Ahab Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 On 8/29/2020 at 1:17 PM, bdouglas said: Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal. So: let the battle commence. That's pretty much the reason. There must needs be opposition in ALL things. Neutrality is possible only when a person doesn't know much about something and doesn't really have an opinion about it either way, and then once that person learns more about they start to form an opinion about it. i have noticed that when a person begins to love something they then generally hate the opposite of that, whatever that is. Like how loving righteousness leads to a hatred of sin. Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God, on at least some occasions, or he was a dirty rotten scoundrel who was intentionally trying to mislead people into believing he had received messages from God and angels when he didn't. Anytime anyone asks someone where they stand on an issue they will usually tell you themselves which side of an issue they are on. We are either on God's side of an issue, or we are on Satan's side of that issue. The middle ground is for people who haven't figured out yet which side of an issue they are on.
JamesBYoung Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 Ahab, this is an opinion: "Neutrality is possible only when a person doesn't know much about something and doesn't really have an opinion about it either way, and then once that person learns more about they start to form an opinion about it." Read Bushman, Blythe, Johnson, C. C. Smith, Metcalfe. They represent different places on the faith spectrum, and they are all fairly neutral and objective.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 31, 2020 Popular Post Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) On the notion of objectivity, Peter Novik, author of That Noble Dream, addressed a gathering of LDS scholars at a Sunstone (I have a transcript), and offered this: Quote For historians, even more than scientists, a fetishism of “the fact” is one of the hallmarks of the objectivist consciousness. While, early on, historians were confident that they could achieve historical objectivity, later, more chastened generations regarded it as perhaps unattainable but continued to hold it out as an approachable ideal. The conception remained the same: to approximate, if not reach, a neutral, undistorting mirror of the past. An objective account would at least attempt to account for all of the evidence. The goal of the objective historian, even if one could not quite achieve it, was to tell it like it was — if not without preconceptions, with as few as possible, minimizing as much as possible any ulterior didactic motives. Even if one could not completely eliminate partisanship or bias, one could try to keep what remained under as tight a control as possible. If one could not eliminate outside influences, one would struggle against them with all one’s strength. But above all — and if I repeat myself, it is because it bears repetition — the objective historian was to cleave to one goal and one goal only, mirroring to the best of her powers the past as it really was. That is the Noble Dream. The reality is this: Quote I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there. One of the things that led to Novick being invited to Sunstone was the publication Midgley's essay on "No Middle Ground." https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/no-middle-ground-debate-over-authenticity-book-mormon It turned out that those who invited Novick to speak hadn't actually read That Noble Dream: Objectivity and the American History Profession, but had just assumed from the title that he would be on their side. His citation and approval of Midgley's grasp of the situation came as a shock to many in the audience. So Sunstone never published the essay they commissioned by a nationally important scholar. Did that silencing demonstrate "neutrality" or objectivity, or an ideology? So where does that leave us? In an fascinating essay at Millenial Star a few years back, Meg Stout brought up the conclusions of a failed libel suit brought by a Holocaust Denier against a scholar who exposed the fallicy of his case. Quote The trial was the first time a legal standard was established for historical objectivity. For those of us who don’t have time to master all 334 pages, Wendie E. Schneider distilled the ruling into seven concise principles: 1) Treat all sources with appropriate reservations. This is a principle too often ignored in treatments of Mormon history. One can often predict the leanings of a historian by which sources they will include without critical review and which sources they will pretend don’t even exist. 2) Don’t dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration. This is not to say that flawed evidence can’t be dismissed, rather that the doubting historian must produce scholarly rationale for ignoring inconvenient data. 3) Be even-handed in treatment of evidence. We see this often in Mormon history. Critics of Joseph Smith will ignore Joseph’s own statements or the statements of his friends, even when those friends weren’t Mormons themselves. Conversely, some will only hear what Joseph Smith said and ignore the truth if told by someone who fought against Joseph Smith. [Richard Bushman noted the tendency of those critical of Joseph Smith to ignore the primary sources closest to Joseph Smith. Later, in the FARMS Review Larry Morris wrote an insightful review of Vogel's Joseph Smith biography, showing that despite having gathered five important and useful volumes of primary sources, when writing about key moments Vogel ignored the eye-witnesses and relied on his ideologically determined imagination of "what must have happened." Kevin C. comment.] 4) Identify speculation when suggesting conclusions. I recall noticing consistent projection of certainty in Mormon Enigma, when discussing matters that no one can know with certainty. This blog post is too short to list all the works flawed by inadequate use of the subjunctive case. 5) Correctly transcribe or translate documents. An egregious example of this with respect to Mormon history is Michael Quinn’s transcription of the ecclesiastical trial of Joseph Ellis Johnson. It is not that what was transcribed was not correct. It is that the framing context of that trial was omitted, obfuscating which “Joseph” frigged Joseph Ellis Johnson’s mother-in-law, Mary Heron [Snyder]. In particular, insufficient notice was paid to the presence of Joseph Kelly, who was escorted to Salt Lake City in an express company with Joseph Ellis Johnson. Quinn and his respondents, such as Brian Hales, have not considered this, leading them to presume the Joseph named as frigging Mary Heron must have been Joseph Smith. Omissions should not change the meaning of the extracted information. Yet in the case of the Joseph Ellis Johnson case, the omission of context has completely changed how this document is understood, as seen by the number of lists where Mary Heron’s name can be found as not only Joseph Smith’s plural wife, but a known conjugal wife. 6) Weigh the authenticity of all accounts. A child might stick their fingers in their ears and scream “I’m not listening!” A conscientious historian must never commit equivalent childishness. I witnessed this when the initial Tailhook scandal broke. The women in my office in a Navy facility were highly critical of the then un-named woman claiming to have been sexually assaulted. A more seemly response would have been to wait and see. 7) Consider the motives of historical actors. Properly understood, all historical data is good data. When a known liar tells you there is no money in the safe, this communication is a valuable hint regarding the possible location of the money. ... https://www.millennialstar.org/denial/ I've often cited Kuhn and Barbour and Goff on the importance of being self-critical regarding the impact of one's own starting ideology and lack of omniscience, and taking care to use criteria of criticism that are not completely ideologically dependent, and self referential. But Jesus got it precisely right when he said we ought to examine our own eye for beams before starting, [certainly before demonizing the opposition as "Not us!" and therefore, wrong without argument] and "Then shall ye see clearly." We are involved in a process, rather than a contest. Notice following all these principles does not guarentee that a conclusion is objective or correct understanding of truth (knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come), but rather, that it provides a much more reliable process for making measurable progress in getting to truth. In fact, "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God," and hence, are subject to "continual repentance." Not once you have chosen a side, "repentance is for the other side." Hence, those participating in the discussion, if there are serious enough about truth to risk their preconceptions, rather than so insecure that they prefer to hide behind ideology and tribalism, ought to demonstrate these principles as well as acknowledge their own ideology and humananity? Think for a moment, about how various news sources and individuals report on current candidates for political office. Who relies on reliable sources, limits speculation, addresses counter arguments (rather than just ignoring, dismissing, or labeling them), and who prefers flattering words, one package loyalty, and cronyism, simply telling people, as Samuel the Lamanite put it, "Do this and do that, and ye shall not suffer...walk after the pride of your heart.. and because he speaketh flattering words unto,... ye will not find fault with him"? See Helaman 13. Anyone notice how slippery riches have become lately? And more than that, what catering to the desire for wealth actually costs? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-0009.12469 FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited September 1, 2020 by Kevin Christensen typo 5
Robert F. Smith Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: One man’s vaguery is another man’s nicety. 😉 Merriam-Webster, definitions 3 a fine point or distinction : subtlety the niceties of table manners; 4 careful attention to details : delicate exactness : precision; and 5 delicacy of taste or feeling : fastidiousness etymology: Middle English nicete, from Anglo-French niceté "foolishness" 2
Thinking Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 On 8/29/2020 at 2:17 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. Emphasis mine. 1. There are plenty of people who leave Mormonism and never look back. 2. Those who are engaged in the "battle" may not all have the same motives and feelings. For me, Mormonism surrounds me and I need a place to converse. 1
Ahab Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: Ahab, this is an opinion: "Neutrality is possible only when a person doesn't know much about something and doesn't really have an opinion about it either way, and then once that person learns more about they start to form an opinion about it." Everything people say is an opinion, right or wrong, true or not true Quote Read Bushman, Blythe, Johnson, C. C. Smith, Metcalfe. They represent different places on the faith spectrum, and they are all fairly neutral and objective. The faith spectrum is pretty much this: 0 - neutral, I don't really have much of an opinion on this specific issue, either way +1 - i think maybe this is true, maybe, but I'm not really sure about it. just kind of sure, maybe. Faith level +1 - 1 - i think maybe this is not true, maybe, but I'm not really sure about it. just kind of not sure, maybe. Faith level -1 +2 - i feel more sure than I did before that this is true, but I'm not still not totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level +2 - 2 - i feel more sure than I did before that this is not true, but I'm not still not totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level -2 +3 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is true, but I'm not still not totally totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level +3 - 3 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is not true, but I'm not still not totally totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level -3 +4 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is true, and I might even be willing to say that I know with absolute certainty that it is true, maybe. I'm not totally sure I would say I know it now though. Faith level +4 - 4 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is not true, and I might even be willing to say that I know with absolute certainty that it is not true, maybe. I'm not totally sure I would say I know it now though. Faith level -4 +5 - Okay, this is it. I'm at the pinnacle now. i feel totally sure, more than I did before that this is true, and I will even say that I know with absolute certainty that it is true. I don't see how I could possibly be even more sure about it. Faith level +5 - 5 - Okay, this is it. I'm at the pinnacle now. i feel totally sure, more than I did before that this is not true, and I will even say that I know with absolute certainty that it isn't true. I don't see how I could possibly be even more sure. Faith level -5 Or it could also look something like this: - 5 - Okay, this is it. I'm at the pinnacle now. i feel totally sure that this is not true, and I will even say that I know with absolute certainty that it isn't true. I don't see how I could possibly be even more sure. Faith level -5 - 4 - i feel really sure that this is not true, and I might even be willing to say that I know with absolute certainty that it is not true, maybe. I'm not totally sure I would say I know it isn't true now though. Faith level -4 - 3 - i feel pretty that this is not true, but I'm not still not totally totally sure about it. I'm just pretty sure it isn't true. Faith level -3 - 2 - i feel kind of sure that this is not true, but I'm not still not totally sure about it. I'm just kind of sure. Faith level -2 - 1 - i think maybe this is not true, maybe, but I'm not really sure about it. just maybe kind of not sure, maybe. Faith level -1 0 - neutral, I don't really have much of an opinion on this specific issue, either way +1 - i think maybe this is true, maybe, but I'm not really sure about it. just kind of sure, maybe. Faith level +1 +2 - i feel more sure than I did before that this is true, but I'm not still not totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level +2 +3 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is true, but I'm not still not totally totally sure about it. just pretty sure. Faith level +3 +4 - i feel even more sure than I did before that this is true, and I might even be willing to say that I know with absolute certainty that it is true, maybe. I'm not totally sure I would say I know it now though. Faith level +4 +5 - Okay, this is it. I'm at the pinnacle now. i feel totally sure than I did before that this is true, and I will even say that I know with absolute certainty that it is true. I don't see how I could possibly be even more sure about it. Faith level +5 Edited August 31, 2020 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 22 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: FWIW Worth? It is worth everything in every discipline know to humans! Every statement, sentence, thought, word, paradigm, story or theory comes out of a human brain, automatically partial to the survival of themselves and the human race and a thousand other prejudices, and it is time that we grow up and acknowledge it. Everyone has beliefs unique to the circumstances of their birth, upbringing, culture, education, intelligence, cognitive level, and an uncountable number of known and unknown variables. "Objectivity" is a myth. 1
alter idem Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. I'm afraid I don't see the irony in this. Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years, it's practiced in many countries around the world even today, though many reject it now. But marrying a man to a man or a woman to a woman, that's never happened in history, as far as I'm aware. Never, until just the last appx 20 years. The Holy Bible condoned Polygamy in certain cases, but no religions that I'm aware of have ever condoned same sex marriage, until the last 20 years, when some have allowed it. 2
california boy Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 2 hours ago, alter idem said: I'm afraid I don't see the irony in this. Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years, it's practiced in many countries around the world even today, though many reject it now. But marrying a man to a man or a woman to a woman, that's never happened in history, as far as I'm aware. Never, until just the last appx 20 years. The Holy Bible condoned Polygamy in certain cases, but no religions that I'm aware of have ever condoned same sex marriage, until the last 20 years, when some have allowed it. Read the Proclamation on the Family and how the Church currently defines marriage. The very least you should be able to accept is that there is not just one form of marriage. 1
InCognitus Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 22 minutes ago, california boy said: Read the Proclamation on the Family and how the Church currently defines marriage. The very least you should be able to accept is that there is not just one form of marriage. I just read the The Family Proclamation trying to get your point, and honestly, I don't see anything in the form of marriage described there that would disqualify polygamy. What did you have in mind? 3
Ahab Posted August 31, 2020 Posted August 31, 2020 33 minutes ago, california boy said: The very least you should be able to accept is that there is not just one form of marriage. Right. A correct form and any of the many incorrect forms. I wish that had been one of the more prominent points in that debate. It isn't that we lack in imagination when imagining a form of marriage. Our point was mainly that there is a right (as in righteous) way to be married to another person and any way that isn't that way isn't the right way to be married. And that is still our main point.
Bede Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 Of course @DBMormon will not show up here, but cover behind his Facebook echo chamber. He will continue to post memes but never actually engage.
alter idem Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 2 hours ago, california boy said: Read the Proclamation on the Family and how the Church currently defines marriage. The very least you should be able to accept is that there is not just one form of marriage. Okay, from the proclamation: "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God...' The church only contracts one kind of marriage--those which are 'ordained of God'; which is a union between a man and a woman. There is Same sex marriage now, which is legally recognized in the US. I accept the legal unions of my loved ones who have contracted same sex marriages in this life, and I'm happy that they are happy.
2BizE Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 Sense of Betrayal. That is the reason why former true believing Mormons seek to inform people about the church. In your example of your catholic wife....she didn’t spend her whole life eveloped in religion, seminary for 4 years, two years on a mission, temple marriage, hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours of time donated to the church....and then you find out the church hasn’t been faithful to you. The church didn’t teach you that Joseph had 14 year old wives, wives that were already married to other living men. The church didn’t teach that instead of using a urim and thumim, he used magic stones he had also used as a con artist (glass looker) to find lost treasure. If the church had taught this, it would have been in the missionary discussions....and then finding out these things...it is like coming home and finding your wife in bed with another man. Betrayal. And betrayal quickly builds animosity. However, I think John Dehlin and RFM are more interested in showing truths than they are lies. It won’t be long and the church will completely change its stance on the Book if Abraham. There is no alternative. Just like Joseph Fielding Smith denying Joseph Smith ever used a magic rock to dictate the Book of Mormon, now more modern prophets have taught that indeed he did. The same will happen with the BoM. Truth will eventually be taught. And that is what those “enemies of the church” are seeking: Truth.
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 9 hours ago, Ahab said: We are either on God's side of an issue, or we are on Satan's side of that issue. The middle ground is for people who haven't figured out yet which side of an issue they are on. So what is God's opinion on funko pops? I find I don't care one way or the other and so clearly I am just a wishy washy ignoramus who needs to either love or hate them depending on God and Satan's preference. So which is which? Also, can you clarify God's position on tie-dyed clothing, gyros, and whether a strong or weak mayor city structure is God's preferred method for local governance? Thanks in advance. 2
Meadowchik Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 8 hours ago, alter idem said: I'm afraid I don't see the irony in this. Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years, it's practiced in many countries around the world even today, though many reject it now. But marrying a man to a man or a woman to a woman, that's never happened in history, as far as I'm aware. Never, until just the last appx 20 years. The Holy Bible condoned Polygamy in certain cases, but no religions that I'm aware of have ever condoned same sex marriage, until the last 20 years, when some have allowed it. Parallels are still there, thus the irony. Mormons defied cultural norms and sought a form of marriage that society rejected.
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 57 minutes ago, 2BizE said: It won’t be long and the church will completely change its stance on the Book if Abraham. There is no alternative. Just like Joseph Fielding Smith denying Joseph Smith ever used a magic rock to dictate the Book of Mormon, now more modern prophets have taught that indeed he did. The same will happen with the BoM. Truth will eventually be taught. And that is what those “enemies of the church” are seeking: Truth. I hate to burst your bubble, but surprise! It's already out, and people with testimonies get it. If you have heard God's voice, you know how it sounds.
Meadowchik Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: I hate to burst your bubble, but surprise! It's already out, and people with testimonies get it. If you have heard God's voice, you know how it sounds. Other people with testimonies get it, too, and with a different conclusion. If history is any indication, there will always be someone who says they hear God better than you do. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Parallels are still there, thus the irony. Mormons defied cultural norms and sought a form of marriage that society rejected. But that the Bible blessed. So much for that parallel. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Other people with testimonies get it, too, and with a different conclusion. If history is any indication, there will always be someone who says they hear God better than you do. Good for them! What's your point? Where did I say that we have the only truth? Edited September 1, 2020 by mfbukowski
Tacenda Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. Okay, are you pulling my leg??? If anyone knows about Prop 8 it's california boy.
Meadowchik Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Where did I say that we have the only truth? 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I hate to burst your bubble, but surprise! It's already out, and people with testimonies get it. If you have heard God's voice, you know how it sounds. You sound like you're doing precisely that here, implying that the people who "get it" are the ones who know God's voice. It's comments like these which imo undermine your pages of philosophising, making all that effort appear to be for naught. Edited September 1, 2020 by Meadowchik
gopher Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 10 hours ago, 2BizE said: Sense of Betrayal. That is the reason why former true believing Mormons seek to inform people about the church. In your example of your catholic wife....she didn’t spend her whole life eveloped in religion, seminary for 4 years, two years on a mission, temple marriage, hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours of time donated to the church....and then you find out the church hasn’t been faithful to you. The church didn’t teach you that Joseph had 14 year old wives, wives that were already married to other living men. The church didn’t teach that instead of using a urim and thumim, he used magic stones he had also used as a con artist (glass looker) to find lost treasure. If the church had taught this, it would have been in the missionary discussions....and then finding out these things...it is like coming home and finding your wife in bed with another man. Betrayal. And betrayal quickly builds animosity. However, I think John Dehlin and RFM are more interested in showing truths than they are lies. It won’t be long and the church will completely change its stance on the Book if Abraham. There is no alternative. Just like Joseph Fielding Smith denying Joseph Smith ever used a magic rock to dictate the Book of Mormon, now more modern prophets have taught that indeed he did. The same will happen with the BoM. Truth will eventually be taught. And that is what those “enemies of the church” are seeking: Truth. Why do you think other true believing Mormons don't feel that betrayal and animosity you described when learning new, sometimes uncomfortable information about church history and Joseph Smith? Instead they feel that, wow, church history is much more interesting than what I was taught growing up! 1
Meadowchik Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, gopher said: Why do you think other true believing Mormons don't feel that betrayal and animosity you described when learning new, sometimes uncomfortable information about church history and Joseph Smith? Instead they feel that, wow, church history is much more interesting than what I was taught growing up! One can only speculate why others have responses different from their own.
Meadowchik Posted September 1, 2020 Posted September 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, gopher said: Why do you think other true believing Mormons don't feel that betrayal and animosity you described when learning new, sometimes uncomfortable information about church history and Joseph Smith? Instead they feel that, wow, church history is much more interesting than what I was taught growing up! 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: One can only speculate why others have responses different from their own. Also, do you think that it is right or wrong to feel the way you describe or the way 2BizE describes, or are they both valid responses?
Recommended Posts