Kate Kelly in a Popular Magazine

[MustardSeed]

I love Linda, and I loved the Mormon Child album.  Wore it out as a pre teen.  
 

 

[stemelbow]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:57 AM, smac97 said:

 

If the Church is not what it claims to be, then it is still a wonderful organization and group of people that does not deserve the mistreatment it receives.

Thanks,

-Smac

What mistreatment are you complaining about exactly?  People voicing concerns about sexism?  People voicing concerns about the more authoritative top down approach?  I don't see any particular mistreatment of the church or it's members in the article.  I see her expressing her concerns about it's impacts.  It sounds like you're saying doing so is somehow mistreating the people and organization because to you it is what is claims to be.  

[JamesBYoung]

People, we live in a free society with a free press.

Our Church is not going to get a pass.  Ever.

So if we are in the true, living church, the best way to counter opposition is to live up to its precepts.

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

People, we live in a free society with a free press.

Our Church is not going to get a pass.  Ever.

So if we are in the true, living church, the best way to counter opposition is to live up to its precepts.

Is anyone here demanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get "a free pass"?  If so, you, obviously being more erudite and observant than I, will have to point it out to me, because I missed it.  Insisting on fair treatment isn't the same thing as asking for a free pass.

[smac97]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What mistreatment are you complaining about exactly? 

I was speaking generally.

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

People voicing concerns about sexism?  People voicing concerns about the more authoritative top down approach? 

No and no.

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see any particular mistreatment of the church or it's members in the article.  I see her expressing her concerns about it's impacts.  It sounds like you're saying doing so is somehow mistreating the people and organization because to you it is what is claims to be.  

No, that is not what I am doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What mistreatment are you complaining about exactly?  People voicing concerns about sexism?  People voicing concerns about the more authoritative top down approach?  I don't see any particular mistreatment of the church or it's members in the article.  I see her expressing her concerns about it's impacts.  It sounds like you're saying doing so is somehow mistreating the people and organization because to you it is what is claims to be.  

Perhaps the problem lies, not so much in the fact that people criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as is does in the fact that so much of the criticism seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable.  Although I am a person of faith, I can see, easily, why someone who relies solely or primarily on reason might find such a position wanting.  But often, people who rely solely or primarily on reason refuse to acknowledge that there are more than a few questions which reason alone is ill equipped to answer.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps the problem lies, not so much in the fact that people criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as is does in the fact that so much of the criticism seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable.  Although I am a person of faith, I can see, easily, why someone who relies solely or primarily on reason might find such a position wanting.  But often, people who rely solely or primarily on reason refuse to acknowledge that there are more than a few questions which reason alone is ill equipped to answer.

There are plenty of unanswered questions.  I don't know anyone refuses to acknowledge that.  

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking generally.

No and no.

No, that is not what I am doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  I didn't see how the comment fit into the discussion of this piece is all.  Wondered where it was coming from.

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Is anyone here demanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get "a free pass"?  If so, you, obviously being more erudite and observant than I, will have to point it out to me, because I missed it.  Insisting on fair treatment isn't the same thing as asking for a free pass.

Now it's fair treatment.  OK.  It goes both ways.

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps the problem lies, not so much in the fact that people criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as is does in the fact that so much of the criticism seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable.  Although I am a person of faith, I can see, easily, why someone who relies solely or primarily on reason might find such a position wanting.  But often, people who rely solely or primarily on reason refuse to acknowledge that there are more than a few questions which reason alone is ill equipped to answer.

Much of the defense also "seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable. "

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Much of the defense also "seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable. "

I don't think so.  To the contrary, I think the defenses of the Church - while uneven - skew toward reasoned, evidenced-based argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Much of the defense also "seems reflexive, unfair, and unreasonable. "

This does describe the big problem we seem to be having in our society.  Topics like religion or politics are seen to be so personal, people often don't communicate effectively or thoughtfully on the topic.  With religion, at least and since that is our topic on this board, it's a real shame.  Because in truth we can address some of the more interesting and important questions and issues we face.  Often as we try to broach these topics, people get hurt, misunderstanding arises, names get hurled, false ideas get attributed to each other.  I mean it's a real shame.  

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  To the contrary, I think the defenses of the Church - while uneven - skew toward reasoned, evidenced-based argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am talking about some of the reactions here skew towards reflexive and not well thought out comments.  I apologize for not being clear.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  To the contrary, I think the defenses of the Church - while uneven - skew toward reasoned, evidenced-based argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

For every reasoned, evidence-based argument for, there is likely a reasoned, evidence-based one against.  The big problem here is where the discussion often descends to.  Once disagreements are established, the lashing out, refusing to listen, name calling or as put the reflexive, unfair and unreasonable.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I don't think so.  To the contrary, I think the defenses of the Church - while uneven - skew toward reasoned, evidenced-based argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

For every reasoned, evidence-based argument for, there is likely a reasoned, evidence-based one against. 

Well, no.  Not really.  

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The big problem here is where the discussion often descends to.  Once disagreements are established, the lashing out, refusing to listen, name calling or as put the reflexive, unfair and unreasonable.  

Fair point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Now it's fair treatment.  OK.  It goes both ways.

Whom has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as an institution, treated unfairly?  Ms. Kelly?  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about that.  Ms. Kelly seems to want free rein to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ, to propound her views (and by doing so, to sow dissension and disunity from within its ranks).  That's not the way it works: If she wants to criticize and to sow dissension and disunity, she's free to do all of that, but she's not free to do it while remaining in good standing with the organization, and the organization is under no obligation to stand by idly and simply allow it to happen.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[JamesBYoung]

We are all as members in good standing obligated to be fair, polite, and reasonable in response.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There are plenty of unanswered questions.  I don't know anyone refuses to acknowledge that.  

I think we're probably talking about different types of unanswered questions.  How to reconcile how some fourth-hand, long-after-the-fact, poorly recorded account of what Joseph Smith allegedly said on June 21, 1843 fits into the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one such type of unanswered question.  Why we're here, where we came from, where we're going after we die, why bad things happen to good people, and so on, on the other hand, is a completely different category. 

Historians may claim to have the ability to answer the first type of question, and scientists may claim to have the ability (often, they claim to have the sole ability) to answer the second type of question.  People of faith, however, would, on both counts, beg to differ.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

We are all as members in good standing obligated to be fair, polite, and reasonable in response.

Perhaps, but, too often, our critics see that as a one-way street.

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Not really.  

 

You don't think so?  Would you suggest the reasoned only falls on the side of the apologist?  

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think we're probably talking about different types of unanswered questions.  How to reconcile how some fourth-hand, long-after-the-fact, poorly recorded account of what Joseph Smith allegedly said on June 21, 1843 fits into the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one such type of unanswered question.  Why we're here, where we came from, where we're going after we die, why bad things happen to good people, and so on, on the other hand, is a completely different category. 

Historians may claim to have the ability to answer the first type of question, and scientists may claim to have the ability (often, they claim to have the sole ability) to answer the second type of question.  People of faith, however, would, on both counts, beg to differ.

huh?  people have faith beg to differ with their answers?  Or their claim to be able to answer?  Or both?  

I do tend to favor the more secular humanist approach to these types of questions (the why, where's and hows of everything)--the answer to these questions may never really be answered, but we do our best with what we have.  The "I don't know" response seems most appropriate for everyone on those questions.  Proposed answers aren't knowledge.  We're just guessing, or basing it on our belief.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think the defenses of the Church - while uneven - skew toward reasoned, evidenced-based argument.

For every reasoned, evidence-based argument for, there is likely a reasoned, evidence-based one against. 

Well, no.  Not really.  

You don't think so? 

No, I don't think so.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Would you suggest the reasoned only falls on the side of the apologist?  

No.  But you seemed to be suggesting a symmetry, in terms of reasoning and evidence, between "the defenses of the Church" and arguments "against."

That is the point I dispute.  Quite vigorously, in fact.  Some of the influences on my thinking about this point are Owen and Mosser's "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," Daniel Peterson's "Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve,"  "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon," "The Protean Joseph Smith"  and "The Sibling Scandals of the Resurrection," my assessment of various countervailing explanations for the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., here), Neal Rappleye's "'Idle and Slothful Strange Stories': Book of Mormon Origins and the Historical Record" essay, these remarks by Brant Gardner, Michael Ash's "The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship," William Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Warren Aston's work on the NHM altar (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here), and many, many other articles, books, etc.

To be sure, there is argument and evidence for the contrary point of view.  I freely acknowledge that.  I've read a lot of it, and have found some of it to be quite good.  Mostly, however, I do not see the sort of symmetry you imply in terms of reasoning, evidence, argument, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You don't think so?  Would you suggest the reasoned only falls on the side of the apologist?  

I cannot speak for Spencer.  However, I will admit that, no, reasoned discussion is not solely the province of one side or of the other.

[Kenngo1969]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  people have faith beg to differ with their answers?  Or their claim to be able to answer?  Or both?  

I do tend to favor the more secular humanist approach to these types of questions (the why, where's and hows of everything)--the answer to these questions may never really be answered, but we do our best with what we have.  The "I don't know" response seems most appropriate for everyone on those questions.  Proposed answers aren't knowledge.  We're just guessing, or basing it on our belief.  

People of faith may not be able to answer the sort of existential questions to which I allude in a previous post to the satisfaction of those who are of a more empirical bent.  That's unavoidable.  Such is the nature of mortality.  Each of us sees things, not as they are, but, rather, as he is.  And, while I agree with your implication that I cannot answer those questions for you (nor can you answer them for me), oftentimes in my encounters with the more empirically-minded, they claim to be able to answer those questions for everyone, definitively, and that's not the case. 

Too often, the empirically-minded demand that I use their paradigm simply because they find my paradigm wanting, and that will not do.  With respect to some existential questions, I have received answers that satisfy me.  The answers to other existential questions will, however, have to await their answers in the eternities, I suppose.  Each of us is his own trier of fact with respect to matters of faith: Each of us decides what the Rules of Evidence are, what evidence he will admit according to those rules, what evidence he will exclude according to those rules, and how much weight he will give to any given piece of evidence he decides to admit.

[JamesBYoung]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think we're probably talking about different types of unanswered questions.  How to reconcile how some fourth-hand, long-after-the-fact, poorly recorded account of what Joseph Smith allegedly said on June 21, 1843 fits into the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one such type of unanswered question.  Why we're here, where we came from, where we're going after we die, why bad things happen to good people, and so on, on the other hand, is a completely different category. 

Historians may claim to have the ability to answer the first type of question, and scientists may claim to have the ability (often, they claim to have the sole ability) to answer the second type of question.  People of faith, however, would, on both counts, beg to differ.

As for me and my house, we will follow the Brethren, the scientists, and the historians.