Neutral Scholarship Re: Joseph Smith - Is it Even Possible?

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I not a real big fan of the back story here for a variety of reasons but if Satan really is behind the opposition we face in a test, all he really would have to do to make the whole thing fail is. . . nothing.

Yes, of course.  There must needs be opposition.  Without it there is no choice.  On the other hand, Satan could have demurred, in which case another opponent would have arisen to be Satan (there was a third of the host of heaven who were opposed, after all).

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I think the whole question in the OP about neutral scholarship is simply a straw man to try and place all scholarship in a convenient box and then dismiss those parts we do not like by labeling the biased. 

Yep.  That is sadly the case, and it certainly makes the yokels feel good.  But that ploy can be taken from whichever side wants to use it.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wait a minute.

You allegedly live in California, you are gay, and you remember Prop 8.

We are not popular hereabouts.  

And then of course we have a nice little Broadway play that was supposed to have been one of the funniest ever, making fun of the Mormons.

Is it "harassment and persecution"?   I don't know how you want to define it, but I don't see people standing in line to get baptized either, and I do see a lot of snickering and winks when Utah is mentioned.  Few have enough guts to actually bring up the church unless they wear a little black badge

We are definitely at least seen as "weird"

Yes, I remember Prop 8 quite well.  The "Mormon" proposition to take away the civil rights of gay people.  The Mormon outrage that marriage was being redefined.  A religion that redefined marriage in this country in the not too distant past.  With the Churches banner leading the way that marriage is between one man and one woman.  I still can't get over the irony in that stance.  

It certainly did turn a LOT of people against the Church. And why wouldn't it.  Hardly a good example of Mormons being persecuted.  But a perfect example of Mormons persecuting others that have a different belief than them. With the whole Prop 8 thing, refusing to baptize children of gay parents and calling them apostates, is there any part of you that can understand why a lot f people have hard feelings against the way the Mormon Church treats the LGBT community?

I like how you preface your remark with "allegedly live in California."  Why would I lie about that?  

Edited August 31, 2020 by california boy

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well the Church makes no small effort doing its share of proselytizing for its cause as well even with people who already have a faith.  I don't think the Church is in a position to complain if others proselyze for their beliefs.  

Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ just isn't the same as preaching hate and vilification.  You can see the difference in the New Testament itself.  The fact that Jesus preaches his Gospel does in no way justify the persecution of him and his followers.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I grew up with repeated stories like this one from Marion G Romney

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

This talk from 1981 is still up on the Church Web site.  What lesson is the Church teaching with these kinds of talks?  

I realize that the Church has changed its tone, but that wasn't happening when I came out to my family. 

It certainly has changed.  The notion expressed by Marion Romney has been very damaging.  A lot of members suffered such terrible feelings of guilt that it practically destroyed their lives.  One must leave room for repentance.  People do fail, but we don't want them to entirely give up hope.

Quote

Are you really surprised how my faithful Mormon family responded?

Not at all, although such responses are not uniform throughout the LDS Church.  Certainly less likely today.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ just isn't the same as preaching hate and vilification.  You can see the difference in the New Testament itself.  The fact that Jesus preaches his Gospel does in no way justify the persecution of him and his followers.

I thought Bernard said that this ex Mormon group was only going around giving their version of Mormon history and their life experiences with the Church.  What hate and vilification were they teaching?  

I think this is one of the problems the Church has set up.  It is us against them, and anyone saying anything that the Church disagrees with is all the sudden labeled hate and vilification.  I have seen this time and time again on this very board where critics are labeled as being filed with hate against the Church when often they are giving their solid reasons why they no longer believe what the Church claims.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bdouglas said:

In The Great Divorce by C S Lewis, some of the ghosts Lewis encounters on his journey wonder why more is not done by those in Heaven to improve the lot of the those in the “grey town” (hell). They wonder, in effect, why a bridge can’t be built connecting Heaven and Hell. Hence the title The Great Divorce. Lewis is saying there can be no marriage of Heaven and Hell. It is simply not within the realm of possibility.

But it is the desire of Heaven to welcome them, they constantly send the bus and do their best to persuade those on Hell to put aside what keeps them there and join heaven.  It is Hell that rejects Heaven.

Perhaps God cast out the third part as a favor to them as to insist they stay in heaven would have been worse than hell.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I thought Bernard said that this ex Mormon group was only going around giving their version of Mormon history and their life experiences with the Church.  What hate and vilification were they teaching?  

I think this is one of the problems the Church has set up.  It is us against them, and anyone saying anything that the Church disagrees with is all the sudden labeled hate and vilification.  I have seen this time and time again on this very board where critics are labeled as being filed with hate against the Church when often they are giving their solid reasons why they no longer believe what the Church claims.  

I believe in free speech, and if someone wants to take issue with LDS socio-cultural practices or theology, fine.  That does in no way justify lies, hate-speech, and vilification -- which again is part of freedom of speech under our lovely Constitution.  I like what Evelyn Beatrice Hall said: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'  Free speech, yes, but lies and hate should be acknowledged as such.  All of us should prefer civility.  As evangelical Presbyterian pastor Richard J. Mouw has said in several venues: 

Quote

"I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community.  Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening, we have sinned against you."  Mouw in Salt Lake Tabernacle, Nov 2004; cf. Mouw’s harsh criticism of his fellow evangelicals for “bearing false witness against” Mormons, in the foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), 11.

All of us should adopt this moralistic approach.  By all means be critical of LDS Church shortcomings, and of the attitudes and behavior of LDS members.  Just as hate-speech directed at Jews can be defamatory and false (as the ADL stands guard), so too can intolerant hate-speech directed at other ethno-religious groups sometimes go too far.  We all need to acknowledge that and set some boundaries.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You mean the one where Latter-day Saints gave time and money and basically led the charge to Successfully remove gay people’s civil right to marry? Who exactly was persecuting who there?

Thanks for proving conclusively that it is not possible to be objective on any of these issues.

You made my point for me nicely.

[JamesBYoung]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I thought Bernard said that this ex Mormon group was only going around giving their version of Mormon history and their life experiences with the Church.  What hate and vilification were they teaching?  

I think this is one of the problems the Church has set up.  It is us against them, and anyone saying anything that the Church disagrees with is all the sudden labeled hate and vilification.  I have seen this time and time again on this very board where critics are labeled as being filed with hate against the Church when often they are giving their solid reasons why they no longer believe what the Church claims.  

Yes, from before the beginning of the Church in these Restoration times, the theme has always been us vs. them.

So many in the church are quite satisfied with feeling victimized while bashing 'antis' etc over the metaphorical head.

[JamesBYoung]

SeekingUnderstanding justifiably made his point morally above.

[Meadowchik]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pretty lousy.

But then, considering those who leave to be de facto "enemies" contravenes what the Church teaches us to do.

Agreed.  The Church regularly extends the hand of fellowship to those that leave.

Some rank-and-file members (including myself) sometimes mess up by injecting hostility into a relationship where patience and love should prevail.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for this, I appreciate it.

The church is mixed in its regard for ex-members, though. There are positive messages, sure, but also very hurtful messages and not just from rank-and-file members.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

So you think a group following the missionaries and telling their version of what they believe is persecution? 

Yes. They were spreading vile lies about the Church and it’s members.

13 hours ago, bdouglas said:

When I was a missionary, remember teaching a person who was studying with the Jehovah Witnesses.  We didn't think was a problem to tell them our beliefs and how that differed from the JW's.   Would you consider that  persecution?

Did you lie about their beliefs?

13 hours ago, california boy said:

 Cause I think your definition of what you are defining as persecution is pretty benign.  If that is the best you can come up with, well then, I don't think you have any idea what persecution is.

Former members spreading vile lies about the Church and its members (including me personally) is  persecution.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I have talked to a lot of former gay members of the Church with way more horrific stories including sending their kids to reparative therapy camps.  I have talked to former gay members who were part of the whole electric shock therapy at BYU. If you are interested in hearing personal stories, it isn't hard to find on the internet.  I think you might rethink what you consider persecution is.  All of this was done as an effort to "save" their child from Satan's clutches.  

This was a sad thing. I’m glad it has stopped.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

This kind of reminds me of the lecture I got from my dad when I first came out to him as he assured me I was on the road to hell.  And this is my own father saying this stuff.  You don't think that both sides have some that have bad behavior?  I personally think there are people on both sides who exhibit poor behavior.  

You asked for examples of ex-Mormons. Publishing lies about the Church,  members of my ward, and me is persecution.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

So is this statement meant to put all the blame on ex-Mormons?  Or would you say this kind of behavior happens both with members of the Church and with those that have left?  Because I have heard this same type of emotional manipulation from members of my own family for being gay.  I am not alone.  If you would like more specifics, I would be glad to relate them to you as well as some of my other former members have experienced.

You asked for examples of ex-Mormons. I’m not going to share specifics.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

The whole OP premise is FALSE.  Some Mormons can't let former members alone any more than some exMormons can't leave the Church alone.  Both sides are doing it because they think it is their responsibility to "save" the other person.

What I have witnessed personally as described has nothing to do with saving anyone.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Well the Church makes no small effort doing its share of proselytizing for its cause as well even with people who already have a faith.  I don't think the Church is in a position to complain if others proselyze for their beliefs.  

I grew up with repeated stories like this one from Marion G Romney

 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

This talk from 1981 is still up on the Church Web site.  What lesson is the Church teaching with these kinds of talks?  

I realize that the Church has changed its tone, but that wasn't happening when I came out to my family.  Are you really surprised how my faithful Mormon family responded?

Yes, and so in the context of LDS scholarship, how does this type of culture and environment affect the member-scholar? 

If human beings sense safety and danger through social and environmental cues, can a scholar whose livelihood is contingent on his particular beliefs be able to think freely? I think that the brain has a way of protecting us from dangers like this, even subconsciously.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

On 8/30/2020 at 2:19 AM, bdouglas said:

“Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist.” - Ambrose Bierce

I think this applies to some ex-Mormons who are disappointed idealists, literalists.

Now just imagine the disappointed idealist who figures out how to have faith and hope again without grand promises of a supernatural Entity. That's pretty rad

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars like Lewis and Nibley are rare indeed.  There is nothing wrong with admiring and taking pleasure in their work.  The problem comes when (as with Grant Palmer) reading them leads one to believe that he is now as well qualified as they to discuss the niceties of history and religion.

Did you mean “the niceties and the vagaries” of history and religion? 🙂

Edited August 31, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I thought Bernard said that this ex Mormon group was only going around giving their version of Mormon history and their life experiences with the Church.  What hate and vilification were they teaching?  

No, I said they were spreading vile lies about the Church. That is, unless they themselves had been participating in naked temple orgies and neglecting impoverished senior members.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes, I remember Prop 8 quite well.  The "Mormon" proposition to take away the civil rights of gay people.  The Mormon outrage that marriage was being redefined.  A religion that redefined marriage in this country in the not too distant past.  With the Churches banner leading the way that marriage is between one man and one woman.  I still can't get over the irony in that stance.  

It certainly did turn a LOT of people against the Church. And why wouldn't it.  Hardly a good example of Mormons being persecuted.  But a perfect example of Mormons persecuting others that have a different belief than them. With the whole Prop 8 thing, refusing to baptize children of gay parents and calling them apostates, is there any part of you that can understand why a lot f people have hard feelings against the way the Mormon Church treats the LGBT community?

I like how you preface your remark with "allegedly live in California."  Why would I lie about that?  

To the bold, strange is right! What's up with that?!

Irony for sure on the church coming out against gay marriage, when they married multiple partners together. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did you mean “the niceties and the vagueries” of history and religion? 🙂

"niceties" in that sense also encompasses vagaries.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes, I remember Prop 8 quite well.  The "Mormon" proposition to take away the civil rights of gay people.  The Mormon outrage that marriage was being redefined.  A religion that redefined marriage in this country in the not too distant past.  With the Churches banner leading the way that marriage is between one man and one woman.  I still can't get over the irony in that stance.  

I'm glad that someone sees the irony.  One of the costs of not having a professional clergy is the loss of institutional memory.  No one really thought that one through before making high falutin statements.  Both the LDS Church and Pres Obama had to change their position, eventually.  However, as usual, you falsely identify Prop 8 as the Mormon proposition.  In fact, the large groups which backed the proposition were Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially the Black Church.  There was only a thimble-full of Mormons in California compared to them.  You do need a sense of proportion.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

It certainly did turn a LOT of people against the Church. And why wouldn't it.  Hardly a good example of Mormons being persecuted.  But a perfect example of Mormons persecuting others that have a different belief than them. With the whole Prop 8 thing, refusing to baptize children of gay parents and calling them apostates, is there any part of you that can understand why a lot f people have hard feelings against the way the Mormon Church treats the LGBT community?

I like how you preface your remark with "allegedly live in California."  Why would I lie about that?  

Mark said what he said with tongue in cheek.  You need to be a bit more perceptive.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"niceties" in that sense also encompasses vagaries.

One man’s vagary [ed] is another man’s nicety. 😉

Edited August 31, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm glad that someone sees the irony.  One of the costs of not having a professional clergy is the loss of institutional memory.  No one really thought that one through before making high falutin statements.  Both the LDS Church and Pres Obama had to change their position, eventually.  However, as usual, you falsely identify Prop 8 as the Mormon proposition.  In fact, the large groups which backed the proposition were Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially the Black Church.  There was only a thimble-full of Mormons in California compared to them.  You do need a sense of proportion.

Mark said what he said with tongue in cheek.  You need to be a bit more perceptive.

I hope Mark will speak for himself, he needs to do some explainin!

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mark said what he said with tongue in cheek.  You need to be a bit more perceptive.

I think actually this is hilarious.

The point was that there is no such thing as "objectivity" in these areas, with folks actually holding that such a goal is possible.

The point was to prove that these are not issues about which one can be objective.

I was wildly successful in that goal.

Tongue in cheek? I thought it would be obvious!

And how am I supposed to know where California boy is from? For all I know he is from California and has lived in New York City for 40 years or just likes the name.  

I rest my case.

 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope Mark will speak for himself, he needs to do some explainin!

What do you want explained?

If you have a question ask it don't hide in the bushes.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:17 PM, bdouglas said:

I think the answer to this question is that it is not possible for anyone, once they have come into contact with JS and the Restoration, to take a neutral position. Once you come into contact with these things you are compelled to vote yay or nay; and if you vote nay——well then you become an enemy and you assume the posture of an enemy and it becomes a battle to the death.

And if you think it is anything less than a battle to the death, you are deluding yourself.

For this reason I think the turn LDS scholars made some time back to produce scholarship that was neutral on the truth claims of the church, or at least not front and center——I think this was/is misguided. Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal.

So: let the battle commence.

Your position is verified a hundred times over in this thread.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What do you want explained?

If you have a question ask it don't hide in the bushes.

Excuse me, sorry I didn't do what I was asking of you. I'm wondering why you put "allegedly live" to california boy. That appears to be showing distrust of someone's claim on where they're from. 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Excuse me, sorry I didn't do what I was asking of you. I'm wondering why you put "allegedly live" to california boy. That appears to be showing distrust of someone's claim on where they're from. 

Where did he claim that? 

How was I supposed to know where he lives. He doesn't use his own name or anything.  I was asking because I didn't know if he knew anything about Proposition 8.

Edited August 31, 2020 by mfbukowski