Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Twenty Years after Paradigms Regained, Part 2 up at Interpreter


Recommended Posts

7 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

Perhaps consideration of the story of Simonds, I mean Symonds Ryder might be influential on how we perceive this issue.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps consideration of the story of Simonds, I mean Symonds Ryder might be influential on how we perceive this issue.

Your attempt at Board nannying (which, I thought, is supposed to be a violation of Board rules, but what do I know?) Is duly noted.  With due respect, I reject your comparison of me to Mr. Ryder.  You don't have any stewardship over me, and in any event, the comparison is inapt.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your attempt at Board nannying (which, I thought, is supposed to be a violation of Board rules, but what do I know?) Is duly noted.  With due respect, I reject your comparison of me to Mr. Ryder.  You don't have any stewardship over me, and in any event, the comparison is inapt.

Saying you’re breaking board rules is board nannying. Saying it’s dumb to quibble over a typo is no more board nannying than taking a poster to task for said typo. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Saying you’re breaking board rules is board nannying. Saying it’s dumb to quibble over a typo is no more board nannying than taking a poster to task for said typo. 

Thanks for defending me to the extent that you do so above.  (I hope you haven't robbed poor Pogi of any ammunition he was planning to use against me if he, for example, was planning to  accuse me of Board nannying when I pointed out Islander's misspelling of John Welch's surname!)  

To be clear, do I believe Islander's misspelling of Brother Welch's surname, in itself, is all that big of a deal?  No.  No, I don't.  However, does it provide grounds, potentially, to question how carefully Islander has considered Brother Welch's positions and arguments?  Yes.  And I'm doing the latter, not the former.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
6 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps consideration of the story of Simonds, I mean Symonds Ryder might be influential on how we perceive this issue.

While I allow for mistakes with names (I make them enough), I see respect of names echoing respect of the person.  Spelling a name correctly is for me in the same category as using the preferred name or pronoun of a person.

Having changed my chosen name twice as a youth (first from Christy to Chris when 9 and then Chris to Cris in my teens because I saw my name as a window into who I was and the changes created a more meaningful to me image for reasons I won’t get into), I have some experience with having those important to me not make the effort to recognize this expression of myself and it has been painful when it becomes almost symbolic of them not looking at me as I am, but as who they prefer me to be, while no big deal at all when strangers make the oh so common mistake of including an “h” (sometimes I feel like my name is actually “Cristine spelled c r” rather than Cris, I have to repeat that for every phone call to doctors, etc so they can find me in their database).

Iow, depending on the context, I see misspelling of a name as a lack of respect, maybe even an insult.  Other times it is the equivalent of a typo with no meaning at all.  Part of me is lining up solidly with Ken here while another part is not.  
 

And it does seem reasonable to expect someone to register how to spell a name, especially if short, after reading it several times, which one would, I would think, if researching their position.  So if it is a habitual misspelling it does make me wonder how much study a person has actually done or at least makes me question the level of attention given.  If it is a one time thing, I am more likely to assume it is a simple typo though.  I have gotten a name of a poster wrong for eons as it was one letter off and it was weird because the actual alias made more sense, and this was a poster I paid close attention to, so I am very aware that sometimes such errors occur for other reasons.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

after reading it several times, which one would, I would think, if researching their position.

Except, he was asked if he had read Welch’s 250 page treatise which was published nearly 25 years ago. And the name was spelled correctly in the post in addition to the typo. I know that my recollection from 25 years ago isn’t necessarily the best. Added to Kenngo’s long history of posts accusing critics making someone an offender for a word is just more than a touch ridiculous to me. And rather than provide clear evidence that the temple ceremony is in the Book of Mormon (rather than merely a possible way to interpret certain passages) He digs in on a misspelling. That’s weak. In an informal setting like this one, where people, more often than not, are posting from mobile devices, pointing out typos to score points is pedantic. 
 

That said, I agree with you completely here: “thoseimportant to me not make the effort to recognize thisexpression of myself and it has been painful when it becomes almost symbolic of them not looking at me as I am, but as who they prefer me to be,” 

I just don’t see any relevance to Islanders post. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for defending me to the extent that you do so above.  (I hope you haven't robbed poor Pogi of any ammunition he was planning to use against me if he, for example, was planning to  accuse me of Board nannying when I pointed out Islander's misspelling of John Welch's surname!)  

To be clear, do I believe Islander's misspelling of Brother Welch's surname, in itself, is all that big of a deal?  No.  No, I don't.  However, does it provide grounds, potentially, to question how carefully Islander has considered Brother Welch's positions and arguments?  Yes.  And I'm doing the latter, not the former.

I'm not out to get you brother.  

I just don't think a simple misspelling is valid grounds to doubt Islanders integrity in his claim that he has read and considered Welch's position.  Without other substance to support such an accusation, it seems like unstable superficial judgment.    Maybe he is lying, maybe he isn't - perhaps engaging him on substance would help flesh that out before jumping to conclusions and writing someone off completely for a misspelling.  I have made it clear that I disagree with Islanders approach, so I'm not taking his side here.  I just don't think it is wise to establish a single misspelling (in and of itself) as grounds to doubt anyone. 

What that has to do with board nannying or "stewardship over' you, I am unclear. 

You say that the comparison to Ryder is inapt, but the following quote by you resembles his reasoning and justification to lose trust in Joseph. 

Quote

 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

 He didn't trust Joseph over the big details because he got the small details wrong.  That was a mistake, don't you think?  

Quote

“led to doubt if [Joseph] were called at all by the Spirit of God, because of the error in spelling his name!

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-hyrum-leading-one/bound-together-cords-everlasting-love

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not out to get you brother.  

I just don't think a simple misspelling is valid grounds to doubt Islanders integrity in his claim that he has read and considered Welch's position.  Without other substance to support such an accusation, it seems like unstable superficial judgment.    Maybe he is lying, maybe he isn't - perhaps engaging him on substance would help flesh that out before jumping to conclusions and writing someone off completely for a misspelling.  I have made it clear that I disagree with Islanders approach, so I'm not taking his side here.  I just don't think it is wise to establish a single misspelling (in and of itself) as grounds to doubt anyone. 

What that has to do with board nannying or "stewardship over' you, I am unclear. 

You say that the comparison to Ryder is inapt, but the following quote by you resembles his reasoning and justification to lose trust in Joseph. 

 He didn't trust Joseph over the big details because he got the small details wrong.  That was a mistake, don't you think?  

 

I've already made my disagreement of your comparison of me to Mr. Ryder clear.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not out to get you brother. 

I'm relieved to hear that, thanks.  Now, I have only 1,999,999,999 enemies instead of 2,000,000,000. ;) 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I just don't think a simple misspelling is valid grounds to doubt Islanders integrity ...

I don't doubt his integrity.  I disagree with him.  I don't doubt your integrity, even given the number of things on which we disagree.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

... in his claim that he has read and considered Welch's position. 

Has he claimed that?  Okay.  I'll take your word for it.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Without other substance to support such an accusation, it seems like unstable superficial judgment.

Okay.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Maybe he is lying, maybe he isn't - perhaps engaging him on substance would help flesh that out before jumping to conclusions and writing someone off completely for a misspelling. 

No one has accused him of lying.  Perhaps you are more aware of how much time and attention he has devoted to what Brother Welch has produced than am I, and if so, that is fine.  As for me, there is only so much time in a day, and the attention span, interests, cognitive power, and so on, of the typical human being is limited.  All of us make judgments about how to expend such limited resources.  We may or may not talk about such judgments openly, but we all make them.  The only difference between those judgments and mine is that I have been explicit about mine. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have made it clear that I disagree with Islanders approach, so I'm not taking his side here.  I just don't think it is wise to establish a single misspelling (in and of itself) as grounds to doubt anyone.

Again, I don't doubt him because of the misspelling per se: I do wonder how much attention his take on these matters (the "big" things) is worth because he failed to get one of the small things right.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What that has to do with board nannying or "stewardship over' you, I am unclear.

You seemed to be doing the very thing for which you are excoriating me.  Motes and beams and all that.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

You say that the comparison to Ryder is inapt, but the following quote by you resembles his reasoning and justification to lose trust in Joseph.

Completely different contexts.  Again, if you wish to compare me to Mr. Ryder, I can't stop you, but I reject the comparison.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

He didn't trust Joseph over the big details because he got the small details wrong.  That was a mistake, don't you think?

I'll let the Lord worry about the fate of Mr. Ryder's eternal soul.  I have no stewardship over him.  We never met, and I don't know him beyond what was revealed in the pages of the little history I have read about him.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You seemed to be doing the very thing for which you are excoriating me.  Motes and beams and all that.

You stated the above in response to this, by me:

Quote

What that has to do with board nannying or "stewardship over' you, I am unclear.

Again, how am I board nannying, and where did I "excoriate" you for such a thing?

I simply disagree with the principle of using a misspelled name (especially where they spell it right in the same post - so clearly a simple mistake) as "grounds" to mistrusting or dismissing someone's position wholesale.  

Nothing personal. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
On 2/13/2023 at 6:45 PM, mfbukowski said:

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 ;) 

By the way, I recently stumbled on a October 2013 response that Kerry gave to my Interpreter review of Riskas 10 years ago on a Recovery from Mormonism board.

Quote

 

I found it utterly astonishing that the book review ended up reviewing ANOTHER book, and wishing Riskas had written that kind of book!?! Amazing! Dodging absolutely everything. He didn't touch one significant thing about what Riskas raised in his book, but lofted up on several other authors and said Riskas should be like them instead. But Riskas ISN'T like them! THE point is, what about what Riskas actually said, not what other book authors have said! I am astonished that Mormons can't see what a complete cop out that review of Riskas is.

I would have liked to see a few quotations from my essay demonstrating, rather than claiming without evidence, that I wrote while "wishing that Riskas had written that kind of book."   I notice that I quoted Riskas many times in my review, and directly addressed issues he raised.  That calls into question the claim that I write while "Dodging absolutely everything" and did not "touch one significant thing."  I noticed that Riskas was not like Ian Barbour and Hugh Nibley, but I nowhere said I wished he was like them.  I quoted and wrote to accurately describe what I saw, to represent fairly. Quoting people who did not think like Riskas constitutes to me what Joseph Smith called "proving contrarieties" by which "truth is made manifest."  Kerry here quotes me zero times, and simply applies a dismissive label "a complete cop out" and reports emotional reactions of "Amazing" and "astonished".   It is a tribal "Not us!" declaration for the RFM community, rather than a genuine "Why us?" inquiry.  Indeed, I have to say it demonstrates a Trumpian kind of rhetorical dismissiveness based on manipulative labels, emotions, and polarized absolutes and tribal loyalties, rather than careful considered response.  Not the kind of thing one finds operating at Position 9 of the Perry Scheme, but rather, the dualities of Position 2.  I notice that while I mention the Perry Scheme, Kerry does not.  This all happens at a high level of abstraction, and Kerry includes no significant details, no specific information on positivism (not even mentioning the name, let alone addressing the significance for Riskas), or even the name of Barbour's book or exploring why I might raise it as significant in comparison to Riskas.

The hallmark of Kerry's old videos was his warmth, generosity (even to those he criticized), and enthusiasm.  If "pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile," what happens to the soul that embraces impure knowledge? I spotted very recent video of Kerry doing a video promoting Riskas, and a notable thing about it is how many negative labels he applies to believing LDS, and radiated cynicism.  That mirrors Riskas.  For example, I quoted Riskas as saying "Such, in part, is the personal price believers pay for their stupidity and ersatz or illusory happiness."

Too bad.  The old Kerry was charming, warm, enthusiastic and insightful, a distinct individual character.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

By the way, I recently stumbled on a October 2013 response that Kerry gave to my Interpreter review of Riskas 10 years ago on a Recovery from Mormonism board.

I would have liked to see a few quotations from my essay demonstrating, rather than claiming without evidence, that I wrote while "wishing that Riskas had written that kind of book."   I notice that I quoted Riskas many times in my review, and directly addressed issues he raised.  That calls into question the claim that I write while "Dodging absolutely everything" and did not "touch one significant thing."  I noticed that Riskas was not like Ian Barbour and Hugh Nibley, but I nowhere said I wished he was like them.  I quoted and wrote to accurately describe what I saw, to represent fairly. Quoting people who did not think like Riskas constitutes to me what Joseph Smith called "proving contrarieties" by which "truth is made manifest."  Kerry here quotes me zero times, and simply applies a dismissive label "a complete cop out" and reports an emotional reactions of "Amazing" and "astonished".   It is a tribal "Not us!" declaration for the RFM community, rather than a genuine "Why us?" inquiry.  Indeed, I have to say it demonstrates a Trumpian kind of rhetorical dismissiveness based on manipulative labels, emotions, and polarized absolutes and tribal loyalties, rather than careful considered response.  Not the kind of thing one finds operating at Position 9 of the Perry Scheme, but rather, the dualities of Position 2.  I notice that while I mention the Perry Scheme, Kerry does not.  This all happens at a high level of abstraction, and Kerry includes no significant details, no specific information on positivism (not even mentioning the name, let alone addressing the significance for Riskas), or even the name of Barbour's book or exploring why I might raise it as significant in comparison to Riskas.

The hallmark of Kerry's old videos was his warmth, generosity (even to those he criticized), and enthusiasm.  If "pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile," what happens to the soul that embraces impure knowledge? I spotted very recent video of Kerry doing a video promoting Riskas, and a notable thing about it is how many negative labels applies to believing LDS, and radiated cynicism.  That mirrors Riskas.  For example, I quoted Riskas as saying "Such, in part, is the personal price believers pay for their stupidity and ersatz or illusory happiness."

Too bad.  The old Kerry was charming, warm, enthusiastic and insightful, a distinct individual character.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yes, and what a wonderful idea, to create the persona of the "Backyard Professor" who was so informal and warm, but yet such a good teacher with solid ideas.

I could never believe that HE of all people could not see through the fallacy of positivism.

I try as hard as I can to understand what Riskas' appeal is, when it is so laughable to me.

I think we need a thread about what a "meta narrative" is and how "stage-9-like thinking" explodes these false paradigms.

I just don't know how to teach it- perhaps it cannot BE taught. It's so very frustrating, sometimes I just almost want to shake people. 😬

I feel that the whole anti-religious paradigm could be turned on it's head if people just SAW it. It's right there in front of us- but somehow it is invisible.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...