Twenty Years after Paradigms Regained, Part 2 up at Interpreter

[mfbukowski]

Here's a quote from Robert C. Solomon who's views helped me eventually to find the church and see how it was "rational"- and all this relates as well to Kuhn

Quote

 

The passions: emotions and the meaning of life[edit]

Solomon developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions as moral judgements about reality that inherently manifest a natural, pre-deliberative logic. As such, they are susceptible to rational appraisal and revision no less than our beliefs and propositions, and furthermore to strategic ethical reasoning. Emotions should not be suppressed or repressed by efforts at philosophic rationalism, which suffers a withering critique under his analysis, calling it "emasculated" and "absurd". It is our passions, according to R.Solomon, and not our reason, which are capable of demonstrating to us the meaning and purpose of life.[1] Every emotion has an purpose or goal, even those that seem stupid or painful. Although the objects and strategies differ with each emotion, person, and relationship,[2] the natural purpose of each is to maximize human dignity, the good for oneself and for humankind. Regarding the "air of paradox surrounding an attempt by philosophy to deal with the passions" and the "certain irony that surrounds an attempt by philosophy to deal with the question of the meaning of life", Solomon asks, "is not philosophy, itself, the problem?". Romeo's conclusion constitutes his premise: "Hang up philosophy! Unless philosophy can make a Juliet."[3][4]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon

I ain't dreamin' this stuff up, folks.

This is Alma 32.  Truth is "sweet".  Actual contenporary philosophy in the BOM.

It WAS written for today, you know.

 

 

[pogi]

On 2/7/2023 at 12:25 PM, Islander said:

That is post-modernism at its best and it has no place when the word of God is concerned.

I disagree. If all scripture is subject o interpretation then it is worthless and does mean anything. Since, according to you, it is subject to interpretation then it could mean anything to anybody and lacks any objective, intrinsic value. Either God has spoken of He has not. Either what He says means what He intended to mean to the people He is talking to at that point. 

We must be careful not to confuse understanding with interpretation. We tend to use it interchangeably but they are not the same. In the case of a literary device like an allegory or a parable we must "interpret" the meaning because it is veiled by the story line. But the meaning of the allegory is ONE. You are not free to "interpret" it as you see fit. Like in the case in 1 Ne 8. Nephi said: "I desire to behold the things which my father saw." He did not launched his own "interpretation" of the dream. He wanted to know the actual meaning of the dream, what God intended for them to know. in 1 Ne 11:16-18 we read: "

"And he [the angel] said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I [Nephi] said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." There. The angel "interprets/explains" the actual meaning of the vision; what in fact signifies, what is, in reality, what Nephi is seeing. Nephi did not go out on a limb to speculate, explore or infer on his own what the meaning of the vision was in this case.

Forgive me, but you can not (without running afoul) stretch a passage to "interpret" what you "think/feel/believe" when it comes to the Word of God. That is just bad theology and can lead to the worse kinds of scriptural misunderstandings. All heresies begin that way. 

But, like I said before, you already made up your mind.

While I tend to agree with you that evidence of temple themes in the BoM is lacking enough to where I don't personally believe in and can't support the idea - that is entirely based on my subjective interpretation of scripture.  Scriptures are words.  There is no "objective" or "intrinsic value" or meaning with words.   While there may have been a specific meaning intended by the author, the only possible method of discovery of that meaning for ourselves is entirely subjective.  It is also entirely possible that the author/prophet may not have fully understood the holistic purpose and holistic meaning in those words themselves.  Nephi's understanding and perspective of what the angel revealed to him in interpreting the vision could evolve and change over time.  It is also entirely possible that the angel could have been withholding some information until Nephi was more prepared for it - in a line upon line, sort of way.  There is not just one way to interpret what the angel said, after all. We feel our way to the meaning.  That is scriptural!  We follow the subjective impressions of the spirit.  We feel the sprouting and growth of the seed, and taste of the fruits.   It is through these subjective means that we come to believe that we hold a good seed and interpret it in a way that is pleasing to God.  I don't believe for a second that there is only one right way to interpret scripture, as you suggest.   I believe that as we progress through different stages of spiritual development and learning, the word of God can take on new meaning, and they all may be right for us at that specific time - pointing us forward in a very personalized way.  What may be valuable for spiritual direction at one point in our lives may have served its purpose and take on new and different meanings later in our life in ways that are also delicious and even more spiritually valuable.   I don't anticipate that process of reinterpreting the word of God to ever stop until we have all the words of God, and all good seeds, to interpret them in the holistic context of absolute perspective. 

Imagine the seeds (words of God) like pixels.  A yellow pixel in isolation from other pixels will appear yellow to us.  That perspective may serve a good purpose for us at one point in our life, and appear edifying and "delicious" to us.  As we learn "line upon line and precept upon precept" new pixels are thrown into the mix and a blue pixel may land next to the yellow pixel, causing them both to appear green from our perspective.  The old seed (word) takes on new meaning -- and it is no less true.   It is our perspective and quantity of pixels that we personally receive from God, and their relationship with each other that gives meaning and understanding to these things.   As our perspective evolves and new pixels are received, old understandings (that were once true and useful to us) evolve into new understandings.  This process will continue on until we have an absolute perspective of all pixels in their holistic state as we become God's ourselves, one with the all-seeing-eye.    At no point along the way (so long as we are doing our best to align with God's spiritual direction as we cling to the rod of iron) can we say that our understanding is or was untrue for us, rather it is unwhole and incomplete and always will be until we are Gods.  To pretend like we can absolutely know with absolute certainty the holistic purpose/meaning of any seed in isolation from the whole is to limit our humility and prevent us from progression in spiritual learning and broadening of our perspective.  

The value and meaning of scripture is entirely subjective along every step of the way.  The truth of scripture is not static and linear, it is fluid and malleable to our understanding and relationship with it.  What I can't see right now in relation to temple themes in the BoM may be true and good for me now, but I am open to the idea that that may change later as I evolve and grow spiritually, and that perspective will be true (but not whole) too. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by pogi

[manol]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I believe the Lord speaks to us through scripture as we progress through different stages of spiritual development and learning.  What may be valuable for spiritual direction at one point in our lives may have served its purpose and take on new and different meanings later in our life in ways that are also delicious and even more spiritually valuable.   I don't anticipate that process of reinterpreting the word of God to ever stop until we have all the words of God, and all good seeds, to interpret them in the holistic context of absolute perspective. 

Agreed!   Layers of meaning is a characteristic of scriptural teachings which may not be apparent at first glance.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Imagine the seeds (words of God) like pixels.  A yellow pixel in isolation from other pixels will appear yellow to us.  That perspective may serve a good purpose for at one point in our life, and appear edifying and "delicious" to us.  As we learn "line upon line and precept upon precept" new pixels are thrown into the mix and a blue pixel may land next to the yellow pixel, causing them both to appear green from our perspective.  The old seed (word) takes on new meaning -- and it is no less true.   It is our perspective and quantity of pixels that we personally receive from God that gives meaning and understanding to these things.   As our perspective evolves and new pixels are received, old understandings (that were once true and useful to us) evolve into new understandings.  This process will continue on until we have an absolute perspective of all pixels in their holistic state as we become God's ourselves, one with the all-seeing-eye.    At no point along the way can we say that our understanding is untrue for us, rather it is unwhole and incomplete and always will be until we are Gods. 

I think your Pixel Analogy is excellent. 

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

To pretend like we can absolutely know with absolute certainty the holistic purpose/meaning of any seed in isolation from the whole is limit our humility and prevent us from progression in spiritual learning and broadening of our perspective.  

Yes!   When we decide we already know all there is to know about something, we close the door on receiving greater light and knowledge.  But all it takes is a little willingness and we become teachable again, like the little children we presently are relative to what we may become. 

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

 While there may have been a specific meaning intended by the author, the only possible method of discovery of that meaning for ourselves is entirely subjective.  We feel our way to the meaning.  That is scriptural!  We follow the subjective impressions of the spirit.  We feel the sprouting and growth of the seed, and taste of the fruits.   It is through these subjective means that we come to believe that we hold a good seed and interpret it in a way that is pleasing to God.  I don't believe for a second that there is only one right way to interpret scripture...

I think Nephi expressed this approach when he told his readers to "liken the scriptures unto yourselves".   Although he hadn't yet read Nephi's advice, young Joseph Smith likened the fifth verse of the first chapter of James unto himself... and the rest, as they say, is history.  

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Typical. When all else fail, attack! 

Whatever, Dude.  Details matter.  As soon as you're willing to take the time to get the small stuff right, I'll consider giving your take(s) on the big stuff a fair hearing.  Something tells me, though, that I shouldn't hold my breath.

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/7/2023 at 9:55 AM, Islander said:

Got the e-book during Covid. It is primarily a commentary. The narrative is elegant but all that Don Bradley does is refer to "echoes and element of Jewishness". There is absolutely nothing that he can put his finger on that points, decidedly, to a clearly defined temple "ceremony" either in the BoM or any other source. He keeps making reference to "elements that points to..." That is a far cry from what can be called "evidence".

Some friends enjoyed the book, I admit. The difference is that they were satisfied with the possibilities and the inferences. I am a researcher in the health sciences by trade. I am not persuaded by ethereal possibilities based on speculation and farfetched reference loops. We are not talking about faith here. This is just a well intended faith-promoting exercise but it strays too far out into the speculative for my taste.

Oh, I think he does much more than that.  I own the book, so something tells me that gives me a rather sizable edge on many of Brother Bradley's critics: "Own it?  Why, I haven't even reviewed it yet!"  I just moved and I've got scads of books boxed up, including that one ...

[Kevin Christensen]

Islander said

Quote

That is post-modernism at its best and it has no place when the word of God is concerned.

I disagree. If all scripture is subject o interpretation then it is worthless and does mean anything. Since, according to you, it is subject to interpretation then it could mean anything to anybody and lacks any objective, intrinsic value. Either God has spoken of He has not. Either what He says means what He intended to mean to the people He is talking to at that point. 

It's important to understand what post-modernism is, beyond an epithet of dismissal.  I like Alan Goff's comment that Post Modernism began when Modernism turned it's skeptical eye on itself.  

Many years ago, I saw a bumper sticker that said, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."  I soon realized that it expressed the same attitude as Positivism, which basically says, "The data said it. Experiments proved it. That settles it."

What both statements have as a common root is that no interpretation is involved, that the crucial facts are self interpreting, and are, and should somehow be, the same to all observers. That shows a desire always actually and finally know things (as Alma 32 puts it) with absolute certainty, to therefore have a rhetorical advantage in all arguments, as opposed to having to settle for "cause to believe" that something is real, despite imperfect knowledge, and an obligation to continually nourish the seed.  

Two of my favorite scriptural stories on interpretation are Joseph Smith's comment that "the different teachers of religion understood the same passages of scripture do differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

That, I submit, is a wonderfully Post-Modern insight.

Jesus got there long ago, and after telling the parable of the sower, in which the same seed (metaphorically, words, in this case, words being verbal symbols for ideas, thoughts, sounds, etc.) produces vastly different harvests, when the Disciples don't seem to get it and ask for interpretation he asks, "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Context,  soil, nurture, time, all make a difference in the harvest. That, I submit, is another wonderfully post-modern insight.  As is the passage in the Gospel of Phillip which is translated as "We enter into truth through despised symbols."  Alphabets, words, both verbal and written, metaphors, art, drama, math systems and symbols, novels, movies, are all symbols, all pointing to something else in an imperfect way that they do not, and cannot ever, fully contain and define.  Yet, as Alma insists, we can know that something is real, despite not having perfect knowledge.  As a small child I visited the Cleveland Lloyd dinosaur quarry, saw the bones in the rocks, and knew the bones were real.  Despite not having any sort of perfect understanding, and now looking back on many radical changes in the ways the dinosaurs themselves are understood, a child could know that the bones were real.

Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion has this, which I've quoted often.

Critical Realism
(1) Theory influences observation with the result that all data are to some degree theory-laden. Although proponents of
rival theories inevitably talk through each other to a degree, adherents "of rival theories can seek a common core of overlap ... to which both can retreat." 

(2) Comprehensive theories are highly resistant to falsification, but observation exerts some control over them.

(3) There are no rules for choice between paradigms but there are criteria of assessment independent of particular paradigms.

Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn both identify essentially the same criteria of assessment.  Using them, a person can decide that what they have tested and nourished via personal experiment is real, but that their knowledge is not perfect.

I periodically cite the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, and have argued in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9, part of which includes this statement: 

Quote

He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71964-the-perry-scheme-for-cognitive-and-ethical-growth/#comments

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 9, 2023 by Kevin Christensen
grammar

[mfbukowski]

On 2/3/2023 at 11:05 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

A long title, lots of Kuhn and Barker, dealing with some critics including the 2021 BYU Studies essay, and 205 endnotes.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/twenty-years-after-paradigms-regained-part-2-responding-to-margaret-barkers-critics-and-why-her-work-should-matter-to-latter-day-saints/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, I feel an urgency to share this with you, and others, but you are the one who can do the best with it- it changed my life

Written for a Catholic audience, this is one of my profs from CUNY

Please read it.

Toward a reconstruction of religion; a philosophical probe https://a.co/d/j17A7kv

[mfbukowski]

Finally had time to read your article, the BEST destruction of Riskas I have seen by far.  I skimmed his tirade when it first came out, and dismissed it when I saw the whole thing was based on Positivism?

Really? While using the word "Deconstruction"? Taking the "name" of Derrida in vain? 

I put it down and never picked it up again!

It's an essay that deeply needed to be written- some folks are still taking Riskas seriously, and other positivists.

Their entire assumption is circular- that "truth" must be backed up by empirical evidence- while yet the assertion itself that:

" 'truth' must be backed up by empirical evidence"

is itself NOT backed up by empirical evidence !

The assertion itself is no less taken on faith than "God lives in yonder heavens" !!

Thanks!

We all need to read Interpreter more and doc Peterson as well.

And I think we need to see Kuhn in the context of Pragmatism, using concepts developed by Peirce, James, Dewey, Wittgenstein and others like Rorty, all of whom saw religious belief as intellectually and logically justified, yet were not themselves "churchgoers".

Ironically if they had had the right missionaries they might have seen the potential of "Mormonism" ( their time, their vernacular) to fit their philosophies well.  Rorty's wife was raised LDS, he had a "home teacher" and in discussions about religion he often used a fictional female "Catholic professor" to show how religion was justified.

It is my personal belief that these are the postmodern "latter days" for which Alma 32 was written. 

Joseph's translation of Alma precedes anything like postmodernism, by decades, yet the pragmatic and postmodern spirit taught by Kuhn is clearly represented in the idea that the "truth" is useful and sweet.

I think THESE kinds of discussions are what Latter Day Saints need desperately. 

These ARE the days for which Alma wrote, and there is a historical discussion there yet to be done about how contemporary AMERICAN philosophy as well as Continental phenomenology both culminate in a very congenial environment for the Church of Jesus Christ if we but see it and use it

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Finally had time to read your article, the BEST destruction of Riskas I have seen by far.  I skimmed his tirade when it first came out, and dismissed it when I saw the whole thing was based on Positivism?

Really? While using the word "Deconstruction"? Taking the "name" of Derrida in vain? 

I put it down and never picked it up again!

It's an essay that deeply needed to be written- some folks are still taking Riskas seriously, and other positivists.

Their entire assumption is circular- that "truth" must be backed up by empirical evidence- while yet the assertion itself that:

" 'truth' must be backed up by empirical evidence"

is itself NOT backed up by empirical evidence !

The assertion itself is no less taken on faith than "God lives in yonder heavens" !!

Thanks!

We all need to read Interpreter more and doc Peterson as well.

And I think we need to see Kuhn in the context of Pragmatism, using concepts developed by Peirce, James, Dewey, Wittgenstein and others like Rorty, all of whom saw religious belief as intellectually and logically justified, yet were not themselves "churchgoers".

Ironically if they had had the right missionaries they might have seen the potential of "Mormonism" ( their time, their vernacular) to fit their philosophies well.  Rorty's wife was raised LDS, he had a "home teacher" and in discussions about religion he often used a fictional female "Catholic professor" to show how religion was justified.

It is my personal belief that these are the postmodern "latter days" for which Alma 32 was written. 

Joseph's translation of Alma precedes anything like postmodernism, by decades, yet the pragmatic and postmodern spirit taught by Kuhn is clearly represented in the idea that the "truth" is useful and sweet.

I think THESE kinds of discussions are what Latter Day Saints need desperately. 

These ARE the days for which Alma wrote, and there is a historical discussion there yet to be done about how contemporary AMERICAN philosophy as well as Continental phenomenology both culminate in a very congenial environment for the Church of Jesus Christ if we but see it and use it

 

 

Thanks Mark.  Somehow I'd assumed that you'd read "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" my response to Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism back in 2013. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

I wrote essay that because Kerry Shirts had been so upended by it and had reviewed it on Amazon saying so and claiming no viable LDS response was possible.  I'd thought we had a thread on it here, but perhaps not, or I just haven't found it.  My wife was initially a bit worried what it might do to me, until I read this passage aloud:

Quote

The style of the analytical parts of this book is, for the most part, more formal and scholarly, with at times extensive footnoting and quotations and, in places, the use of elaborate sentences and redundancy. This is so both deliberately, and necessarily, given the nature of and implications of the arguments made, the conclusions reached, and their importance to the overall purpose of this book. More specifically in this regard, the nature of this work is necessarily complex, and the central argument made is sophisticated and, in certain aspects, nuanced, even counterintuitive. These facts required a necessary level of detail, and again, redundancy, not only to offer as clear and unambiguous an explication as I could economically provide, but also to anticipate and forestall, as best I could, inappropriate generalizations and irrelevant counter arguments. 

Yep.  My own formal response to that passage was:

Quote

Forgive me, but I find this bit of writing both hilarious and accurate, especially with regard to redundancy, the tendency to being “difficult, and cumbersome” and “again, redundancy.” In his Anatomy of Criticism, Northrop Frye says, “We may observe that much of the difficulty in a philosophical style is rhetorical in origin, resulting from a feeling that it is necessary to detach and isolate the intellect from the emotions.”45 When I was working on my English degree many years ago, I chanced upon a book called Simple and Direct by Jacques Barzun. No one who reads Riskas would conclude that he had read Barzun. I also read Language in Thought and Action by S. I. Hayakawa, who observed that much academic, legal, and philosophical writing is dreadfully dull and difficult because it tends to get stuck at single levels of abstraction, rather than moving from general concepts, down to increasingly to specific details, and back up again to general principles. Reading Riskas reminded me again how I am grateful for what I learned from Hayakawa.

I do wish I'd been able to get Kerry to read Ian Barbour's Myths, Modes and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.  I used that a lot in responding to Riskas, since Barbour is elegantly clear and articulate on the social history and intellectual weakness of Positivism, and of course, as you observed, that Riskas is selling "off-the-rack" positivism. So the abstract of my lengthy essay is:

 

Quote

Abstract: Riskas’s Desconstructing Mormonism claims that believers are trapped in a box for which the instructions for how to get out are written on the outside of the box. He challenges believers to submit to an outsider test for faith. But how well does Riskas describe the insider test? And is his outsider test, which turns out to be positivism, just a different box with the instructions for how to get out written on its outside? Ian Barbour’s Myths Models and Paradigms provides instructions on how to get out of the positivistic box that Riskas offers, and at the same time provides an alternate outsider test that Mormon readers can use to assess what Alma refers to as “cause to believe.”

I thought it was also fascinating that Riskas provided the means for me to do a Derrida-style deconstruction.

Quote

Here is another point where Derridian deconstruction comes in. Despite his chronic complaints about the toxic effects that such authoritarian parenting and religious instruction can cause, Riskas asks why God does not “use his putative power to more directly, efficiently, and tellingly to accomplish his alleged purposes and promote the required and necessary knowledge of his existence as theologically conceived?”38 And why, he asks “the absence of divine intervention by notably and consistently stopping or even significantly reducing or eliminating and/or at least explaining, through personal revelation, this god’s specific reasons for allowing such human and natural evil.”39 Later he asks rhetorically, “Wouldn’t he unquestionably and irrefutably, beyond all doubt, establish up front – through demonstration, coherent explanation, and facilitated understanding, – god’s [Page 129]and his [Christ’s] existence and divinity, god’s gospel, and god’s mind and will and word once and for all to all mankind?”40

Why, Riskas seems to be asking – without realizing either the fact or the implications – why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s? A parent, a society, or a religion that behaves that way, Riskas says, is toxic, and a God who does not behave that way somehow demonstrates non-existence. Imagine living in a universe, or for that matter with a parent, for whom efficiency and not love was the first and great value upon which all else stands, before which every other concern must be compromised. In a conflict of values, freedom and love bow to efficiency. Does that sound like paradise? From my perspective, his system deconstructs.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 13, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks Mark.  Somehow I'd assumed that you'd read "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" my response to Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism back in 2013. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

I wrote essay that because Kerry Shirts had been so upended by it and had reviewed it on Amazon saying so and claiming no viable LDS response was possible.  I'd thought we had a thread on it here, but perhaps not, or I just haven't found it.  My wife was initially a bit worried what it might do to me, until I read this passage aloud:

Yep.  My own formal response to that passage was:

I do wish I'd been able to get Kerry to read Ian Barbour's Myths, Modes and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.  I used that a lot in responding to Riskas, since Barbour is elegantly clear and articulate on the social history and intellectual weakness of Positivism, and of course, as you observed, that Riskas is selling "off-the-rack" positivism. So the abstract of my lengthy essay is:

 

I thought it was also fascinating that Riskas provided the means for me to do a Derrida-style deconstruction.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yes actually I was working with Kerry too, and I do remember that now that you mention it.  I have notes from those days I will have to check.!  Getting old! I really liked his stuff until he took Riska's hook, line, and scripture AS scripture  

[mfbukowski]

@Kevin Christensen

I also love /loved your scholarly mentions of the Perry Scheme in which you show that intellectual maturity and the ability to accept relativism and uncertainty, even unresolved uncertainty, in establishing a commitment to an intellectual path or paradigm is THE hallmark of intellectual maturity.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Why, Riskas seems to be asking – without realizing either the fact or the implications – why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s? A parent, a society, or a religion that behaves that way, Riskas says, is toxic, and a God who does not behave that way somehow demonstrates non-existence. Imagine living in a universe, or for that matter with a parent, for whom efficiency and not love was the first and great value upon which all else stands, before which every other concern must be compromised. In a conflict of values, freedom and love bow to efficiency. Does that sound like paradise? From my perspective, his system deconstructs.

INDEED!! 

😉😉

Totally self contradictory.

btw, I haven't used that word "indeed" seriously in years  👍

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

wrote essay that because Kerry Shirts had been so upended by it and had reviewed it on Amazon saying so and claiming no viable LDS response was possible.  I'd thought we had a thread on it here, but perhaps not, or I just haven't found it.

I remember it and will try and find it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I remember it and will try and find it.

 

[Calm]

This is the only one I found focusing on it, some others  had asides….

 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

This is what I get for taking a walk down memory lane…someone else crossing the finish line first, lol.  It was later than I thought (2015) though, but I don’t believe threads have been deleted as they were earlier when the board got too big, so this one does seem to be the best and maybe only candidate as the others lacked extended conversation on this subject.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This is what I get for taking a walk down memory lane…someone else crossing the finish line first, lol.  ...

  Jinx!   

Sorry!   Couldn't resist!  Carry on!  

[mfbukowski]

The length of the book is  irrelevant when the central thesis is a logical fallacy.

So sad that this caused so many problems for uninformed folks who weigh a book by its.... weight.

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The length of the book is  irrelevant when the central thesis is a logical fallacy.

So sad that this caused so many problems for uninformed folks who weigh a book by its.... weight.

 

How dare you dismiss such a weighty tome?!     I'm sure that the author was carried away on flights of fancy by the wings of his own verbosity, and desired to take his readers on the [Ahem!] soaring journey with him!   

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

INDEED!! 

😉😉

Totally self contradictory.

btw, I haven't used that word "indeed" seriously in years  👍

 

Incidentally, on the topic of ' why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s?" science fiction writer Jack Williamson produced a novella and two novels on exactly the kind of society you get under the conditions that Riskas asks God to provide in order to demonstrate his existence and benevolence and to eliminate the need for faith: "With Folded Hands," "The Humanoids" and "The Humanoid Touch", all dystopian nightmares from which you are relieved to wake from but which haunt you ever after.   The Will Smith I, Robot movie (which looks fantastic in my 3d Blu ray) applies the logic of the Humanoids to an Isaac Asimov title.  The humanoids' directive is to "guard people from harm" which in their care, leaves humanity with literally nothing to do but sit "with folded hands."   The only emotionally positive moment I got from a humanoid in a science fiction story is a cross-over one Fred Saberhagen did, in a scenario where he brought the toxically benevolent humanoids into his Berserker universe, a story called "The Bad Machines", written for an anthology honoring Williamson.  The Berserker stories are about human encounters with robots designed as a doomsday weapon that treats life as a disease of matter.   When the humanoids guarding humans on a space station from a berserker incursion decide that the battle is going poorly, and they had better allow the humans in their care to put on some powered suits for self protection, the first act of the humans is to look at each other and wordlessly agree to rip the humanoids to pieces.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 14, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2023 at 4:16 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

You can't even be bothered to get the man's name right.  Please pardon me if I don't put much stock in your assessment of what he has written.   

Dude. A spelling error is hardly evidence against his point. If I called you Kenngo1968 would you disregard whatever I was trying to say?

Note that I'm not saying anything about his point. I don't have a dog in this particular fight, just observing the contention out of curiosity.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Incidentally, on the topic of ' why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s?" science fiction writer Jack Williamson produced a novella and two novels on exactly the kind of society you get under the conditions that Riskas asks God to provide in order to demonstrate his existence and benevolence and to eliminate the need for faith: "With Folded Hands," "The Humanoids" and "The Humanoid Touch", all dystopian nightmares from which you are relieved to wake from but which haunt you ever after.   The Will Smith I, Robot movie (which looks fantastic in my 3d Blu ray) applies the logic of the Humanoids to an Isaac Asimov title.  The humanoids' directive is to "guard people from harm" which in their care, leaves humanity with literally nothing to do but sit "with folded hands."   The only emotionally positive moment I got from a humanoid in a science fiction story is a cross-over one Fred Saberhagen did, in a scenario where he brought the toxically benevolent humanoids into his Berserker universe, a story called "The Bad Machines", written for an anthology honoring Williamson.  The Berserker stories are about human encounters with robots designed as a doomsday weapon that treats life as a disease of matter.   When the humanoids guarding humans on a space station from a berserker incursion decide that the battle is going poorly, and they had better allow the humans in their care to put on some powered suits for self protection, the first act of the humans is to look at each other and wordlessly agree to rip the humanoids to pieces.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Fascinating how many diverse examples of this theme can be found!

Two come to my mind immediately, the first of course is the story of Satan's plan of protecting all of God's children by eliminating agency.

I also remember the exact, beautiful cadence of the spoken words of my professor of Dialectical Materialism, when I was at UCLA as an undergrad,  Angela Davis, speaking of the importance of "correct belief" in the inevitability of the triumph of Socialism- (the final perfect utopia as envisioned by Karl Marx, not the usual meaning of "Socialism" as we use it now.)   We must not be deluded, she would insist, by an "incorrect understanding" of the evils of capitalism, and its child, imperialism.  The eventual triumph of Utopian Socialism was of course inevitable, and a kind of heaven on earth would prevail.

Oddly of course, dialectical thought is precisely what Joseph called "proving contraries" but for Marx and Lenin it meant a war of the Proletariat against the ruling classes.  Yet both derive from dialectical thought.

When I first heard the story of the war in heaven- all the parallels immediately clicked.  To me it was another evidence of the genius of Joseph Smith as a human "prophet" and the power of interpretation, and how a theme like this can teach many kinds of principles.

Edited February 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Dude. A spelling error is hardly evidence against his point. If I called you Kenngo1968 would you disregard whatever I was trying to say?

Note that I'm not saying anything about his point. I don't have a dog in this particular fight, just observing the contention out of curiosity.

I stand by my contention.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to get the small details right if he wishes to inspire me to trust his evaluation of the big ones (especially not when getting the small details right requires nothing, essentially, beyond a ten-second Google search).  Go ahead and call me pedantic and unfair if you wish.  (You wouldn't be the first! )

P.S.: Also, since "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (but simply, in your case, perhaps to reassure you that I am "an equal-opportunity critic"), I'm not just a pedantic "stickler for details": I don't spare even long and detailed treatments criticism when, in my assessment, the basic logic of those treatments is flawed.  See the discussion between @mfbukowski and me about Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I stand by my contention.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to get the small details right if he wishes to inspire me to trust his evaluation of the big ones (especially not when getting the small details right requires nothing, essentially, beyond a ten-second Google search).  Go ahead and call me pedantic and unfair if you wish.  (You wouldn't be the first! )

P.S.: Also, since "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (but simply, in your case, perhaps to reassure you that I am "an equal-opportunity critic"), I'm not just a pedantic "stickler for details": I don't spare even long and detailed treatments criticism when, in my assessment, the basic logic of those treatments is flawed.  See the discussion between @mfbukowski and me about Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism.

OK, if you want, I'll call you pedantic and unfair.  

But if you disagree with him, why not address the points/issues that you have a problem with, in addition to calling attention to his lack of attention in spelling, rather than instead of an actual disagreements? It comes across as a red herring.

But what do I know...

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to get the small details right if he wishes to inspire me to trust his evaluation of the big ones

This is an especially odd take for you, who frequently takes posters to task for making someone “an offender for a word”. See here for one instance: