How often do you deliberately obtain and read books with which you know you will not agree?

[Benjamin McGuire]

In 1998, Kevin VanHoozer published his Is There a Meaning in this Text?. H.S. Pyper published a review of the book in 1999 [H. S. Pyper, review of Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text?; in Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Society for Old Testament Study Book List 1999, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, 119-20.] Pyper concluded his review with this brief comment:

Quote

The interested reader cannot fail to profit from V.'s scholarship while being provoked to argument at every turn

That comment stirred my interest enough that I subsequently purchased the book. And sure enough, the topic was relevant – it deal with questions I was considering at the time. The book was well reasoned (and researched). And like the reviewer, I argued with the author on nearly every page - and it was in the argument (in my head) that I profited from the text. I have, in the decades since, acquired many books written by individuals who I disagree with. Only very rarely does a purchase like this convince me that my own thinking is wrong. But, this type of reading does help me learn to better articulate my perspective, and to better understand ideas that I had perhaps only intuited. And, as a final thought, I tend to think that we don't disagree with books so much as we disagree with their authors (about the narratives they construct, their conclusions, or even their calls to action).

[jpv]

I used to get antimormon books from the library on my mission to see the obscure sources. 

[BlueDreams]

On 7/7/2023 at 5:58 AM, Navidad said:

I read a post on Facebook this morning about the importance of not banning books. It made me think that perhaps it is equally as important to take time and resources to read books with which I know I will not agree, especially when I know it in advance. The motivation? To learn about the others in the world who are not me and who don't think like me. I tend to quite often read and like posts here with which I disagree because of how well they are written. For me that is the purpose of the "like" (or whatever it is called) button. I don't think the "like" button is meant to be an "agree" button! I hope that makes sense.

I also can learn from a well-written post whether I agree or not. I feel the same way about a well-presented sacrament or conference talk, sermon, or book!

I feel the same way about when my wife says something with which I don't agree! I better listen and learn! 😄

funny enough, I was just listening to a podcast from someone I often disagree with when I noticed this. Shorter articles, podcasts, and things that I can digest in an hour I'm usually happy to read even if I know I'll disagree with it.

Books, though, are more of an investment to me. So I'm more picky about what I'm willing to listen to for 6-20 hrs (I rarely read non-fiction). When I looked at my audible list, I found that there was only one book on the list that I knew I would overtly disagree with. This was a book defending Trump. I purposely sought out someone who was conservative and asked for it as a book recommendation, because I found myself demonizing a large section of the country and I wasn't comfortable with that. It goes against my moral values to do so. Instead of reactively condemning I wanted to better understand the mindset and orientation that could lead to supporting someone I was viscerally and adamantly opposed to. It was a rough read...but it did help with the objective I had in mind in reading it. 

Beyond that, what's more common is for me to read something I don't know much about but am curious or interesting in understanding. For example I wanted scholarly takes one the bible. So I read a number of those and purposely chose authors that were non-lds, from interesting backgrounds, who would give several ideas as opposed to a singular apologetic message. They were some of my favorite books. Not too surprisingly, I have a ton exploring differing therapy related issues. Again, some of these are to understand things I don't get (sociopathy and the context for abusive relationship comes to mind). A few about NDE's including one that I knew I'd probably be skeptical about but wanted to understand better (largely claims around mediums and reincarnation). I like to learn, I like to explore ideas and topics that I'm not grounded in. The disagreement is tangential for me to the learning from a differing experience or belief or perspective. 

THere's obviously a few books that I figured I'd have more agreement with but still wanted to learn something new within that topic. A great example is rough stone rolling... I wanted to learn and explore my beliefs about the restoration.  It helped me feel more firm in my belief in that. I value and relate more to messy stories. The Polished one I grew up with wasn't something I could really get. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Having described, and I think having demonstrated at length over several decades, my own willingness and reasons for reading things I don't agree with on a regular basis, as part of "proving contrarieties" that "truth might be made manifest," I also have learned that there is room for caution, for making some early pedagogical basis to prepare oneself, for learning some critical thinking tools, and to be aware of how propaganda operates, to know and use resources not only for fact and logic checking, but to realize the importance of why Jesus said judgement should start with self examination, checking one's own eye for beams first.  "Then shall ye see clearly."  

As part of my first written venture into LDS studies, in my Dialogue essay published in 1991, I ran across something that I dubbed "spiritual masochism" in which the important thing was not so much to "prove contrarieties that truth might be made manifest" but rather simply to be seen facing problems publically.  When the goal is to be seen facing problems without flinching, as a way of demonstrating one's courage and integrity, then solutions become counter-productive.  One becomes a mere apologist, a tool of the status quo, a drone, rather than a true scholar who faces problems without flinching.  It's a pride thing, being seen and justified, rather than a humility thing, facing one's own limitations, humanity, weakness, and yes, nothingness.  I notice that in Gerald Tanner's own personal account, he reports that he was initially so offended with David Whitmer's charge that some LDS revelations had been changed, he threw the book across the room.  Then, he decided to investigate, and poof, his faith shattered.  What he did not investigate was whether or not the changes were really a big deal, or just what happens in a real world of human imperfection and the natural consequences of the growth of knowledge and understanding.   (There are some good articles on the topic in the Ensign from 1985.) Their whole approach was to demand perfection, and then display shock and indignation and lots of upper casing and exclamation points over any apparent imperfection or change.  How dare LDS people be not perfect and agree what I think and want! For someone like me, who takes imperfection and change for granted, their whole approach is flawed.

Then there are people like Dehlin and Reel, who start out wanting to face problems and build bridges and see both sides, but who ultimately focus on scandal, blaming others for not living up to their ideals, and self justification.  Archimedes famously said, "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I can move the world."  An open ended quest for further light and knowledge changes into a quest for personal leverage.  A few weeks ago, I looked at an interview with Dehlin from a couple of years back on a website that aspires to be one of the "frank and honest look at both sides" locations.   It (that interview) is very long winded, filled with lots of personal stories and opinions, but not a lot of scholarship.  I particularly notice this claim:

Quote

So, I think of classic Mormon apologetics as Hugh Nibley, Daniel C. Peterson, Louis Midgley style, where your number one tool is ad hominem smearing the reputation of the critic, or of the honest question or calling them gay, accusing them of adultery, calling them a wolf in sheep’s clothing and an apostate. Ever since Hugh Nibley published, No, Ma’am, That’s Not History, without ever really dealing with any of the merits of Fawn Brodie’s concerns in her book, he set the tone. Daniel C. Peterson has been super happy to pick up that baton. FAIR Mormon continued with it all the way to Kwaku and Cardon Ellis and the This is the Show videos that were taken down.  [There’s] this whole rich, multi-decade tradition of smearing critics or smearing on us questioners and then offering disingenuous science, specious, invalid science and ridiculous, illogical knowingly dishonest answers to the problems with the Church’s truth claims. And that’s what Hugh Nibley did. That’s what FARMS did. That’s what FAIR Mormon does and did.

Okay, that's narrative he tells as part of justifying himself.  But, I've personally read the scholarship he attacks.  I have actually read all of Nibley's books, and all of the essays published by the old FARMS Review and Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and have read a great deal of FAIR material, and have read Brodie, the Tanners, and Palmer and others, and listened to a half dozen of the most important Dehlin interviews.  The fact of the matter is, the number one tool of FARMS and FAIR is not ad hominem, but actually looking closely at the original sources and meaningful contexts and proving contrarieties.  Dehlin famously asked his followers to send him examples of ad hominem that they had seen, which, if his frequent accusation was in fact the case, he would have already known many examples that fit the formal definition, and would not have had to ask for people to send him examples, which, it happens, they did not provide.  Indeed, if ad hominem and smearing was in fact the number one tool, then most of the 38 editions of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon in 22 volumes and 300 plus authors should be filled with obvious evidence that such an approach is typical and representative.  Almost any author and any volume should do.  Here is the material, readily available:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fmsr%2Fvol1%2Fiss1%2F1&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

But what he claims is not accurate.  I've read them all personally.  And I am not surprised that regardless of how long and how many times people have claimed that the Review is primarily ad hominem, sufficient justification for that claim has never appeared. I have never ever seen any serious attempt to demonstrate that is the case.  The claim, however popular, however repeated, in certain circles, has never been demonstrated with evidence but rather, asserted with emotion.  The irony is that his claim that the old Review characteristically uses ad hominem as fundamental strategy is itself primarily a fundamental act of classical ad hominem.  Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy, and without guile.  What then, happens with impure knowledge?

Back in 2010 Richard Bushman said this about Nibley's No Ma'am, That's Not History:

Quote

Most of Nibley’s response takes the form of attacks on Brodie’s scholarship and reasoning, not a defense of Joseph Smith. (Incidentally, it launches a rather powerful attack on Brodie, in my opinion. In recent years, the pamphlet has been so criticized for its sarcasm that it was a pleasure for me to discover on rereading it how on the mark it was.)

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=jbms

And that is why for controlling the narrative, selling a story, rather than proving contrarieties, the stories a person tells as representative, is so important if the goal is not truth, but personal agenda.  

Quote

Metaphors are powerful because they "switch on" existing circuits in the brain by linking together salient images and ideas, as for example linking a certain group to pests. The more these circuits are activated the more hardwired they become. Research shows that people under the influence of "big lies" develop more rigid neural pathways, showing signs of difficulty in rethinking situations. As it is almost impossible to turn the switch off, this means that when we accept a big lie or a conspiracy theory, it can reshape our perception of reality without us being aware of it. By being exposed to hate metaphors, for instance, we may develop hostile feelings towards specific groups. After a while the negative image of the group metamorphizes in the imagination into that of a parasitic organism that lives at the other's expense. It was a powerful nefarious strategy that the Nazis used constantly in their antisemitic propaganda.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/train-socialize-expert-linguistic-anthropology-094501270.html

Hayden White explains:

Quote

We should no longer naively expect that statements about a given epoch or complex of events in the past “correspond” to some pre-existent body of “raw facts.” For we should recognize that what constitutes the facts themselves is the problem that the historian, like the artist, has tried to solve in the choice of the metaphor by which he orders his world, past, present, and future.

Sarup, discussing Derrida explains:

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.

Barker explains, to one of the meanings of the word mašal, translated as parable:

Quote

The Hebrew lexicon lists three apparently distinct meanings for this word: to rule or have dominion; to be like, or cause to be like; and to speak in parables or poetry —the two latter clearly aspects of the same meaning. But in fact all three are the same: the one who “rules” in this sense is the one who determines how and what things are, and does this by making or maintaining the correspondences.

Joseph Campbell had explained that one of the functions of a mythology is “supporting and validating a certain social order.”

I've noticed that the Biblical recommendations for truth amount to a formal process for testing the validity of one's beliefs.  Failure to follow those recommendations always demonstrates an unwillingness to risk what a person thinks is the case or personally desires.  Joseph Campbell observed that in ancient Temples, there were temple guardians who represented Fear and Desire.  To enter into the Real, to pass those guardians, you had to let go preconceptions and personal desires.  To avoid the real, one says, "That can't be right because it is not what I think now and/or is not what I personally want to believe."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 20, 2023 by Kevin Christensen
typos

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The fact of the matter is, the number one tool of FARMS and FAIR is not ad hominem, but actually looking closely at the original sources and meaningful contexts and proving contrarieties.  Dehlin famously asked his followers to send him examples of ad hominem that they had seen, which, if his frequent accusation was in fact the case, he would have already known many examples that fit the formal definition, and would not have had to ask for people to send him examples, which, it happens, they did not provide. 

When we at FAIR get the occasional letter complaining about such tactics, we always ask for examples explaining if we agree it’s ad hom we will take it down.  I remember one case only where the writer took us up on the offer, though I may have missed a few if they came during the couple of years (out of over 20) I wasn’t at least skimming through all the letters.

I personally believe the This Is the Show series was a mistake, though wildly popular for us among the target audience of youth.  It was not something the community did ourselves (our usual style leans too academic/dry to interest most youths, though we get quite a few letters from teens who have been using our site for years) and it was taken down pretty quickly imo given that it was quite successful doing what it was intended to do…but it did cross the line imo and I am glad it followed the rest of the snark that we have trimmed off in getting removed from our website.

I suppose it’s not bad that the main example used to point out our alleged nasty tactics is an example of us removing something from our site.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Calm