of reactions.

==Perhaps you also won't blame us for being skeptical of broad generalizations and unsubstantiated claims made by anti-Mormons who self-appoint themselves to advocate on behalf of some LDS minority group.

Corky is an anti-Mormon? Now there's a leap, smac, and not necessarily a leap that is warrented or probable.

> For example, even when I was a kid in the 70s I heard more than a few lessons about how the Catholic Church was a great abomination, etc. I don't think this is taught anymore.

==Funny, I was a kid in the 70s (and 80s), and I never heard a single lesson about the Catholic Church, let along "more than a few" of them.

Funny. I was an adult convert in the 70's, and I well remember these lessons. Maybe you just weren't listening, smac. Or maybe you were too young. Or maybe you prefer to not remember.

[Corky Wallace]

Smac,

==I think a Native American whose testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ turns on his provable genetic ancestry has his/her priorities a wee bit out of whack.

>> Presumably whatever ideas or thinking that leads to the development of a testimony is subsequently secondary to the maintenance of the testimony? (I'm not trying to be a wise butt here.) If a person hears some extraordinarily positive idea that applies to them, personally, and later finds out the idea was false, why is it so unreasonable to think they might question other things that led them to get this overall nice feeling about the originating institution?

==I'm curious, Corky. Who appointed you to be spokesperson for LDS Native Americans? Is there any particular reason why we should lend credence to your say so about what they think?

>> Poor wording on my part. I can't speak for all LDS Native Americans. Actually, nobody can. I do feel I can convey what a few former LDS Native Americans have told me, which I do not hold out to be a representative sampling or majority opinion. They are individual viewpoints, though.

==Perhaps you also won't blame us for being skeptical of broad generalizations and unsubstantiated claims made by anti-Mormons who self-appoint themselves to advocate on behalf of some LDS minority group.

>> I'm a skeptic, so I'd expect the same from others. That is fair.

==Funny, I was a kid in the 70s (and 80s), and I never heard a single lesson about the Catholic Church, let along "more than a few" of them.

>> It sounds to me like you didn't live in the Bountiful 32nd Ward in the same time period in the same classes I was in. I don't think this is an uncommon sentiment expressed during that time period. I do know that other teachings I heard in that ward are now pretty universally repudiated, such as the blacks/priesthood issue.

[Corky Wallace]

Smac,

When I referenced Dr. Peterson alleging to have information about ex-MOs, I was referring to this post: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=178856

Bear in mind my observation of this exchange is 2nd hand, but the insinuation that all (or some substantial portion) of ex-MOs have personal issues that provoked their leaving the church doesn't seem to be a high-integrity approach, either.

Certainly the anger, rhetoric & tactics of ex-MOs and many on the RfM board is not always exemplery of good & fair debate - I think we can all agree on that. There's a lot of anger on that board, certainly.

[TrespassersW]

Corky:

I think your "get over it" prescription for those Native Americans who feel misled about having been taught that Lehi & his group were their principal ancestor is a little harsh, especially for folks who at one time bought into LDS ideology in a substantial way, and who may have in turn preached to other Indians of their principal Israelite heritage.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm not sure how else to respond when someone makes a mountain out of a molehill. First, I don't agree that anyone was deliberately "misled". So if your NA friend is feeling like a victim over the word "principle" in the introduction to the BoM, then yes, I think he's taking the issue far more seriously than it deserves to be taken. Most LDS (as far as I'm aware) still believe that NAs are descendants of Lehi, though he may not have been one of their principal ancestors. This in no way robs them of their lineage or identity.

If your NA friend has ceased believing that the LDS church is the true church of God, then that is another matter. I understand that many ex-LDS have feelings of bitterness, feeling like they've been cheated or deceived, etc. But that stems from other (hopefully more significant) issues. If your friend is feeling bitter about the word "principal", then I honestly think the best thing for him would be to just get over it.

Actually, I think many (if not most) have gotten past what they were taught - and perhaps at one time believed - but I'm afraid the LDS church and Mormons in general have not come out of the exchange in a particularly good light. The term I heard was "just another scheme of the white man" to deceive & exploit Indians, not the kind of image I think the LDS church or its adherents would desire, I would think.

Again, the suggestion that some kind of deliberate deception was going on. I'd be very interested to see an example of this deception. If this is a case of someone having been deliberately misled, then I'll be the first to offer my sympathy. If this is just someone feeling misled because of a (very minor) past misconception, then all I can say is--some people are easily offended and I don't see that there's much I can do about that.

One thing I believe this entire episode has done is to help temper the zeal with which LDS leaders make proclamative statements. Current church leaders seem far more conservative and judicious in what they say, compared to what flowed from the mouth of Brigham Young, for example.

There are certainly different personalities now than in the past. Personally, I've found that the attitude of "Say everything you have to say in words hard as nails" was fairly popular in the frontier days and I suspect that some of the difference you've noted is due to changing times.

For example, even when I was a kid in the 70s I heard more than a few lessons about how the Catholic Church was a great abomination, etc. I don't think this is taught anymore.

Such things aren't dead. For as long as the church continues to have a lay ministry, you'll get false doctrine creeping into Sunday School lessons. One example that I've shared before is an SS lesson I once attended where the teacher taught that the earth used to be a satellite of Saturn before breaking away and drifting into its current orbit. Sometimes in moments like those, you try to tactfully suggest that the teacher stick to the lesson manual. Sometimes... you just don't even bother.

Today's access to information has probably tempered many authoritative statements that were in the past said in more strident ways, in more protected contexts, without so many eyes & ears able to quickly compare past statements, etc. (This goes for a lot of institutions beyond the LDS church.)

A little wisdom generally causes people to temper their claims somewhat. Recognize their own uncertainty. Certainly these are wiser times than the old frontier days. But I think a lot of what you're seeing is that the LDS leadership today has focused very strongly on strengthening the family and personal character rather than on revealing interesting, but not especially useful, data. Personally, I appreciate that they have done so.

[Corky Wallace]

Trespasser,

If your NA friend has ceased believing that the LDS church is the true church of God, then that is another matter. I understand that many ex-LDS have feelings of bitterness, feeling like they've been cheated or deceived, etc. But that stems from other (hopefully more significant) issues. If your friend is feeling bitter about the word "principal", then I honestly think the best thing for him would be to just get over it.

>> Actually, I think it is beyond the word "principal", though in these debates single words make a pivotal difference in common understanding.

One of my Navajo friends has a lot of anger, feels betrayed by what she was taught, is angry that she spent a lot of time proselytizing to other Navajos that their people (en masse) came from the Middle East, etc. In essence, she feels ripped off.

Another one is less angry, as she admits she never really "bought in" to what she was taught in her foster home. She relates a story of telling her foster family about a Navajo medicine man and how he also had special powers, etc. When her foster mother responded "well, you might feel like he has special abilities, but we know that our church is the true church and all others are not correct", or something along those lines. That was a pivot point for her, it seems, even though she was only 7 or 8 years old. She seems far less angry, but she was far less invested, emotionally.

I think both of these friends recognize the false impression they received on some things was not intentional, and both are quick to point out their foster families & others up here along the Wasatch front were genuinely caring and wished the best for them, etc.

Their stories are interesting, above & beyond the LDS theological aspects. One is simulaneously angry about having "lost" her Navajo culture, but also recognizes her exposure to the larger Anglo culture has provided opportunities to experience a world beyond what she would have had she stayed on the reservation.

I don't want to portray their experiences as exclusively negative, because that definitely isn't the case.

[TrespassersW]

Corky:

One of my Navajo friends has a lot of anger, feels betrayed by what she was taught, is angry that she spent a lot of time proselytizing to other Navajos that their people (en masse) came from the Middle East, etc. In essence, she feels ripped off.

And that was kind of my point. If she chooses to not believe all the LDS claims any more, then that is certainly her choice, but it is her choice. The LDS church still makes essentially the same claims that it did before, except that some of us don't quite agree with the word "principal" being thrown in there. Again, if there were specific occasions of intentional deception, then that's a different story. Apart from that, I'm not sure what the LDS church can do to help. "Gee, I'm sorry you don't believe it any more, but we still do."

I don't want to portray their experiences as exclusively negative, because that definitely isn't the case.

Good. I'm sorry if I came across like I didn't care about what they were going through. I guess I got the wrong impression earlier.

[smac97]

Blink,

>> Smac: I think a Native American whose testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ turns on his provable genetic ancestry has his/her priorities a wee bit out of whack.

> Blink: Unless his testimony is based on the truthfulness of the church, in which case he's reeling a bit, if he believed the introduction to the BoM.

==I think a person who things the truthfulness of the LDS Church turns on the provable genetic ancestry of Native Americans is, well, wrong.

> Is there any reason to give credence to what any of us think, including what you think?

==Well, yes. My say-so. I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of someone else. Corky, however, was so claiming.

> Corky is giving his/her experience.

==Corky is presuming to speak for "many (if not most)" LDS Native Americans. Corky is presuming to appoint himself/herself as a spokesperson for these Saints and tell us what they think and how they feel about the LDS Church:

I think many (if not most) have gotten past what they were taught - and perhaps at one time believed - but I'm afraid the LDS church and Mormons in general have not come out of the exchange in a particularly good light. The term I heard was "just another scheme of the white man" to deceive & exploit Indians, not the kind of image I think the LDS church or its adherents would desire, I would think.

>> Smac: I'm curious, Corky. Who appointed you to be spokesperson for LDS Native Americans? Is there any particular reason why we should lend credence to your say so about what they think?

> Blink: Why do you leap to assume that he/she's attemping to represent all LDS Native Americans?

==First, I wasn't speaking about all Native Americans, but rather LDS Native Americans (that is, those that have a "testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ").

==Second, I leapt to no assumption. Corky himself/herself told us how "many (if not most)" of LDS Native Americans feel (that they "have gotten past what they were taught").

==Third, I am skeptical that Corky is basing his/her "experience" on anything beyond a few anecdotal thoughts from one Native American (or, perhaps, a handful). It is very presumptuous to make sweeping claims about an entire subset of the Latter-day Saints based on such tenuous grounds. It is presumptuous to appoint one's self an advocate for an entire subset of Latter-day Saints, many of which, AFAIK, have not asked for such advocacy and may in fact disagree with Corky's representations of what they feel about their faith. It is presumptuous and dissembling for a critic of the LDS Church (which is, frankly, what Corky appears to be) to pose as an advocate for members of a religion when in fact they are only doing so to attack that religion.

> Corky is an anti-Mormon? Now there's a leap, smac, and not necessarily a leap that is warrented or probable.

==It seemed a reasonable inference. He/She certainly does not evince a positive opinion about the LDS Church and its beliefs, or even a neutral opinion. There is, however, a rather obvious negativity towards the LDS Church in his/her posts.

==But perhaps you are right. I'm not sure what Corky is.

> Funny. I was an adult convert in the 70's, and I well remember these lessons. Maybe you just weren't listening, smac.

==No, I was fairly attentive.

> Or maybe you were too young.

==That's possible, of course. I was born in '73. Maybe there was a substantial shift in lessons being taught between the '70s (when I was still quite young) and the '80s.

> Or maybe you prefer to not remember.

==Ah. Of course. The stock explanation for any point of disagreement with a Mormon: the Mormon is being dishonest.

==Corky, are you paying attention? Do you perhaps start to get a glimpse of why DCP chooses sarcasm? When your opponent accuses you of dishonesty as a matter of course, what are you supposed to say?

Corky,

>> Smac: I think a Native American whose testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ turns on his provable genetic ancestry has his/her priorities a wee bit out of whack.

> Presumably whatever ideas or thinking that leads to the development of a testimony is subsequently secondary to the maintenance of the testimony? (I'm not trying to be a wise butt here.)

==No. A testimony is (or ought to be) based on revelation from the Holy Ghost, and it should remain so regardless of whether a testimony is being "developed" or "maintained" (frankly, I don't see much of a difference - when is a testimony not being "developed" and "maintained"?).

> If a person hears some extraordinarily positive idea that applies to them, personally, and later finds out the idea was false, why is it so unreasonable to think they might question other things that led them to get this overall nice feeling about the originating institution?

==First, the "extraordinarily positive idea" at issue here has not, by any stretch, been found "false." I claim an affinity with the founders of the United States of America (we even refer to them collectively as our "Founding Fathers"). Does that affinity require a traceable genetic link? Nope. Is that affinity less valuable because it arises out of a commonality of nationality and principles of liberty? I don't think so. Do I base my patriotism on my genetic ancestors? Nope.

==Second, the "extraordinarily positive idea" that should be the basis of a testimony is a spiritual confirmation of Christ, that he is the literal Son of God, that He was born and proclaimed His Gospel, that He died and was on the third day resurrected, and that He has promulgated a plan whereby we can return to our Father's presence through His (Christ's) Atonement. Everything else, to paraphrase Joseph Smith, "are but appendages."

==Third, I do not object to a person scrutinizing his beliefs. To the contrary, I highly recommend it. To paraphrase Socrates, "The unexamined testimony is not worth having."

>> Funny, I was a kid in the 70s (and 80s), and I never heard a single lesson about the Catholic Church, let along "more than a few" of them.

> It sounds to me like you didn't live in the Bountiful 32nd Ward in the same time period in the same classes I was in.

==Nope. I was in American Fork.

> I don't think this is an uncommon sentiment expressed during that time period.

==Perhaps. I suppose we could take a poll and find out.

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

When I referenced Dr. Peterson alleging to have information about ex-MOs, I was referring to this post:

[praetorian1964]

Praetorian1964,

Smac:

You wrote:

==You made each method of epistemology (revelation and intellect) mutually exclusive.

No. I did not.

Pahoran:

You wrote:

Have various prophets interpreted the Book of Mormon in hemispheric terms? Yes they have. But has even one of them offered even one of their statements as revelation?

NO THEY HAVE NOT.

Thus, to claim that the LGM is contrary to prophetic teaching is completely wrong, and entirely indefensible.

I agree with much of what you say, Pahoran. But the scriptures are replete with warnings against the tendency of men, especially when guided by intellect over inspiriation (see Korihor, etc.), to set aside the words of prophets as "opinion. My simple assertion is that if revelation is a superior form of knowing (which I believe is not the case, but did believe while I was LDS), then the words of God's annointed regarding scripture carry more weight that the differing opinions of unordained men and women, like the apologists, who are speaking outside of their appointed priesthood stewardship.

It is not a case of "apologists" versus prophets at all; it is a case of opinions and speculation on all sides. If revelation were to be given on the subject of Book of Mormon geography, it would be determinative; but since no such revelation has been given, ever, at any time, then everyone is fully entitled to take whatever view they please on the subject.

Agreed.

Incidentally, it is a notorious anti-Mormon lie--repeated exclusively, and only, by notorious anti-Mormon liars--that the LGM is some kind of retreat in the face of "scientific evidence."

It is not.

It is the result of the internal evidence of the text and nothing else. It has been the prevailing view of LDS scholars for at least the last half century.

Sigh. except for the "antimormon lying" language, I agree with the quote above.

The scholarship of FARMS, Compton and others has a place among intellectual hobbyists like ourselves. But it has nothing to do with the value, meaning, or "truth" of the LDS church and it's claims.

It's only a pleasant diversion.

[Benjamin McGuire]

praetorian1964 writes:

I agree with much of what you say, Pahoran. But the scriptures are replete with warnings against the tendency of men, especially when guided by intellect over inspiriation (see Korihor, etc.), to set aside the words of prophets as "opinion.

My favorite example though deals with Lehi's (and Nephi's) vision of the Tree of Life. We get two responses to Lehi's vision. One is to ask God for the vision - i.e. for confirmation and elightenment. The other is to ask a prophet for his interpretation.

So, according to praetorian, the preferred method isn't following the model which Nephi sets at all, but in following the model of Laman and Lemuel.

I have to wonder, why this issue is being argued in such black and white terms? Could it be that favoring such a dichotomy is always going to be in the interest of the fundamentalist mindset (on both sides of the issue)?

Ben

[Corky Wallace]

Hello Dr Peterson,

My apologies for the accusation of "low integrity". That's a problem when one reads others' interpretations; the meaning is based on interpretation & is often extrapolated further. I probably would have worded things differently had I seen your original remarks. Personally I'm looking to derive knowledge & exchange different viewpoints - the needless personal polemics are not helpful. Lesson learned.

However, in the context of these debates, I can see how MC (and others) could come to the interpretations they did. You're very correct that almost everyone (I'm holding out an exception for Mother Theresa kinds-of-characters) makes observations & informal assessments of what others are composed of - what it is we observe in others that "makes them tick". I certainly do.

In my opinion, though, admission of these opinions (even without specifying them) can carry a negative connotation, particularly in the context of a heated topic of debate such as we find in this general area.

For example, in the context of a political campaign, let's say George W. Bush makes the following observation about John Kerry: "I've met him and he seems a fine man. I have a couple of ideas about how he arrived at his political philosophy, but I won't share them."

It's not too hard to see how this remark could have a negative connotation, is it?

I would submit that your position has a similar effect when you allude to unspecified thoughts about other high-profile people in this debate, especially those on the "other side", such as Bachman & McCue.

That's my take, anyway. I do not mean for this to sound like a lecture - I'm just practicing my "diplo-speak".

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think it should surprise anybody to learn that, in my opinion, both Tal Bachman and Bob McCue have reached erroneous decisions and conclusions regarding the gospel, and that, accordingly, I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. And defects are inescapably negative.

[Tchild2]

I don't think it should surprise anybody to learn that, in my opinion, both Tal Bachman and Bob McCue have reached erroneous decisions and conclusions regarding the gospel, and that, accordingly, I don't think it should surprise anybody to learn that, in my opinion, both Tal Bachman and Bob McCue have reached erroneous decisions and conclusions regarding the gospel, and that, accordingly, I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. And defects are inescapably negative. . And defects are inescapably negative.

I think this is a fundamental assumptions LDS make; believers have intertwined the "gospel" and the corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as one intergrated unit, inseperable one from the other. Turn from the corporation and you turn from God, reject the gospel as interpreted in the church, and you have rejected God and his plan of salvation.

In my opinion what some people ultimately find or come to understand is that they are NOT mutually inclusive and that God, happiness, fulfillment, spirituality, or whatever name(s) one wishes to use, are available outside of the LDS umbrella of claimed privilege to enact certain ordinances in God's name.

Specifically you stated: I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there.

In my case specifically, it was not a sort of reasoning, but more like a paradigm shift that happened almost overnight. I knew nothing of what the critics focused on, but almost overnight saw the world differently, felt and sensed it in a new way. That shift in awareness, is difficult to express, unless it is experienced. Otherwise, to outsiders it seems as though one has "flipped their wig".

Just some musings

[smac97]

Praetorian,

>> Smac: You made each method of epistemology (revelation and intellect) mutually exclusive.

> No. I did not.

==Yes. You did. But I'm not interested in arguing about it any further. I'm content to let the reader review the relevant posts and decide for him/herself.

==I note, however, Benjamin McGuire's interpretation of your post(s) (emphases added):

I have to wonder, why this issue is being argued in such black and white terms? Could it be that favoring such a dichotomy is always going to be in the interest of the fundamentalist mindset (on both sides of the issue)?

==There mayindeed be some Latter-day Saints who adhere to some fundamentalistic dichotomy as initially described by Praetorian. But in doing so they are at odds with scriptures that clearly require us to seek learning by revelations, by prophets (past and present), by study, by faith.

> The scholarship of FARMS, Compton and others has a place among intellectual hobbyists like ourselves. But it has nothing to do with the value, meaning, or "truth" of the LDS church and it's claims.

==I disagree. I think FARMS is producing some of the "best books" that we are commanded in scripture to study and gain words of wisdom. This has quite a bit to do with the value, meaning, and "truth" of the LDS Church and its claims.

> It's only a pleasant diversion.

==Unless one has seeking to obey the scriptural exhortations I cited earlier. In that case, such things are much more than "only a pleasant diversion."

-Smac

[King Folly]

I know that there are a number of otherwise intelligent people who believe that the text of the Book of Mormon explicitly supports the LG and "others" hypotheses, but I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. Call it a character flaw, or whatever, but defects are inescapably negative.

--Steve

[smac97]

> I know that there are a number of otherwise intelligent people who believe that the text of the Book of Mormon explicitly supports the LG and "others" hypotheses, but I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. Call it a character flaw, or whatever, but defects are inescapably negative.

==I know this was an attempt to parody DCP's comments, but I don't get it. How, exactly, does a defect in one's reasoning transmute into a defect in one's character? And where did DCP accuse Tal Bachmen and what's-his-name of character defects?

-Smac

[Guest johnny_cat]

It seems to me that when we disagree with someone, we by definition assume defective reasoning in them. But I agree with smac: we don't necessarily assume a defective character, and it's more than a bit disturbing that you would attribute such a statement to Dr. Peterson.

I believe you owe Dr. Peterson an apology. Steve.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know that there are a number of otherwise intelligent people who believe that the text of the Book of Mormon explicitly supports the LG and "others" hypotheses, but I believe that there is something defective about the reasoning that got them there. Call it a character flaw, or whatever, but defects are inescapably negative.

If you think that I've accused either Bachman or McCue of a "character flaw," please indicate where I've done so.

I'm tiring of the propensity that some seem to have here of putting words in my mouth (e.g., yesterday, "personal issues," and now, today, "character flaw") and then suggesting that I've done something wrong in using such language, which I haven't used.

Of course I think there's a defect in positions I reject. Otherwise, I wouldn't reject them, or, if I did so, I would be a fool. Do you function otherwise?

Some of you folks seem absolutely desperate to find something to complain about. Is that negative? It certainly appears so to me.

[King Folly]

If you think that I've accused either Bachman or McCue of a "character flaw," please indicate where I've done so.

"Call it a character flaw, or whatever" was my wording, not yours--and, sorry, didn't mean to imply you had said it--to indicate that I don't think sin is involved in faulty logic. So I think I agree with you on that issue even though I disagree(respectfully) with the issue of wherein the defect lies.

--Steve

[dacook]

So what were we talking about? Ah yes, the DNA issue.

I've looked at Murphy, Southerton, and FARMS' positions. I'll take FARMS, thank you. This is a reasoned opinion and I have enough education to make it an educated one. I hope any disagreements can be on the basis of a rational discussion of the issue. If we're going to talk about character flaws let's go to another thread and I'll stay out of it. Thanks.

[King Folly]

I've looked at Murphy, Southerton, and FARMS' positions. I'll take FARMS, thank you. This is a reasoned opinion and I have enough education to make it an educated one.

Mine is a reasoned opinion, too, but I (respectfully) side with Southerton.

--Steve

[cinepro]

Of course I think there's a defect in positions I reject. Otherwise, I wouldn't reject them, or, if I did so, I would be a fool. Do you function otherwise?

I do know some people who believe with all their heart in positions that appear to be defective, but they use what they call "faith" to not let the apparent "defects" bother them.

After all, if the position didn't appear to be defective, why would you need faith to begin with?

I know you would never do that, Dr. Peterson, but it certainly isn't a given that everyone else operates on such principles.

[smac97]

> I do know some people who believe with all their heart in positions that appear to be defective, but they use what they call "faith" to not let the apparent "defects" bother them.

==First, are these supposed "defective positions" apparent to these people? Or to you?

==Second, if these defects are only "apparent" (that is, "appearing as such but not necessarily so"), how can you establish their validity and, in turn, the error of those who have faith in spite of them?

==Third, are these defective positions substantial or inconsequential?

==Can you give a few examples of this sort of thing?

> After all, if the position didn't appear to be defective, why would you need faith to begin with?

==Faith is not acceptance of something despite its defects. Faith is acceptance of something despite not fully comprehending it. Thus I need faith in the Restored Gospel not because it is defective, but because I don't have a complete and sure knowledge of it.

==It's pretty easy to chalk up X's ignorance or incomplete or inaccurate comprehension of Y as a defect in Y rather than were it belongs: with X.

-Smac