God Is Grander Than Even Believers Know

cdgv bzujcqeo srmb bgdtlv qwefptkmu zwme brah

cdgv bzujcqeo srmb bgdtlv qwefptkmu zwme brah

That we want the whole thing to be true doesn't make it true.
SUCH a nice idea, though. keeps people in line.

That we want the whole thing to be true doesn't make it true.
SUCH a good idea, though.

Moses and Aaron

John
Schoenberg's opera (which was NOT inspired by God) has an interesting take on the tension here. Try to find the libretto if you can, and you can actually listen to the opera if you want to know what hell is like.

The one point that SEEMS clear to me is

that Aaron had to satisfy
THE PEOPLE

who needed something Tangible
to worship,
ideally something that Glittered
and satisfied their worldly desires
Gold = beauty, money
Calf = wine and food.

and Moses was pulling them towards the more spiritual side.

Love God
who is NOT gold or food.

and as you say
of course all this was culture bound

and the fact that the
First Commandment is
Thou shalt have NO OTHER GOD before me

was due to the polytheistic culture they lived in

It seems like the issue with the Golden Calf was not tangeable vs. intangeable Deity, not even true vs. false, but foreign vs. indigenous.

It was Yahweh that delivered them from Egypt, not whatever God this calf represented. That was the great offense.

That Moses taught a transcendent immateral monotheistic ideal is unlikely, since during this time the Isrealites were actually polytheistic and Yahweh was viewed as just one God among many. He was the one to worship because he was indigenous to Isreal, not because he was the only one that existed.

No I don't believe so, but he had to select somebody, so somebody unverifiable such as Moses was as good a choice as anybody.

Derrida,

I do not really think Moses was the Platonic theologian that James says he was. What say you?

People become scholars to learn what is the truth of the documents in which we place faith. They are fascinated to learn about true origins, to dispense with myth in order to divine truth.

Living divine principles can certainly teach one as to the truthfulness of such principles, but to ignore the message is to believe in fables written by scribes. I'm okay learning from fables, but I'd like to discern fables and myths from real occurrences when possible.

Many people read the Bible and even earn the reputation as a Bible “scholar” because of their study and writings about what they have studied. But it is actually not the reading of the Bible that is the loving Him but the doing of it as James says in chp 1:22-25.

The apostle John also tells us in his first letter, chp 2:3-5 that knowing God is about doing what He tells us to do, or obeying His commands. If we do obey His commands His love is truly made complete in us. John goes on to say that another way we demonstrate our love for Jesus is to love our brothers. In fact, this is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence when our hearts condemn us.

Knowing and loving God is all about doing as He lovingly commands His children. What are His commands? To believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.

Finally, Jesus commanded us in the “Great Commission” to go and make disciples of all nations… and teach them to obey everything He commanded us. A disciple is a student who carries his role much further than the typical student of today. He is one who not only learns the teachings of his master but also works to become like his master. The commands of our Master are actually few; believe and love.

Fortunately He does not order us to somehow develop emotional responses, as we are prone to define love, He simply says, I love you, I will only command you to do what is good for you and for others and I will consider it love if you will just do your best to obey what I have commanded you. Believe in Me and love as I love. Know Me, love Me.

You are so amusing the two of you! What a perfect ending.... thank you for such great entertainment as well as education!

Unless your measurements are 34D, 21 30, I'm not interested.

Plus you need a resting heart rate of 48 to go the distance.

Derrida
Now it truly looks like
it is just we two.

Want to get married?

are yu a man or a woman.?

See, you were right all along.
I AM an agent of the Devil.

But Blond.!!!!
Cute!!!
and a bimbo!!

Some Lend themselves to Larger Numbers

D
read you own last post again
and then go re read the story
of
Moses and Aaron
and the Golden Calf

same struggle you are describing.

Moses was devoted to the IDEA of God
the Theological Jesuitical Perfection
as it were.

Aaron had great sympathy
and great pressure from
THE UNWASHED masses
who needed an Idol to worship,
A goldern calf
Something understandable
Not abstract

"The people need a sign"
is the great divide
between the abstract theologians
like
Derrida and Moses and Buber and Tillich
and the
great mass
that needs
A god of Flesh and Bone
(with or without blood)

The combination of "spiritual" qualities does not necessarily require theism; in fact, I imagine a large number of good people are agnostic and possess these qualities.

It simply makes it more real, more relevant if one combines Theism with a desire to be a better person. Otherwise, it often becomes too abstract. Which is why religion often devolves down to fundamentalistic reductionism, the ease of instruction, instead a difficult path guiding.

Buddhism offers much, but is a very difficult path from start to finish. If you just go through the motions of Buddhist traditions, you don't get much out of it.

Doing it nontheistically requires greater intellectual rigor, and maybe often a better result because it can require such rigor. However, it can be more broad spectrum through a theistic approach. There are many paths toward self-improvement, but some lend themselves more easily to larger numbers of persons.

Religion vs reine Vernunft

once again, I'm afraid i have to agree with you, Derrida.

you will note that three of my "spiritual qualities"

• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, God, gods)

• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature

• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).

militate against an excess of selfishness.
If all one cares about is one's own pleasures, it leaves no room for sympathy for the suffereing of others, for example.

I agree that religion is usually a good way to foster these three attributes.

and it helps more than reine Vernunft.

I would add though , that it is possible to *combine* reine Vernunft with high levels of spirituality that do not include Theist belief.
indeed, it happens all the time.
i know thousands of examples.

The trending of societal behaviors is interesting and sometimes conflicting.

Belief in God and education is somewhat erratic, as some of the data I've inspected shows belief is still strong through masters programs and decreases with doctorate and post-doctoral education.

Wealth does impact religiosity. It seems human, if you're hanging on for dear life, you might be grabbing for cosmic straws, any sort of help. Once your basic needs are fulfilled, you often reduce your reliance on external helps.

For me, recognizing other things are larger than you helps you balance your own selfishness against the needs of others. Religiosity helps there more than reine Vernunft, Kant notwithstanding. Reason goes in tandem with religion, not one without the other.

Derrida!!!!!!!!

We are agreeing too much!!!!!!!!!

The earth may open up and swallow us up.

There is no question that it is way too early, and too complex, to make definitive conclusions about the impact of religious belief on societal health.

the MOST we can say is that there is SOME evidence that it may NOT be the way we have always thought it was.

I also AGREE(!!!!) that just because Sweden has been atheistic for the last 50 years, their 1,000 year traditilon of religiosity has many many lingering effects.

What seems VERY CLEAR to me at least is that as a country gets richer, its belief in God goes down.

We really need God when we are starving or in foxholes.

When we are having a martini by the swimmin pool, God is not so important.

There is also lots of evidence (not definitive i grant you) that the more education one has, the less one believes in One Theistic type God.

again, much sociological research to do on all of this.

Other than Marxist regimes, do we have any other regimes that have totally discouraged religiosity?

Although the percentages of religiosity in Western industrialized Europe will show a decline in religious faith, many of the traditions are still founded upon traditions of religion. The laws, customs and traditions still arise out of a religious atmosphere. So I'm not certain you can look at those societies as proof that religiosity is unimportant.

And if a country is economically successful, I'm not certain lack of religiosity will cause immediate failure overnight. Even a lack of faith does not eliminate religious ideals or traditions. The traditional concept of charity is religious in origin and yet a non-religious person can seize this ideal.

The analyses can become quite complex, and no one study, nor set of studies will answer the question.

My belief is that societies, if the sole variable is an aspect of religious faith, will prosper more, but I don't know.

Russia, of the Soviet Union did not prosper, for many reasons, most of them related to economic structure, but now that the totalitarian stranglehold has been released, has descended into almost oblivion. It may also be in small part to the lack of a strong, central religious community, binding the communities to certain moral ideals.

I doubt an equation comprehensive enough has been devised to determine what factors are most significant, though I'm aware sociologists are constantly trying to devise studies to determine the impacts of religiosity.

Derrida

Great question.

Here is a citation for an article that is getting lots of attention.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

ttitled
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

The conventional wisdom has been
To THE extent that a society Turns Away from God
That society will descend into chaos and immorality.

Therefore, if one looked at societies where belief in God was very low (under 20%) versus very high (over 80%)
you would expect the low belief societies to be degenerate.
(the US regularly polls 90% belief in God)

In fact
this study shows
JUST the opposite

the low belief societies rate MUCH better on just about every measure of social health
homicide rate, *abortion* rate!!!!, infant mortality, etc etc.

The US fares far worse on most measures than any of the other developed countries, all of which have a much lower belief in god percentage.

doesn't prove that atheism is healthy.
but it sure casts doubt on the hypothesis that belief is healthier.

This is a short reply.
give me your email address and i will send you a longer reply.

Dr D

It is most assuredly a matter of personal choice whether one's Spirituality includes a belief in *some kind of God* or not.

One can be highly spiritual while believing in God
One can be highly spiritual while NOT believing in God.

. Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; on the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself—of which every religion has more than its fair share. We know of no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

You write "Without cosmic purpose, the rationality alone is dry and without motivation. "

probably true, but didn't I just give you a list of SPIRITUAL qualities.

which additional spiritual qualities, not on my list,necessitates organized religion for its attainment?

Regarding Buddhist belief, here is a typical citation
"f by “god” one means a creator of the universe or a being guiding ultimate human fate, then Buddhists do not believe in such"
the vast majority of buddhist "theologians" would tell you that they do not believe in the kind of theist god that christians claim.

Wow that last post was fraught with worse than usual grammar. Apologies for that.

Here is a question though:

Acknowledging that those who intellectually adopt atheism may also pursue a moral course in life, from an anthropological perspective and from a sociological perspective, do you believe it is easier for society to develop a collectively beneficial approach through religion or through a belief in nothing?

James:

These philosophies are known, but apart from some cosmic purpose are not very appealing to some of us. It is not a question of morality, if one be an atheist or not, but whether societal atheism promotes the common good as well. Did the Soviet Union promote the common good, as well as societies that accepted and embraced religious ideals? Not everybody will agree.

If all we are is cosmic dust, those things may be enough to slumber through our meager existences, but not enough for me. That is all.

Without cosmic purpose, the rationality alone is dry and without motivation. If one hadn't tasted the fruit, perhaps those qualities would be enough. They are not for me, as the madness of human existence without possibility of improvement, would be a veritable Jacob's Ladder.

Buddhism is not monolithic, as some strains of Buddhism does not posit specific beliefs in monotheism. Some aspects or strains posit a henotheist relationship. From my enounters with aspects of Chinese Buddhists, my observations note their sincerity, but it seems hollow at times. There are different strains of Thai Buddhists as well as Burmese. So it is inaccurate to say Buddhism does not posit belief in the divine.

Spirituality, Meaning, and God

While teaching a course this fall (one student was a Stanford Professor,no kidding) called

Searching for God in Classical Music

the class and I agreed that the following list described many if not all of the most important spiriual qualities a human can posses.

Elements of Spirituality

• A sense of the meaning of life (and death)

• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, God, gods)

• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature

• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).

• A reverence for creation, both natural and human, and a nurturing of the creative imagination

• Comprehensive self-knowledge and understanding.

• A developed, cultivated and broad-based
appreciation of beauty (an understanding beyond your own prejudices and experience)

• Rich experiences outside the realm of the senses
(e.g. dreams, imagination)

• A sense of the “One-ness” of all things

ALL of these elements add meaning to my life, and to the lives of all of my 30 class members,
AND

NOT ONE of these elements REQUIRES that one believe in God.
In fact, for some of therm, belief in God makes it harder to "optimize" one's attainment of the quality.

Buddhism is the most *effective* path to achieving the highest development of these qualities.
And Buddhism does NOT believe in God.

But Derrida, you are perfectly entitled to. I totally respect people's belief in God, evven if i don't hold the same belief.

Derrida
We parted company long ago.
I believe there is nothing that makes Mormonism anything other than just another church, for instance. No special claim to truth. In fact, special claims to untruth. Though 99% very good people.

Stipulating that one can't prove or disprove God, and that many of my most esteemed friends believe in God, you posit a

FALSE CHOICE
1. Believe in God and Have Meaning and Moral REasoning Ability
OR
2. Don't believe in God AND have NO meaning and NO moral reasoning ability.

There are many many more choices. the third is
3. Don't believe in God AND Have meaning in your life AND moral reasoning at least as good as the believers.

This is where all the non believers I know are.

There are now 542 books in the Stanford Book Store by scientists that demonstrate that atheists are just as moral as believers
and
that morality precedes religion by thousands of years (if you are not a creationist). Marc Hauser is just one relevent author here.

I will address meaning in my next post.

BTW there ARE lots of ways we can "measure" love scientifically. This new neuroscience stuff is really neat.

And, to make you feel better about me,
I believe in Love.

This is where I part company; I choose to believe there is a God, an immortal Christ who communicates through a spirit.

If there were no Christ, then, for me, there'd be no right nor wrong. The normative process alone doesn't do it for me. Sisyphus without faith I ain't.

I know it can't be verified scientifically, but neither can love. If we ask for love to be verified before it can be believed in, then we are barely sentient.

Derrida and Jesus

Yes D
your observation about jesus has been made often, and is an interesting one.

my speculation is
Mankind has always been waiting for a Messiah
(read Isaiah again)

When we get one like jesus where
since so little is Truly known

we can project all our fantasies of our perfect savior
onto him
starting with the Gospels,
and then through Paul's PR
(see Otterson's noble tradition)

Jesus is then the perfect personage to
Become
the Christ, our lord and savior
and be what WE want him to be.

Mankind has always created it's God's to
fulfill man's psychological needs.

Since there actually IS no God to object
we can get away with it.

Derrida and John in the McMurrin Tradition

John D most of the time, and Derrida in your best moments, continue on in the McMurrin tradition REAL and valuable theological inquiry. That is what excited me about him and Madsen and other True seekers of truth.
Otterson and the General Authorities DO NOT have Truth and struggle with it as the first priority. Most Good Mormon individuals do, though they have to fight often against the church to do sol.

Here is McMurrin's answer to What is Theology.

Well, theology is what is done to try to make sense out of what the people believe. I mean that quite seriously. People believe certain things. The early Christians believed that Christ was divine. And so the theologians had to make some kind of sense out of that. And what they did, eventually, in the 4th century was come up with the Nicean creed which employed Aristotelian metaphysics to make the case that Christ is divine as the Father is divine.

Nobody defends sexual abuse. However, how many have looked at the length of periods which have elapsed before they are brought? Yes, the cases are sensational, but all cases are more complex than the sensational issues which reach the news. I never believe the news report of any case.

Whenever I read "cover up", I remember the feeding frenzy associated with Nixon, and find my doubts, things are as crystal clear as reported. So I don't I imagine we're getting the whole truth. Running organizations is not as easy as many in the ivory tower would have us believe. It is more complex, but news reports are always one-sided, shallow recitations of sensational aspects.

Nothing regarding Christ is verifiable except through one's own experience, as limited by one's own perceptive abilities. Christ is the mystery, and for many the solution. He, not unlike Socrates, left no writing extant, yet he has affected Western Culture more than any other.

It is fascinating that so much of Western Culture is based on an individual who left no work of art, no writing, ruled no earthly kingdom, won no great earthly war or battle, and yet people seek to know more.

Dr D:
Much more rational and on point comments than before. Thanks.

Regarding Catholics:
You had written"
"Why should 21st century standards apply to events of the 1980s?"

A rational person would translate that to mean
"it wasn't illegal (IT WAS) or immoral in the 1980's. It's unfair to judge by today's standards".

Do you truly believe that what they did was MORAL according to 1980s standards? That is what makes it appear that you are defending the priests.

Even more heinous was the COVER UP of the CATHOLIC CHURCH which continued until 2004. That is what most of the legal action was about.

And no Massachusetts lawyer, liberal or conservative, criticized the courts for their judgments regarding statutes of limitations.

You inevitably come of as an apologist for the actions of both the priests and the church when you write what you wrote.

Regarding the First STone story: it was DV who referenced JS's inspired translation so I will let him continue that fight with you.

MY point was that NOTHING in the Bible story of Jesus is conclusively verifiable. It is YOU who referred us to the Misquoting Jesus books, so you seem to agree.

Now, James and Fred, find for me where JS ever commented that his reworking of the Bible was complete. You won't be able to do so, because it was a work in process.

Find for yourselves, unless you read Koine or Classical Greek, at which point you can read one of the more recent manuscripts, a NRSV Oxford Edition of the Bible.

Look at John 7:53 to 8:8, footnote H.

The story is apocryphal, but still useful accoring to biblical scribes, why else would they have inserted it?

James:

I am a challenger of convictions, of assumptions. In any polemic, if you accept assumptions, certain arguments necessarily follow.

I will take a different angle on every single assumption you wish to take, because almot no real life fact or argument is simple and two-sided, but multi-faceted.

For example, it is possible to deride the Catholic Church for its management of child abuse cases from past decades. Gee, child abuse is awful. State the obvious Sherlock, but should that necessarily translate into bankruptcy for the Boston diocese? That's a much more layered, intricate question. To date, I have yet seen any nuanced argument from about anything.

There's a famous axiom about legal precedence, "Bad facts make bad law." I submit you would find members of the legal community who would find the universal dislike of child abuse to create bad law as far as the Catholic Church's liablity for the child abuse cases. These cases are very old. Usually statutes of limitations, almost akin to statutes of repose, bar actions if the time period between the elapsed offenses and the time the action is brought. However, in these cases, courts and legislatures have overcome good policy to award lawyers large contingency fees by pursuing these old cases and turning otherwise good precedent on its head.

I claim no special expertise, other than to recognize falsehood and bad premises. The stuff you throw out is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. If you are ever desirous in an earnest discussion, I'm happy to oblige, but as long as you distort, I'll go straight for the faulty premises.

This argument tires due to lack of intellectual honesty.

First, either you don't understand or willfully distorting the meaning and purpose of the JST.

Will either of you recognize the first tenet that JS never claimed to have finished it?

Second, do you have a clue as to what purpose it was "translated"? Was it a literalistic approach, or a midrashic approach?

If you're naive enough to select the completed work as a literalistic approach, then we have nothing more to discuss. It was never intended to replace all parts removed, or to removed false parts inserted. You really have fixed mindsets to apply a fundamentalist reductionist standard when judging JS. Fundamentally unfair for somebody who should not be so classified.

Your illogical paradims went like this,

JS, who never claimed to have completed his midrashic work, claimed to have completed it. And it was meant to be literal completion and correction of the work, which is not. Nice try.

DV is on the path of confusion; he will either reconcile or leave, it matters not. James is set in his ways and reconciles all things Mormon in the negative, using a fundamentalist reductionist standard to an living breathing entity which defies that standard. With that judgment, James will always hit his target but he will never a useful truth.

As far Catholics are concerned, should legal standards be applied retrospectively? I think not. In criminal law, it's unconstitutional. Unfortunately in civil law it is not. I find the case law which retroactively applies a new standard to old conduct fundamentally against the standard of rudimentary justice. I suppose you believe in all forms of abrogation of constitutional rights in the name of a quick buck. Congrats to you.

thanks John

I really am interested in what you and others
Believe in
When you Believe in God.

I taught a course this fall called
Searching for God in Classical Music

where we all explored
What Manner of Being

our God might be
and how we thought and felt about him.

Unsurprisingly
what most people concieve of when the
posit God
has to do with Love and Death
and Hope and Fear.

Now we get immediately into Qualia, don't we.

Have a good rest.

James:

I think that was a respectful response.

I may amplify at a future time, perhaps within the week. These are things I would like to take time on. They are things which are close to my heart and have occupied my mind and soul considerably.

BTW, I think I am probably more of a literalist than you think.

This is not equivalent to a fundementalist perspective.

I believe in the literal existence of the human race. The equivalent of a fundamentalist interpretation of that reality might be racist paradigm, or a similar oversimplification. In reality, the underlying nature of human dynamics is incorrigible or at least tremendously complex and nuanced even for those who have direct access to the phenomena.

The divine reality is as complex and incorrigible as human dynamics; though the problem is amplified by our comparative lack of access to the phenomena.

When backed into a logical corner, some would just quit the exchange, but the question remains, who is right, Joseph Smith or Derrida?

Either the Biblical story about the adultress is textually accurate and true, as the Joseph Smith translation would support, or it is false, as Derrida claims.

Derrida has unknowingly cast himself into direct conflict with the founder of mormonism. What a dilemma.

-DV

Is James Set In His Ways

Derrida
just returning for aq look
I see that you characterize James as
Set in His Ways.

I bet you knocked him out of his rut.

I bet he has not had to engage with someone who defends the Catholic Church's Child Abuse Cover Up. I;m sure that was a new one for him.

He found himself defending Joseph Smith's inspired Bible against your disparagement of its contents.
Good for you. You never let the boy get comfortable.

Derrida

In our recent exchanges, there were three substantive points of discussion, NONE of which had to do with Mormonism.

1. Your defense of Catholic Child Abusers, which I found absolutely extraordinary.

2. Your banishment of active Mormon DV to outer darkness because you misread his position as an apostate.

3. My debunking of your disparagement of the First Stone parable, which DV debunked even more effectively.

The first two had to do with moral failings on your part. Not my state of clarity/confusion on Mormon religious matters.

The third only relates to Mormonismi in so far as you neglected to note that Joseph Smith had left the story in his Inspired Bible Translation.

As far as I, and apparently DV, are concerned, you have confused Mormon Doctrine more thoroughgoingly than anyone we have ever engaged with.

James:

You have done nothing more than that which I foretold. You are set in your ways, will give "evidence" based on your misinterpretation of LDS statements because you believe LDS are tyrants designed to mislead the world.

You also put words in my mouth. My only goal is to show your unbending bias. I am no expert at anything, but neither is anybody else here, certainly not you and your words certainly are NOT authoritative.

There many layers of examination but three basic layers, fundamental understanding which is where most religious persons remain, a layer of confusion and then a layer of reconciliation. Most former adherents leave at the layer of confusion, cognitive dissonance as it were.

John

I do not think of YOU as “just a Mormon apologist.” You do sometimes make statements about the church that I consider extraordinary, but I am sure I do the same as far as you are concerned.

Thanks for responding to my Truth statement.

With your indulgence, may I ask for a couple of amplifications?

You write that you think it is TRUE:
That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a vassal state of God's Kingdom in Eternity.
JAMES
I flunked medieval history. What does it “mean” to be a Vassall state?

John:
That the church concept of dialogolic revelation bring people into communion with the infinite
Jam:
I can buy this, but why do we need the Mormon church to do this. I am often in communion with the infinite, without any aid of the church.
However, if it helps YOU do that, I think it is good thing.
Are you saying that in this sense, ALL religions are true? Most bring one into communion with the infinite.

John writes: the temple is A place to experience Celestial state of being.

Jas: I was in a Celestial state of being in Symphony hall the other night listening to Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony.
So Beethoven and Mormonism are equivalently true.

John: Jesus is real and He did in fact call Prophets and Apostles after the Biblical tradition.

James: Now we are getting somewhere. I assume you mean that Jesus called Wilfred Woodruff and Ezra Taft Benson and Boyd Packer to be leaders of the Mormon Church?

And that these “prophets” in SOME sense “speak for God.” When they tell us that if we get sealed in the temple and obey the commandments, we will get to the Celestial kingdom,we should believe them.

That of course is what I was taught every week when I was a practicing Mormon.

And that is a definable belief in Truth. We both agree that it has to be believed on Faith rather than evidence, and it is very much your right to believe it. I think my brother believes it.

The tricky part for you, it seems to me, is deciding which statements of the Prophet are Really from God, and which statements from the Prophet are just his fallible human non-God communing imperfect self. Like Brigham Young and the Blacks, I presume.

Do you think Joseph Smith’s revelation about Polygamy was a “true revelation,” one we should follow if the law did not prohibit it?

There is as you know a schism between fundamentalist Christians who take every word in the Bible literally (or think they do) and the more metaphorical Christians who believe the bible has spiritual stories that illuminate the moral issues of our lives. You seem towards the metaphorical end of the spectrum.

My rigid logical mind still grapples with the problem of how I tell which revelations are true and which are not true, when in both cases the Prophet says he is giving us a revelation.

Derrida said: "First and foremost, DV, if you knew about textual criticism, you would be aware that the provision of "cast the first stone", is NOT even in the original autograph of the Bible. It is false doctrine. It was an oral myth that the scribes at some later date inserted into the later Greek copies, that should not be in the Bible. The woman taken in adultery is a false story. It never happened."

Funny... Joseph Smith never took it out of the Inspired Version of the Bible, he left it in.

Now we have another contradiction. Either I am to believe Joseph Smith, who the church teaches is second only to Christ in righteousness, the Prophet of the Last Dispensation of the Fulness of Times upon the earth, who left this story untouched in his inpired translation of the Bible.

Or, I am to believe you, Derrida, a self-proclaimed expert of philosophy, who claims that this verse is "false doctrine" and directly contradicts Joseph Smith's translation which left the story intact. In an ironic twist, you claim to be a believer in Joseph Smith's story.

Hmmm... who do I choose to believe... A classic narcissist or a pseudo-scholarly egomaniac...

Like I have told you before, I am not an ex-mormon. I am not some bitter apostate. I am a fully active member of the church and am my Elders Quorum Instructor. What agenda does that imply?

I only want to discuss truth. Not myth. I want to discuss the authentic history of the church openly. I want to discuss the true doctrines of mormonism openly. If you consider my openness about mormonism as a figurative "rape of your women" then so be it. Maybe the history of mormonism is aptly described as a rape of the early collective consciousness of the saints. Maybe my job is to help the healing process of that early "rape" by deceitful church leaders.

That may be the main reason my patriarchal blessing states that I have the "gift of healing" I am helping the confused, the downtrodden, the deceived to see their religion for what it really is.

Derrida Defends the Child Molesters

D
Here in Massachusetts you would risk getting the same treatment as the Salem Witches if your comment on Catholic Priests were published in a newspaper.

NO ONE, catholic or non catholic, even the current Cardinal of the Boston Archdiocese, would agree with your morally reprehensible statement.

Once again, just when I thought you could not say anything more outrageous than what you already have said, you prove me wrong.

Hundreds of Prominent Boston area catholic leaders have made the same criticisms of the Church's behavior in the child abuse scandal that I have.

Derrida the bible critic-

Do you even consider yourself a Christian? You have the audacity to criticize the Holy Bible, yet hold up the Book of Mormon as a shining example of scripture? Who is the real hypocrite? The Book of Mormon is pure fantasy, have you ever seriously studied the Book of Ether? The Book of Mormon was a construction of a desperate religionist, Sydney Rigdon, and a talented glass looker, Joseph Smith. See: http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm for the most insightful discussion of the true origins of the Book of Mormon online. I find it humorous that you toss out Biblical doctrine as useless and false doctrine, yet you support the Book of Mormon which is a colossal fairtale, as admitted by Elders Dallon Oaks and Neil Maxwell to MaryAnn and Steve Benson when they were questioned about obvious plagiarism contained in it. Oaks and Maxwell admitted the many parts of it were plagiarized, but that it was still a magnificent work and could bring one closer to Christ. Do you want to be closer to Christ? I don't think that you do. Can the Book of Mormon bring someone closer to Christ? Maybe. It has about the same depth of character development as the Lord of the Rings series by Tolkien. If Tolkien had interwoven Biblical verses in the Lord of the Rings series, could it be considered a work of God too, just like the Book of Mormon? I guess so.

Derrida the Latter-Day Porter Rockwell-

This self-gloss is quite indicative of a frenzied mind. Who, in their right mind would compare themselves to the Danite Porter Rockwell? Who, in their right mind would compare themselves to any of the Danites? Are you impressed with Rockwell's assassination attempt upon Governor Boggs? Are you impressed by Brigham Young's teaching to put a javelin through the heart of apostates? Is this your creed? Porter Rockwell was a ruthless murderer who Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both used to execute their decisions. He killed many upon the orders of the early mormon leaders. Derrida, I fear lest you are under condemnation of hellfire and brimstone. To compare yourself with a notorious murderer like Rockwell is akin to comparing yourself with Adolf Hitler. I am sure that your knowledge of history is not so flimsy and superficial that you do not realize the many murders committed by Rockwell. If your knowledge in this area is weak, may I refer you to "The Biography of Porter Rockwell" by Harold Schindler and "Holy Murder: The Story of Porter Rockwell" by Kelly & Birney. After reading those books you probably won't compare yourself to Porter Rockwell ever again.

Derrida

Sir, you are a character, you really are.

First, you dispute the “reality” of the first stone story. Oh, so the rest of the bible is REAL?

Harold Bloom, 100 times the scholar you are, starts out his book Jesus and Yahweh by noting that there is not one undisputed “fact” about Jesus’s life. Hard to single out the stone.

Did Jesus walking on water really happen.? Did he really raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he ascend into heaven?

I accurately characterized your behavior when you said to DV, if you don’t like it, just leave.

That is a morally reprehensible act on your part. Do you dispute that? Can you justify your expulsion of the sinner DV from your Garden? Peter Singer would make the same judgment on your behavior that I have. Remember, I still love YOU. It is that behavior I characterize.

What doctrine did I distort? Scholars are required not just to make assertions, but to actually back them up with evidence.

John D:

Here is the dilemma. Former adherents believe there is some higher callinig to be a "critic" of the Church.

Everybody who will not assent to their view is a liar or an apologist.

Nothing could ever prove the veracity of any claim and no examination by them will ever be on the up and up.

A person can have an honest, open discourse with adherents of other faiths, but not with former adherents. A former adherent has a closed mind on that chapter.

The real structure is the Church presents itself simply, as would any organization in its initial presentation. In many respects, it is run like a well-run business. No surprise, most leaders are businessmen. However, there are other currents once one cuts below the first layer. The false judgment critics heap is that they say, LDS are fundamentalists and must be judged by fundamentalist standards, when in fact, we allow people to function as fundamentalists, but true Mormonism is NOT fundamentalist. It is a dialectic formed through faith, reason and experience.

I first want to say, you guys keep mentionaing Mormon apologist, as if I am one. I don't have any association with apologetic organizations. Nor have I read much apologetic literature. I am only giving my thoughts as Latter Day Saint who has attempted to understand his faith.

You say I give no way in which the church is true. I guess I shouldn't take for granted that ya'll know I see the revelation as divine messages, given to us "in our weakness, according to our language that we might come to understanding."

That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a vassal state of God's Kingdom in Eternity.

That the church concept of dialogolic revelation bring people into communion with the infinit.

That the Temple is literally "a place cut out" as the word literally means. Literally a conduit to Eternal realms amidst this fallen world. A place to experience Celestial state of being.

Jesus is real and He did in fact call Prophets and Apostles after the Biblical tradition. I made a post in another thread which explains this a bit more...

"These Modern Day Prophets have been inspiring people to be disciples of Christ and maintaining a unified covenant people of the Lord for nearly two hundred years. They have said many things and practically been followed around with a stenographer everywhere they’ve gone. This vast and rich record has been exploited by those who are attempting to demonstrate that the claim that God has called Prophets today are false.

There are within this records occasional statements which injure modern sentiment, Mormon and non-Mormon alike. This is inevitable when you have people who are from different times and places, and who, consequently, have absorbed different assumptions about the nature of reality.

The point I wish to make is that non-believers expect more from these men than their mantel affords them. These are not embodied gods, but rather Prophets and Apostles after the Biblical tradition. The Biblical record demonstrates that God did not culturally reprogram His Prophets and Apostles into children of the enlightenment. For example Moses, Abraham, Peter and Paul did not share our modern abhorrence to slavery, and patriarchal dominance. Because I personally believe that God does abhor these things, I must explain how God speaks through these individuals while at the same time looking past their cultural baggage.

In Social Work discourse there is a saying ‘start where the client is.’ Which is what the Lord must do with us, he cannot give us all truth at once:

“For precept must be upon precept…line upon line…here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).

In our day Jesus has said:

“these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” (D&C 1:24).

The Lord must work within our weakness (opinions, lame brained ideas, personality defects, limited intelligence) and language (which necessarily includes our categories of thought and taken for granted assumptions) to even communicate with us.

This is a large part of the Prophetic fallibility I was talking about.

So why should we give any weight to what the Prophets say? Because despite this limitation, the Lord still speaks to His people through them.

Followers of Paul and Peter perhaps did not become enlightened with regards to slavery, but that did not prevent them from learning many principles of Christian discipleship and the only name under which they could enter the Kingdom of God.

Modern Prophet’s role is to point the way to Christ. It is their calling prepare and sanctify the covenant people of the Lord for blessings in Eternity.

The Lord calls other people to fulfill other missions. God’s work extends beyond the church and He has servants outside of it. I believe He called people like Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, John Wesley, Charles Darwin etc., to fulfill different missions than that of a Prophet after the Biblical tradition.

I, for one, am not bothered that a Prophet’s role is so limited. Their words and teachings have given me the abundant life. Life following their counsel is radiant and beautiful. The Holy Spirit bears witness to my Spirit that they speak for Jesus. Their words bring me to Him and I thus partake of His peace.

“If there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ”

(Mormon, Title page of the Book of Mormon). "

There are many more ways in which I believe the church to be true, but do you really want this to turn into a testimony meeting?

James

As far your attack as your attacks on the Catholic Church are, an organization which has done much good and preserved much knowledge of antiquity, it is odd as far as the nature of these lawsuits against the priests.

The statute of limitations should have run on these, but the courts have gerrymandered the law to permit them. Why should 21st century standards apply to events of the 1980s? This is an example of a lack of justice in our country. The Catholic Church is being ruined to fill a few lawyers' pockets, not to render justice.

James, and DV:

You two are the heighth of hypocrits. On one hand, you dishonestly attack the Church, and so when somebody lowers himself to be at your level, you whine, "hey, be Christlike when we rape your women."

First and foremost, DV, if you knew about textual criticism, you would be aware that the provision of "cast the first stone", is NOT even in the original autograph of the Bible. It is false doctrine. It was an oral myth that the scribes at some later date inserted into the later Greek copies, that should not be in the Bible. The woman taken in adultery is a false story. It never happened.

James, if one engages another at a scholarly level, one engages at that level. You have not done so, but rather attacked at a very crude and distasteful level. Do expect somebody to put up with caca?

I will not allow you to distort the doctrines uncostestedly. Discuss tastefully and I can return to that tone.

Speak as a four year old, with lies and castigations, and I, like Porter Rockwell, will hit what I aim at. It doesn't take any effort to distort, but it does require effort to discuss tastefully.

YOu have already made up your mind James, and you're well aware of the axiom, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

If a person wishses a respectful philosophical discussion, one must first be respectful.

However, to force any discussant to accept positions to which you wish to force a particiapant is unethical. You then accuse that person of "irrational" behavior. I advise that you consider some of the discussions of Walter Benjamin, Theordor Adorno and even Brecht.

The discussion tends toward this: you distort a doctrine then I attack you for being a horse's patouche, it's that simple.

DV

To return to rationality from Derridean Postmodernist Non relativistic relativism

You wisdom and clarity are much appreciated, as always.

When I said that Derrida was morally beneath contempt for what he said to you and the way he said it,
I was totally serious.

Under Kohlberg's states of moral reasoning, he has not even reached the first step. He is on the negative scale.

I could not believe the antithesis of the best Christian teachings that his behavior exhibited, even knowing this was Derrida.

Many of my Catholic friends here in Massachusetts have the same kind of relationship with their church that you seem to have with Mormonism.

They believe what are many lovely teachings of Cathollicism, and value their friends in their progressive parishs, but they despise the cover ups of child abuse, they realize the groos abuse of power that leaders like Cardinal Law carried on, and others do as well, the know that Papal infallibility is a joke, and they have a much more highly developed moral and ethical sense than their congregation brothers and sisters who stick blindly to the catechism.

James-

Cudos to you on your recovered memory. That's great! I too wish that I had had the opportunity to be brought into this existence as a french epistomological postmodern dialectical relativist. Or German. That is probably how God intended it, for all of his children.

God intended that when I was learning "Give Said the Little Stream" and being told to follow the prophet, like you, I would have a pre-pubescent awakening that Joseph Smith was just a symbolic transformation of Yosemite Sam filtered through an abstract expressionist aesthetic of some art gallery. Yet, this was not to be, as I was raised in Utah, the son of authoritarian literalist parents. Ah, the ironic twists of existence, the operant conditioning that permeates a childhood, and its long-lasting effects.

Fred-

Yes Fred, shame on you for believing trusted parents and leaders with all of your heart, when all they were really doing was feeding you the "Sunday School" version of reality. Shame, shame, for believing their testimonies every month that The Book of Mormon was true and the Church was true, and that the only way you could get to the celestial kingdom and not be separated from your family was to get married in the temple. That was all window dressing? Can't you see it? For the real truth you would learn in your adulthood. Didn't you get the memo? "Do not believe it, signed mom and dad." Me neither.

By the way Fred and James, clear-thinkers like you should come hang out over on thefoyer.org, unless you are already receiving further light and knowledge.

Derrida-

You said: "If you guys don't like it, leave. It's that simple. Whiners not invited. The antis must form a whiners club. Make certain you bring some good cheese." Nice job. Succinct, and to-the-point, with a Word of Wisdom innuendo to boot. You must style yourself clever. But you assume too much, I am not an anti, but a fully active, if unorthodox member, such as yourself. Too bad your advice doesn't square with the Bible: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." -John 8:7, and: "Forgive them; for they know not what they do." -Luke 23:34. You may want to start taking your cues from Jesus before you start flinging stones my way. Mormonism is a Christian variant, I'm sure your are aware. Are you without sin? I don't think so. Maybe you can walk on water, but I doubt it. Should you forgive us poor intellectually deficient souls who know not what we do? According to the Master, you should. Why tell us to leave? Is that a Christlike attitude my brother?

You also said: "If I left a sports club, I didn't whine how it distorted its presentations. I just moved on." We are not talking about a sports club here, are we? Is that how you look at the church, as some casual social club? If so, you really are an atheist, and not a complete convert. This 'social club' requires its male membership to give two years of their lives to the 'club.' I don't know if you served a two-year mission. I did. I know what I'm talking about, you may be merely speculating.

You seem to be the one content to distort your presentations of mormonism. It remains a highly orthodox religion, as opposed to grossly inaccurate portrayals. Your quaint philosophical approach presents an inadequate description of actual mainstream Utah mormonism, which I feel compelled to present, to be objectively accurate. I am quite content to remain in the church at present, and continue teaching gospel doctrine as I see it, in spite of the obvious decline and decay of quality leadership, at the highest levels. And in spite of your invitation to leave. I feel that God may want me to work a great work, from within the bounds of mormonism. Call it... personal revelation!

John

you have given us no idea
of ANY SENSE
in which
the Church
might be True.

That is a meaningless phrase as far as you have used it up til now.

Here are a couple of Truth Meaning statements

Relativity theory is true
THEREFORE nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

Evolutionary theory is True
THEREFORE
man is genetically similar to many other animals.

When you say "The Church is True"
you can supply NO ThEREFORE....

THEREFORE
for you to say The Church is True
makes no sense

unless you are a Derridiean Dialectician
which i fear you are.

So John, are you telling me that “revelation PLUS folk knowledge” is true, and that JSmith was a true Folk Prophet?

Or that Joseph Smith was “weak and foolish,” and therefore I should give 10% of my income to a church founded on his foolish folk wisdom? That sounds Foolish to me (or OF me).

Are “His people” just the Mormons? Or are they all people?

I prayed for guidance on this and got an unmistakable burning in my chest that said I should follow the Prophet Mohammed. Do you mean those “His People.”

All the little children I know are grand, majestic, full of light, goodness and love.

Recovered memory

DV i just remembered

I was a french epistomological postmodern dialectical relativist between the ages of 3-9
so when i was learning all those primary songs and being told to follow the prophet i knew that Joseph smith was just a symbolic transformation of Daffy Duck as filtered through the abstract expressionist aesthetic of the new york art gallery where we had our sacrament meetings, and the blood of christ was symbolized by the urine that one of the conceptual artists immersed the picture of our Savior, though it might have been Adam or God, who were actually the same person. I know, because i had intimate relations with both of them, this being before i had my sex change operation

If one insists that for the church to be true it must have "pure revelation" unfettered by folk knowledge, or as Mormon put it the "mistakes of men", then you are insisting on a Mormonism that is impossible in this fallen world.

Folk knowledge is inevitable, especially in a lay organization run by "folks." Though this is a pesky side effect, I would have the Kingdom of God no other way. God does not need programmed automatons to do his work, neither does he need all professionals.

The Mormon God wants all to have opportunity to be great, so he gives common folks opportunities in His Kingdom to become great. Though of course to some that might make His Kingdom seem not so great when common folks act common; to me it makes it all the greater.

God can do His work through the weak and foolish. This has worked for me, though I have to follow those commandments in the D&C to "study it out in my mind" and "seek words of wisdom out of the best books." Lucky for me I prefer that to just absorbing all I learn unreflected.

As a result, God works mightily in my life, and I see His majesty at work in His Kingdom from its inception. Of course there is that constant reminder that God is working in a world full of biological, cultural, social, psychological, historical, fallen humans.

Though He has His work is cut out for Him, I'm glad God doesn't give up. That He doesn't say "what more can I do for my vineyard" and walk away. But he prunes and digs, and nourishes ever so gently--until His work and His people are as grand, majestic, full of light, goodness and love as He is.

DV
I'm with you Man.

Shame on me for falling for it and buying that four volume set with the D and C and the Pearl.
And then being stupid enough to believe those guys on the pulpit and in Ensign magazine
when they told me The Book of Mormon was true
and the Church was true
and that the only way i could get to the celestial kingdom
and not be separated from my family
was to get married in the temple.

It can't be the fault of those liars who told us children those lies.

It must have been my fault because I didn't pray enough, and my parents weren't smart enough though my father had a phd, and i was in league with satan, and i hadn't read walter benjamin, and i hadn't learned how to dance around with postmodern anti relativistic relativism and say
well nothing can be taken at its word, and everything is a dialectic
and when they tell you
you have to get sealed to go the CK
they don't mean you "really" haave to and they
don't mean you "really* DON"t have to
but they want you to meditate on the dialectic of those two mutually exclusive propositions until you get a burning feeling in your chest that this time the prophet was actually speaking as a prophet unless he was really speaking just as a man who was bound by his own culture and of course imperfect and certainly part of an historical dialectic and mired in presocratic notions of flux and indeterminancy and complementarity as was explained to me at the Stanford graduate school of philosphy.

Derrida
Your reply is a perfect example of the
internet mormon apologist tactics described above.
don't you like being immortalized

when i read this
You get one confusing, impossible to follow doctrinal cluster that makes your head spin. (Kind of like the expression on Austin Power's face when he is introduced to the Italian Bird named Alotta Vagina).

That's how i feel, and you add pseudo philosophy to the mix

did they laugh you off the campus at Harvard at some point for spewing this kind of nonsense, and that is why you hold a grudge agaiinst them?

Derrida
You are morally beneath contempt.
But I love you anyway.

DV:

If you guys don't like it, leave. It's that simple. Whiners not invited.

If I left a sports club, I didn't whine how it distorted its representations. I just moved on.

The antis must form a whiners club. Make certain you bring some good cheese.

Fred, are you confusing the "Sunday School" version of mormonism, with its evil twin, historic reality?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Shame on you Fred. All of the enlightened intellectuals will tell you that you simply need to pass beyond all those neat little facts you and I were taught, that were wrapped up so nice, and tied with a nice little bow. That was just the "Sunday School" version of mormonism.

True mormonism is only learned at great risk to one's worldview and entire goal system (that is, unless you openly advocated atheism your entire life, and adopted mormonism as a cute little hobby lifestyle in your golden years, to appease your mormon spouse). You must give up everything you learned in the "Sunday School" version, and start from scratch. Nice, eh?

You silly Fred. Always believing what you were told, weren't you? Well, so was I. Reality has a mean way of smacking you right between the eyes sometimes.

Distortion.

James and Fred, if what you represent here is what you learned in Church, then you are either blatantly dishonest or you left when you were eight. Otherwise you weren't listening or thinking. That's the sum of it.

Evolution was discussed around the turn of the 19th/20th century. After that, most modern pronouncements reverse and take no trend.

YOu don't DNA if you take Simon's overstated claims at face value. There's more the halotyping that Simon lets on.

You've left the congegration. Find something that makes you happy. We don't care what it is, but do something positive. You've not demonstrated it here.

The bottom line, is despite distortive attempts to portray the Church as having been debunked, it hasn't. It will never be debunked or verified scientifically. Thus, all religion must work through a dialectic, as Walter Benjamin describes.

Thank God I Stumbled on to this Thread
Derrida and John D have Opened my eyes

I was raised on the hemispheric model [of Book of Mormon Geography], including literal beliefs about the three nephites, curses of dark skin, actual elephants and horses, and other nonsense.

This take on BoM [i.e., Book of Mormon] history obviously cannot be true, and this fantasy was one of the main reasons I came to the conclusion the church is false.

Since I started reading Derrida on this thread, I've come to learn that I was totally confused and misled by all my parents, sunday school teachers, bishops, and even prophets. The deceptions extended even to church-produced videos and other materials, including just about everything ever printed in the Ensign and anything found on the walls of a temple visitors center.

Apparently the nephites and lamanites were just a small band of invisible people who fought all their wars on a small island in the caribbean, or perhaps in a large cave in mexico, leaving no physical or cultural or genetic trace of themselves except for a lone instance of some records written on golden plates in a language that is still unknown by the world to this day.

Fine. I was wrong. My leaders were wrong. The prophets were wrong.

Now, furthermore, I was also taught many of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as if they were true! I was raised to believe that the garden of eden was in missouri, that the cover page of the book of mormon was actually accurate, that "Mormon Doctrine" was indeed about mormon doctrine (after all, the man who wrote it was ordained as a prophet, seer, and revelator, wouldn't god have tapped on his shoulder to clarify something if he were writing down a lie?). I was told by all my teachers, bishops, parents and even church-produced seminary videos that black people were descended from Cain. I was fed quote after quote from prophets, apostles, the new era, and the ensign that confirmed the core beliefs I was mistakenly raised on.

I was told that evolution was a crock and given quotes from prophets and apostles that categorically denounced it as false. It was presented as an impossibility that was anathema to my faith. No way could both be true.

I was mistakenly told that these and other quotes about false doctrines and mistaken beliefs were reliable because the prophets will "never lead us astray", which was in itself a quote from a prophet.

Now here on zlmb I learn that no, none of this stuff is considered reliable and I should have been taught to discount anything said by a dead prophet.

I should have been taught that most of these things are outright errors and falsehoods. I am told that the belief we'll become gods is nothing more than a little couplet, not really doctrine. I'm told that prophets don't really communicate directly with god. They just pray and hope for vague direction like the rest of us. I'm told that Smith's egyptian alphabet was just his own little side project unrelated to actual divine translation duties. I'm told that his story of Zelph was a practical joke, as was the Anthon script. I'm told that none of the prophets knew anything about BoM history.

I'm told that the journal of discourses is not to be considered any more relevant than a Harry Potter novel, even though generations of mormons lived by many of its teachings as gospel, including myself and the ward I lived in. I'm told that when Joseph Smith says "Moroni told me about the original inhabitants of this contintent" he was either confused or drunk.

Ok fine, let's assume I take Derrida's word for it and discount everything I was ever told about prophets and their claims.

Here is one Derrida and his ghost use all the time

# Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."

Although it is true that Mormon apologists have been active nearly as long as Mormonism has existed, it does not follow that all their attempts to refute their critics have succeeded. I am unaware of any objection to Mormonism that hasn't been addressed to some degree, but at the same time I am aware of very, very few such objections that have ever been addressed competently or believably. Pro-Mormons almost universally fail to recognize that there is a huge difference between an "adequate refutation" and a "lame excuse"--and pro-Mormons produce far, far more of the latter than they do the former. For example, when an anti-Mormon brings up Joseph Smith's marital infidelities, LDS defenders often claim that Joseph Smith was sealed to his already-married plural wives for eternity only--to provide salvation for them--and not for "time." This excuse hardly counts as a "debunking" and is, of course, much closer to a "lame excuse," since these women could just as easily have been sealed for eternity to their legal husbands as to Smith.

derrida and john d
i know you've flown, but for your ghosts, i found this post by Anonymous and it reminded me of you.here it is:

I noticed that Mormon apologists make sure to distance themselves from the church by clearly stating that their screeds are not to be taken as the MORG's official positions. So let me see if I get this right, the COB takes a bunch of tithing money and pays people to deliberately produce unofficial church positions that "may" be helpful and informative. If I'm looking for something definitive, how informative and helpful are they really if the MORG won't claim or bless their work as official.

It looks to me like FARMS should really be more like the 4-H club or some other type of narrow interest group that has to hold fundraisers to keep themselves going. How about a Pancake Dinner or Car-Wash or Bake Sale or better yet, how about rounding up all the priesthood holders in the FARM building and heading over to the local sperm bank to see what their DNA is worth?

I grew up believing that I was to follow the living prophets and prophets are the only ones holding the authority to interpret scripture, proclaim doctrine and interpret what past prophets meant and/or what current prophets mean.

What would happen if we eliminated the layer of apologetics and solely focused on the words of the dead and/or living prophets?

1. You get unsolvable conundrum of "speaking as a prophet" v. "speaking as a man"
2. You get extraordinary contradictions amongst the Q15 over time. Who needs the LGT when you got JofD (which really aren't contradictions at all if deeply understood and understood in the proper context)
3. You get a loose cannon like McConkie who makes an utter ass of himself by making ridiculous claims and predictions while writing as half man-half prophet and it's your job to divine which one is speaking. So a talk entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" is really nothing but a take it-or-leave it tirade.
4. You get "the couplet" doctrine and the doctrine of "we don't teach that anymore". Once again you must understand at a more mature and sophisticated level of meaning and nuance, and understand it in the correct context and once done, "JS loves Fanny" is No Problemo!
5. You get one confusing, impossible to follow doctrinal cluster that makes your head spin. (Kind of like the expression on Austin Power's face when he is introduced to the Italian Bird named Alotta Vagina)

I think the church should save some money by outsourcing its apologetics product line to the lowest bidder. All you need is someone who can type the following in response to just about any criticism levied against the church:

* You've mischaracterized my position, but that doesn't matter because I was right and you were wrong before you ever mischaracterized my position
* You simply don't get it and you never will get it because you lack the ability to penetrate the deeper meaning of Godly things and you fail to appreciate the proper context in which seemingly disturbing things were said or done.
* Don't waste your time because here at FARMS we win them all, and that's before the game is ever played. We Guarantee It!

Bye Bob,

Thank you for your response to my post. I thought it was interesting. But I think you underestimate the varieties of subjective experience in different cultural contexts.

You seem to assume the Mormon phenomena and other cultural phenomena can be grouped together, while really their correspondence to one another is unverifiable. Cultural anthropologists who study cultural subjectivity recognize that actually getting to qualia is nearly impossible. They can only hope to aproximate.

I have various subjective experience that could be described as "burning in the Bossom", but I've learned through trial and error that I can only trust one qualitatively unique type of answer from the divine. I now know what that is, and I trust it, until it betrays my trust.

Betty,

You asked if we are on the same page with those concepts you outlined. We are...but I understand them in relation to other concepts which changes the meaning of them from the isolated crude form they take in single sentances and declarations.

Yes they are at odds with absolute Universalism, but I said it does not contradict anything Universalian *I* have said.

BTW Sorry for the ambiguity, I thought I was more clear.

I'm done here folks. Best wishes.

bob

Betty,

I understand your frustration.

I think there are different levels of interpretation allowed for different beliefs.

I believe declarations contain truth, but also points to a fuller reality that I do not completely understand.

If you think the phenomena described can be reduced to the limited description alone, it will to seem much more absurd.

If you think of anything real...then any one sentence description is insufficient to really describe a phenomena. Especially if the phenomena under question is completely foreign to you.

So describing that God has a body may sound crude if you do not also aknowledge that there is much, much more to the story than we are being told.

A believer would do the Latter. An unbeliever would not, becuase they assume it has no reality to begin with.

I am sorry that I do not have time to be clearer. These are complex ideas and I don't have much time to invest here Betty. It is nice you to continue to ask me questions on the matter.

But, yes Mormons reject the Platonic God and assert that God is tangeable and that there is no immaterial reality.

Meanings are relational. As I understand more about life and ideas, my religion concepts evolve in relation to my increased understanding. Every member of the church has different world knowledge and experience there for the meaning they give to Mormon concepts is bound to be different.

Betty:

That's an unfair question to ask a member, how the Church collectively interprets the language if his definition isn't good enough.

Church declaration appears to state, God is tangible. Nothing unclear about that.

John
I understand your position
though I must say
your reasoning still does not make sense to me.

You write:
Believer: believes divine disclosures to be real. Therefore they try and understand them in context of reality and reason.

Non-believer: Believes the revelations to not square well with reality and reason. Therefore understands them in a way that is more obviously at odds with them.

These different perspectives lead to difference of interpretation.

How does this Truth procedure deal with, for instance
The Mormon Belief
noted on the LDS official web site.

"God has flesh and bone but no blood."

Does the church mean that literally or metaphorically? I am NOT asking how YOU interpret it.

If I, investigating the Church, read that on the Church web site e

or if I am a lifelong member, like my blinking mother,

and i am told this

I interpret it to mean

God has a body of Flesh and Blood but no blood.

Am i not as subtle and nuanced as I am supposed to be.

Again,
this has NOTHING to do with how YOU interpret things.

John D.

That is the explanation of how persons perceive the issues debated.

Believer and non-believer approach to Mormonism...

Believer: believes divine disclosures to be real. Therefore they try and understand them in context of reality and reason.

Non-believer: Believes the revelations to not square well with reality and reason. Therefore understands them in a way that is more obviously at odds with them.

These different perspectives lead to difference of interpretation.

For me the doctrine of continuous revelation implies the understanding of Mormon concepts is never finished it is a continuous journey.

From this stems our difference. In this we can agree to disagree my friends.

John and Betty

Thanks Betty for your above note to John.
Your Philosophy degree helps you put things more clearly than I can.

John
I am sure

Betty and I don't want to dispute
The Truth Value
of these Mormon Claims.

They can not be proven or disproven.
They have to be a matter of FAITH
as do so many/most religious beliefs.

What we are both trying to do is just to be clear as to
1. What the Mormon Church Believes
2. It would be interesting to know what YOU believe, but we don't want to convince you not to believe it.
We are interested in posting our opinion of these beliefs on the Public Forum,
but I don't belittle you or my brother or my uncle who are active Mormon believers.

What we DO want to do is

Make sure that Mormonism is Represented truthfully to the world at large, and we don't think Otterson really tells 100% the truth. We don't think that is his goal. Reasonable people can disagree.
Reasonable people can also say that in general, the first job of a PR Man is to do PR.
The first job of Bruce McConkie, like him or not, was to tell what he thought was the truth.

Thanks for your patience.
You are a good man.

Thanks John
I had read this, and remember it, but you have written lots of words, and what YOU refer to as your definition is ambiguous.

Let me mirror back to you how I understand this statement yours line by line.

John Writes:
To me, the *True Church* concept does not mean the church has a monopoly on truth, or that all it has is necessarily 100% true, but rather refers to Preisthood, and the legal connection that preisthood enables between affairs on earth and affairs in heaven.

Certainly the Church has no monopoly and is not 100% true.
I interpret your "legal connection" to mean
On earth people need to be married/sealed by a Priesthood holder in order to
IN HEaven, enter the Celestial Kingdom.
Is that what you believe? It is certainly what the church believes.

JOHN
"That which you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven" Jesus said. That is the essence of the true church concept as far as I am concerned.

A non mormon would not understand what "bound in heaven" means. I guess you mean people who are sealed on earth will be together in heaven.
Is THAT what you mean and believe?

Covenants carried out in ordinances are like a legal transaction, not a sacramental fusion of Grace in a Catholic sense. They primarily concern commitment to certain obligations, their Eternal validity depends on keeping this commitment."

I interpret this to mean
If you make covenents in, say, the Temple
and you keep your part of the bargain,
God will keep his.
Do I read you?

John wrote:

"Salvation includes innumberable degrees. Three main ones, but innumerable ones in between. Therefore it is not either/or.

Betty
In the three main degrees, can i travel between them at will,or am i assigned to one by God and have to stay there til god tells me to move.?
Is the telestial kingdom as desireable as the Celestial kingdom?
(You and I both know the Church says it isn't, don't we).

John:
But yes, we believe the preisthood allows for people to enter the third heaven.

Betty: and I was always taught that this was the ultimate desiderata in Eternal Progression. Agree?

John:

It is a positive belief not a negative, since most don't believe in a third heaven.

Betty: So does this paraphrase to me saying to a non mormon
"it's not that your heaven is going to be worse,
It's just that ours is going to be better.:" ?

John
It does not contradict any universalian thing I have said."

Betty:
Universalism means to me that the same opportunities and truths apply to everyone.

Summary: What I understand you to be saying here is
Only through Priesthood can one get to the third heaven.
The *Mormon Priesthood* is the only priesthood that God has authorized to perform these legal transactions.
One has to be a Mormon to enter in to these legal transactions. A Mormon priesthood holder can't seal a NOn mormon in the temple.

I think (hope) we have agreement, if you agree with what it appears you have said. (again, it is totally fine for you to believe it: I don't, but you don't believe the things I believe either).

In my Mormon upbringing, we Mormons understood all this to add up to the two short phrases that are said about 6 million times every Sunday.

"The Church is True" (you and i know it's not 100%, but in this basic covenant it must be).
"The Mormon Plan of Salvation is the only plan that will maximize your Eternal Progression."
Essentially what the five quotes from Benson/McConkie/Joseph Smith say.

Do I read you correctly?

Betty:

Here is my definition that a gave when you asked me to address this topic Betty:

To me, the *True Church* concept does not mean the church has a monopoly on truth, or that all it has is necessarily 100% true, but rather refers to Preisthood, and the legal connection that preisthood enables between affairs on earth and affairs in heaven.

"That which you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven" Jesus said. That is the essence of the true church concept as far as I am concerned.

Covenants carried out in ordinances are like a legal transaction, not a sacramental fusion of Grace in a Catholic sense. They primarily concern commitment to certain obligations, their Eternal validity depends on keeping this commitment."

I also wrote:

"Salvation includes innumberable degrees. Three main ones, but innumerable ones in between. Therefore it is not either/or.

But yes, we believe the preisthood allows for people to enter the third heaven.

It is a positive belief not a negative, since most don't believe in a third heaven.

It does not contradict any universalian thing I have said."

I have responded to your later posts assuming you had read this. Sorry for the miscommunication.

James:

Apologies. John understands me just fine.

Derrida

You have now become completely incomprehensible to me.

I am sure it is my problem.

If I ever am considering getting married in the temple, I will not ask you for advice.

John D
Don't play cat and mouse games.

What definition are you talking about.

You have written hundreds of posts.

James have you read my post? I don't really care much to write posts my fellow discussants don't read. I covered what you mention therein. To continue our discussion we musn't forget what has been said.

The prophets are not too stupid, but the device of language is too imprecise to convey the message precisely.

However, using your plebian approach, and a fundamentalist reductionist approach which I categorically reject as proper, there are numerous exceptions to the priesthood requirements for exaltation. First, children who die before the age of responsibility. Second, people who lack capacity. Third, those who have no knowledge.

Ordinances are important for those who become aware. I can use the typical, legalistic analogies, which explain rudimentally how the uninitiated, the uninterested and whoever else is careless enough, not to dig deeper, to explain how that applies, but you're already aware of the simplistic explanations.

The point is, those who hear the Gospel, understand it, are responsible to act according to personal inspiration received, require certain acts of faith and ritual to prove to themselves and to Deity, in order to receive further light and knowledge, thereby enhancing their continued and future existence.

There deep doctrines, not discussed, concerning eternal rounds, and others approaching eastern thought, which suggest, what would ordinarily be deemed heretical, concerning extensions to other faiths and continued applications. However, that is beyond the scope of a fundamentalist reductionstic reaction, you are endeavoring to elicit.

The fact is, I accept no plain explanation of anything. I accept no common sense assumptions. I acknowledge certain philosophical rigors as useful, but not all-knowing and all-inclusive. Our search for truth is a dialectic. Certain things are untrue, but rarely can we make categorical declarations for all time. Try the math proof for 2 plus 2 equals 4. It is not simple in higher math, although intuitively it is very difficult.

Now move to Fermat's Last Theorem, and it becomes very difficult, even the observation is simple.

Is this your definition?

True: In the context of real life organization the claim that it is a true organization can mean many things.

Salvation: In the context of Mormon doctrine can mean a number of things.

Solution: Consider statements in the context of scriptures, other statements, impressions from the spirit and real life experiences.

Search, Ponder and Pray are the things that we must do....the hymm goes.

That is what I have done with these words, and you have my interpretation of them.

Communication problems are inevitable. Limited or different understandings are inevitable.

I do take P Benson to mean what he says.

To the degree that he interprets it the way I do I agree with him, to the degree that he contradicts my universalist tendencies I disagree with him. But I doubt he would disagree with the First Presidency Message that echoes them.

Frequently Asked Mormon Questions

Q. What is the purpose of life.
A. to follow god's commandments and to gain eternal salvation (there is a Planfor Salvation) so that men can become as Gods through eternal progression.

Q. Where do you become like Gods?
A. In the highest degree of heaven, which we call the Celestial Kingdom.

Q. How do you get to get there?
A. You have to be Marriedin the temple or sealed to a man who will be in the CK?

Q. Who performs the temple marriage..
A. Only a Mormon Priesthood holder can.

Q. Can non Mormons who have not been to the temple. or have not accepted the church in the afterlife after having baptism done for them, achieve this CK?
A. No, unfortunately not.

Q. So Mormonism is the ONLY way, the only TRue way,to achieve the highest salvation?
A. That is correct.

Guys: is this not why I am going to the temple to get married? Is this not what I am told? are they lying to me?

What aspects of my definition do you think misrepresent what Mormons believe?

-pardon john

i don't understand your question
could you rephrase it?
thanks

Derrida and John

If you believe that Joseph Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, and all the other Mormon Prophets who have said the Church is the only True Church (and that's all of them)

were either wrong or imprecise or simplistic or in some other way not able to speak plainly and mean what they said

the inevitable outcome of your position is

the Mormon Prophets do not speak from God.

There is no more important statement a leader can make than that
The Mormon Church is (or is not) the only true church, the only church through whose priesthood one can gain the highest level of salvation.

There is NO doubt that mormons believe in a CelestialKingdom that requires Priesthood let ordinances for one to achieve it.

I've recently ask a couple other LDS and they give it the same meaning as me. I asked you sincerely, how do you, your grandpa, and 98% of Mormons take it?

I want to know where we are in disagreement as to its meaning.

Derrida and John

My unusually intelligent father, whose ancestors have been with the church from the beginning, and understood Church teachings as deeply and profoundly as anyone I ever met (except perhaps Truman Madsen)

if he were to read your professions of not being
able to understand what
Only True Church
means

would be astounded, dumbfounded, and would not have an exalted opinion of your intellectual ability OR integrity, or both.

The reason that expressing agreement with any proposition is the need to agree upon definitions and parameters.

What is canon?

Well, if you understood, even imperfectly how it arose, you understand the difficulty of articulating this.

It is not the inerrant word of God. Whatever else it is, is not that.

It is the best expression of a religious idea given the limitations of language, context, listener and speaker. It is also dynamic but unfortunately understood through a static device. Seen through this lens, one can see and how and why it arose, one can see how it is easy for prophets, scribes and teachers to erroneously convey God's messages.

Wow what a bunch of accusations. I leave for soccer practice and look what the cat dragged out.

The problem with answering the pseudo-traps left for the unwary is that words mean different things in different social contexts.

One true church. What the hell does that mean? Well, in one context it may be clear, but to another not clear.

What is salvation to an evangelical?

To an atheist?

To an LDS?

What is exaltation?

It is untrue, even according the a fundamentalist reductionist interpretaton of LDS doctrine, that only LDS receive salvation or exaltation. There are several known exceptions to this doctrine even under the most simplistic interpretation.

You asked me for my tak eon the issue. I gave it to you. I guess my question for you is, what do you think it means?

My mother, Utah State Graduate and daughter of a seminary principal, heard Benson and thought he meant what he said.

My father, a brilliant chemmistry professor whose Grandfather fought Johnson's Army and was born in Fielding Utah, thought Benson meant
"the mormon church is the only true church on the face of the earth."

The 400 people in my smart Mormon ward thought Benson meant what he said.

It is irrelevent what you or I think he meant. 98% of the Mormons I have ever met (and its in the thousands,including 600 relatives) think when the leaders say what Benson said (and Joseph blinking Smith said) that it is the truth, and they mean exactly what they say.

They are either right: it IS the only true church,
or
They are wrong: it IS NOT the only true church.

and you know, and they knew,what
"only true church" means.

I really can't understand why you can't bring yourself to at least acknowledge that this is the virtually universal Mormon belief as to reality. And I mean that sincerely, I just do not understand it. And I am not dumb, and neither are you.

The words used can have many meanings

True: In the context of real life organization the claim that it is a true organization can mean many things.

Salvation: In the context of Mormon doctrine can mean a number of things.

Solution: Consider statements in the context of scriptures, other statements, impressions from the spirit and real life experiences.

Search, Ponder and Pray are the things that we must do....the hymm goes.

That is what I have done with these words, and you have my interpretation of them.

Communication problems are inevitable. Limited or different understandings are inevitable.

I do take P Benson to mean what he says.

To the degree that he interprets it the way I do I agree with him, to the degree that he contradicts my universalist tendencies I disagree with him. But I doubt he would disagree with the First Presidency Message that echoes them.

Benson's Exact Quote

the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).

thanks John

but i really am puzzled.

when Ezra Taft Benson tells the members listening to conference that the church is
the only way to salvation

doesn't he mean them to understand that
the church is the only way to salvation.

does he really mean, do you think, that all the members should interpret it in their own way.

Again,
i sat in church for many years and took him to mean what he said.

and i am a smart Amherst College graduate.

There are more reasons to leave discussion than fear my friends. You seem to largely assume that. Words have different meanings in different contexts. I understand from what I've learned in cognitive anthropology that words are not comensorate with thoughts. In some contexts in Mormon discourse salvation means getting to the third heaven, in others it means redemption from hell. There is our misunderstanding.

My LSE freind as an anthropologists understand context, and does not assume if I do not respond to her email for a while that I am afraid.

Betty, Wes, James, and other concise, clear thinkers: You should join us on our discussion board at Further Light and Knowledge. Its at thefoyer.org and there is a tremendous amount of good natured, open discussion regarding similar topics. Be sure to bring your thinking caps! You may find that you enjoy it. TBMs are not invited unless they are willing to simply lurk and learn.

The tactic you used in responding to Bob
when you said
"that was two questions, not one"
and then answering neither

was quite obviously evasive.

Why on earth should you need bob's prompt to answer both, rather than,
as you did,
give us no answer.

Derrida erroneously charges.

Bob:

Now, you're pulling the authority card, "I have a relative with the prophet, so I know better."

The consequences and intent of the language and its application is important. It's not irrelevant.

after You and John had said I don't understand Mormon Nuance
Twas I who said, and I quote:

Derrida and John

Don't tell me I don't understand Mormon nuances.

I was a traditional Mormon for many many years. Fourth Generation. My great great grandfather was with the Prophet when he died.

You were challenging my Mormon credentials. I was telling you my Mormon credentials could not conceivably be worse than yours, and therefore
YOUR claim to Superior Priesthood Authority
had not validity.

I was clearly not claiming that mine had more.
But I clearly don't have less.

Betty

John ran away.

And Derrida is speechless.

John

it really is a logical axiom.

either something IS X
or it is NOT x

Are you saying
the Mormon church IS the only true church
AND it is not the only true church.

???

or
It IS the ONLY True church, but it's not that simple.

or
It is not the only true church

John

It looks like you are running away from Betty's question.

Now that the heat is on, you remember about your wife and kids.

You really have not answered her question.

It's fine if Mormonism is NOT the only true church.
Just say so.

Trouble is you would be contradicting all of your prophets going back emphatically to Joseph Smith.

You and Derrida can cover it over with as many pseudo philosophical machinations as you like,

but you are both avoiding a clear question.

I know Derrida has an impossible time being clear, but I thought you were able.

Johm
I love you.
youre a great guy.

But you never answered my question.

I am happy your LSE friend never asked you.
that must have made your life easier.

If you were honest,
you would say,
Ezra Taft Benson was wrong,
it's not that simple.

Maybe that is what you are saying.

isn't it a big PROBLEM when the man whom all in the church gets up in General Conference and says that the Mormon Church is the only way to salvation,

AND IT"S NOT REALLY TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!

That seems like awful thing to do to me.

If I were a believing Mormon, i would (and did( say to myself
Themormon church is the only way to salvation.

Derrida,

I said nothing about being related to the prophet. You have me confused with someone else.

Derrida,

Answer both questions if you think they are different.

bob

John,

Presumably, you will extend the principles applicable to your own position to others. It is your perception that you can distinguish between what you call a certain kind of revelation and mere emotion. You say that this kind of revelation has never led you astray.

How do you deal with a Jehovah's Witness, or Scientologist, or what ever, who says precisely the same thing you do? They might use different terminology, but it would amount to the same thing. Is their position as valid as yours? Does your agnosticism about your own truth claims extend this far? If not, on what basis do you justify that?

Let me again set up a few hypotheses that could explain the conundrum we are attempting to understand, and see which you think is more likely to be correct. I find that this form of analysis is helpful when dealing with difficult propositions.

As context, we note that individuals who have mutually inconsistent beliefs with regard to what is real have virtually the same subjective experience with regard to their beliefs, and that as a result of this subjective experience their beliefs are virtually unshakable. Those who study religious experience from James forward have noted this – the “more real than real” feeling that accompanies certain kinds of religious experience.

The first hypothesis is that regardless of the subject of perception of truth that many people have, there is only one truth, it is the Mormon interpretation of truth, and the Mormon perception of having received revelation is qualitatively different from the perception of revelation of the people have. This is the standard Mormon proposition, as it is the standard proposition for many other religious groups. It is not falsifiable and hence is unreliable for reliable decision-making purposes. However, it is a valuable tool for holding ideological groups together and recruiting new member, which likely explains its frequency of occurrence. The more information a person has about how other people experience their religious faith, the less compelling this hypothesis becomes.

The second hypothesis is that truth is accessible by each individual as a result of the same kind of revelation that you have received. However, truth differs from individual to individual. In this case, the Mormon truth as revealed to certain individuals is no more valuable than the many other truths revealed to other individuals. Mormons can justify their missionary efforts in the context of this hypothesis to an extent by taking the position that they are offering the opportunity to experience the Mormon truth to many people for whom it might be the truth. However, many other aspects of the Mormon belief system are inconsistent with this point of view. Once again, this hypothesis is not falsifiable and hence is unreliable for decision-making purposes. And once again, it is useful with regard to holding ideological groups together. It allows each group to hold onto its own members, but offers a far less effective basis for recruiting new members than the first hypothesis. However, it is more consistent with the reality people perceive as it becomes more, and to understand how similar religious experience within differing religious communities. As a result of the Internet, primarily, it would not surprise me to see Mormonism move toward this type of self conception, since most of the Christian faiths that have already gone in this direction at least insofar as other Christian faiths are concerned.

The third hypothesis is that powerful subjective experience related to religious beliefs is a human universal that evolved for the purpose of cementing our most important intimate and social relationships. We note in that regard that the same neurochemistry has been found to occur during the course of human intercourse and foreplay, as well as in meditative epiphanies, religious and other rituals that involve long periods of silence, chanting, etc. and during times when the most terrifying aspects of human existence (like death and other extreme personal losses) are assuaged through the acceptance of certain religious beliefs. That is, the maintenance of social groups was so important to human survival that a variety of different means developed during the course of human history that function as a form of social glue. Religious belief, ritual, etc. are among these. Andrew Newberg in his book "Why God Won't Go Away" is one of many scientists to have recently investigated phenomena related to this hypothesis.

Acceptance of the third hypothesis does not necessarily exclude either of the first two. However, in accordance with Occam's Razor we should not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily. The third hypothesis explains the irrational uncertainty often associated with religious belief. And, it is relatively easy for most people to accept the third hypothesis as an explanation for all religious beliefs other than their own. This in and of itself speaks volumes.

best,

bob

Here are favorite authors which former adherents love to quote based on the imprecision these authors used, McConkie, Benson (who DOM constantly tried to rein in), JFS, Packer and others.

They conveniently ignore BH Roberts, except when he suits their purposes, Nuttal, Mauss, Talmage, and others.

James,

I consider myself an honest man.

Mormon Salvation includes innumberable degrees. Three main ones, but innumerable ones in between. Therefore it is not either/or.

But yes, we believe the preisthood allows for people to enter the third heaven.

It is a positive belief not a negative, since most don't believe in a third heaven.

It does not contradict any universalian thing I have said.

I am currently working with an Anthropologist from the LSE who has spent years studying Mormonism. I never run into these problems discussing Mormonism with her.

I'll have to chew on what the problem is but I think we are playing semantics only so you can pigeon hole Mormonism for your own purposes. As for me now, I must spend some time with my wife and kids. Later Gaters.

Bob:

Now, you're pulling the authority card, "I have a relative with the prophet, so I know better."

The consequences and intent of the language and its application is important. It's not irrelevant.

One Church authorized to perform certain rituals, that's what it means. We're not Catholic, blending grace with the rituals.

Salvation and exaltation are different concepts, and there are discussions on the periphery that further explain what I believe John and I mean. But that doesn't fit within your judgment of the Church, so you're uncomfortable within anything inconsistent with your world view.

Derrida
Your last post is completely non sensical

"it seems I'm trying to answer your questions."
???????????????????????????
Seems to who??:?????????

Don't YOU *KNOW* if you are trying to answer her questions.

To me
It seems you ARE NOT
because you ARE NOT, in fact, answering them.

Your obfuscation is, frankiy and honestly, amazing to me.

Benson says
Mormonism is the ONLY WAY to salvation.

That is a categorical statement.
Is it True? Or is it NOT True?
Logically, IT CAN NOT be in between.

John
I have to suspect that the reason you did not readily restate your position on whether the Mormon Church is the one true church

is

you have no answer.

As James has illustrated.
any sentient mormon who listened to all the general conferneces between 1950 -2000
would have no doubt that
as ET Benson says
The Church is True
It is the ONly true church
It is the ONLY way to salvation.

You dance around saying that like Fred Astaire. You won't even admit that the church says it.

John D:

That is a valid observation.

The problem with the dynamics of blending religious, philosophical, historical, anthropological, scientific, cultural and personal epistimologies is linguistic and the merging of differential concepts.

Betty:

I don't know how much is humor, and realize much of natural expression is Piercian, that is vague and ponderous at times, but it seems I'm trying to answer your questions.

Derrida and John

Don't tell me I don't understand Mormon nuances.

I was a traditional Mormon for many many years. Fourth Generation. My great great grandfather was with the Prophet when he died.

I was told for many many years (and not by Bruce Mcconkie)
The Mormon Church is the ONly True Church
and
the church and its sacraments are the ONLY way to get to the highest level of salvation.
Benson clearly says it. He was head of the church.

Most mormons don't have a phd in philosophy.

when they are told by their president from general conference
Mormon church only true church
only way to salvation

they know what he means and he knows what he means.

you are being intellectually dishonest now.
it is NOT a matter of philosophical nuance.
you can not speak the truth.

That was me.

This article outlines how Mormon apoligetics differ than that of Christian Fundamentalists.

John-Charles Duffy, "Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics Is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy," Sunstone #132 (May 2004): 22-39, 42-55.)

Anyone read it?

Bob:

How do I distinguish truth claims for myself, or how do I recommend a system for others to distinguish truth claims of various groups?

I don't believe those two questions are identical.

McConkie is irrelevant, and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is NOT church approved. In fact, he took great internal heat for generating it, requiring a new standard for GAs.

I don't rely upon McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, as I would not express myself in the manner he does and do not agree with his approach. David O. McKay's designees found thousands of doctrinal errors in it.

Nonetheless, Churchspeak is not philosophicalspeak. There must needs me a translation and you simply mock it without trying to translate the two.

Betty,

There are a lot of posts on this thread. After thinking about it I realized it may be very painstaking for you to find amidst this mess. So... my thoughts pasted here:

"To me, the True Church concept does not mean the church has a monopoly on truth, or that all it has is necessarily 100% true, but rather refers to Preisthood, and the legal connection that preisthood enables between affairs on earth and affairs in heaven.

"That which you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven" Jesus said. That is the essence of the true church concept as far as I am concerned.

Covenants carried out in ordinances are like a legal transaction, not a sacramental fusion of Grace in a Catholic sense. They primarily concern commitment to certain obligations, their Eternal validity depends on keeping this commitment.

Derrida,

I understand the basics of postmodernism and phenomenology. And you still have not answered my question. Let me try one last time.

Does your are epistemic system allow you to distinguish between the truth claims of various religious or ideological groups? If so, how? You do not need to write a dissertation to answer this question.

Let me give you a simple example. It is, again, the young earth creationist example.

Young Earth creationists rightly take the position that science has not proved with certainty that the earth is materially more than 10,000 years old. They propose a number of extremely improbable but unfalsifiable hypotheses with regard to how dinosaur bones may have become embedded in the earth, why various scientific means of estimating the earth's age are flawed, et cetera. But the bottom line is that it does not matter how much evidence is produced by science, it will not be possible to prove with 100% certainty that their hypothesis is false because such certainty is impossible with regard to all empirical matters. The best we can do is to establish a very high degree of probability.

How would you use your epistemic system to assess the younger creationist truth claim as I have just set it out?

best,
bob

James:

The issues here have already been divisive enough, and it appears you have difficulty understanding our interpretive hermeneutics of LDS philosophy.

One would have to know what is meant by such terminology. And given your tendency to use for polemical purposes the linguistics of the Church in a fundamentalist reductionist manner, your anticipated response is one of ridiculous argumentation that what we say is not what is meant, why bother?

We're familiar with those pronouncements. So what?

Please I ask you to attack the Catholic Church for its claim of primacy, or Mohammed for his claim of primacy. Each has a claim of primacy for specific purposes or relating to priority over specific rituals.

Here is your reason for stating it.

A claim of primacy in a world of relativism offends those not included and therefore renders the claimant open for attack.

How can anybody claim anything?

What reaction are endeavoring to invoke other than that, when we believe a more nuanced approach to those pronouncements is possible.

I disagree with the "psychological" warfare of aspect of the intention of manipulating families. That line of argumentation is simplistic and not even interesting.

Derrida,

I understand the basics of postmodernism and phenomenology. And you still have not answered my question. Let me try one last time.

Does your are epistemic system allow you to distinguish between the truth claims of various religious or ideological groups? If so, how? You do not need to write a dissertation to answer this question.

Let me give you a simple example. It is, again, the young earth creationist example.

Young Earth creationists rightly take the position that science has not proved with certainty that the earth is materially more than 10,000 years old. They propose a number of extremely improbable but unfalsifiable hypotheses with regard to how dinosaur bones may have become embedded in the earth, why various scientific means of estimating the earth's age are flawed, et cetera. But the bottom line is that it does not matter how much evidence is produced by science, it will not be possible to prove with 100% certainty that their hypothesis is false because such certainty is impossible with regard to all empirical matters. The best we can do is to establish a very high degree of probability.

How would you use your epistemic system to assess the younger creationist truth claims as I have just set it out?

best,
bob

John D

You claim that Mormons are nice to the ladies.
Give Betty a straight answer.

It seems you are saying: It is too complicated to comment on the Official Mormon doctrine as described by McConkie.
Any reputable academic or philospher could say either
Yes or
No or
McConkie's statement is meaningless

Of course we could all write a book AFTER saying yes or no. But McConkie is
either right
or he is not.
Either the church
IS
the only way to salvation
or
it is not.

You really look like you are avoiding her.

Derrida is a Modern Relativist.

The typical *Mormon with an IQ of 150* would understand about 3 words of what Derrida just said.

They would understand clearly what McConkie,in Mormon Doctrine, church approved said here:
"If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Is McConkie right?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I would have to write a 400 page book to answer the question. And then I would not answer the question with a yes or no. I would say, "According to Heidegger, Socrated ......"

Betty:

I'm not certain where you're headed, because in one sense, you're attempting to set a traditional set of contradictions, but you're unhappy with the clarifications.

Perhaps, we are more like Charles Pierce than James, in that we think we're making our thoughts clear, but only to few.

I gave told you about my earlier post thinking you would probably scroll up and read it, or that perhaps you had been following this thread and you would remember it. I don't really feel a need to repeat myself. If you don't want to scroll up, just let me know and I'll cut and paste.

Help for John and Derrida
Here are some official statements

# Mormon scriptures claim that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30).
# Joseph Smith stated: "This [the LDS] Church...is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).
# President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).
# Bruce McConkie stated: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).
# Marion Romney (LDS First Presidency) said, "This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is the way, the truth, and the life" (Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119).

Christian apologetics are not my speciality. I'm not fully aware of Christian apologetics, except to the extent they are subsumed within Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Arendt, Gadamer, James and the like. I'm not exceptionally knowledgeable about Kirkegaard, so I am deficient in his tenets, though I tend toward some aspects of existentialism, and like the Sishyphus symbolism.

As to my personal source of knowledge, I agree with aspects of Heidegger, and more Gadamer, but I also like the confluences of James. Knowledge is acquired empirically, perhaps apriori, through my perceptive lenses, which include my emotions, and refined, subtle perceptions of the spirit. However, knowledge is forever dynamic, never static, with lenses and perceptions constantly in flux.

Borrowing from another so as to limit my time here,

"In the original outline to Truth and Method, Gadamer clarifies candidly the central thesis of his work: a frontal assault against the superstitions of "enlightenment rationalism" and the "naturalism" it authorizes. He demonstrates why the many explanatory registers of naturalistic discourse, including positivism, objectivism, historicism, and environmentalism with their often interrelated vocabularies, cannot be used to establish the claim of secular histories to be "higher," "better," that is, "truer," than other histories. In its place, he argues to justify an independent kind of understanding appropriate for the humanities, whose reduction to the ideal of natural scientific knowledge is impossible, and where the idea of the greatest possible approximation to the methods and certainty of natural sciences is even recognized as absurd . . . it does not concern another, unique method, but rather a completely different idea of knowledge and truth.
In order to show that framing human history in the language of the natural sciences is inappropriate for the understanding of human activity, and has led to unjustified claims to objective knowledge, Gadamer authored one of the great philosophical works of our century, Truth and Method. He begins by arguing that, philosophically speaking, the historical understanding of the modern world moves within a language of "scientific rationalism" whose "schema is the conquest of mythos by logos. What gives this schema its apparent validity is the presupposition of the progressive retreat of magic in the world." Here the thought of the enlightenment, and the science that it authorized, understood itself by means of a false dichotomy. Scientific reasoning (logos) would progressively expose and correct superstition and error (mythos) through naturalistic explanation. The methodology of science aspired not only to discover and master physical nature but "human nature"-and thus historical nature-as well. Its final abition was nothing less than an objective knowledge of the principles that govern the world.
Central to this methodology is Rene Descartes's procedure of systematically doubting all "received opinion." Doubt, it is asserted, allows a clearing-a neutral perspective-to open up where "reality" is experienced directly, and reason, finally liberated from layers of accumulated falsehood, is said to gaze unencumbered upon the natural forces that drive history. In this way, moving from doubt to certainty, the "natural order" is identified by specifying the "natural causes" that are understood to impel human experience and structure human events. The totality of these relationships and the overarching principles that govern them are said to form a natural unity that can be known and manipulated.

With regard to history, enlightenment rationality not only seeks more than a mere understanding of historical texts, it seeks to understand them better than they were understood when they were written, better than their authors understood them. This is supposedly because empirical rationality, beginning with systematic doubt, allows the historian to escape historical prejudice-the authority of traditional historical understanding-and occupy a position exterior to the past, from which the past can be encountered and "explained" in rational, that is, natural terms. From here, a higher kind of knowledge is presumably achieved, because through scientific explanation the historian claims to be able to identify the underlying natural causes that actually motivated the writing of historical texts and thus account for their full content.

We should not be surprised that the reduction of human history and the humanities in general to a kind of calculus operating within an the arena of natural law said to govern human relations elicited criticism of important writers from early on. Gadamer reviews this critique from Vico and Shaftsbury, through Hegel, Schleiermacher, Ranke, and Droysen, to Nietzsche, Dilthey, and Collingwood. In the process, he shows how each critique of enlightenment reason becomes subverted in one way or another by the object of its criticism and thus fails in the end to fully supersede the enlightenment heritage. A good example is Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), a German philosopher and historian. On the one hand, he sought to escape from the speculative philosophy of Hegel, only to find himself increasingly in its grasp. On the other hand, he sought to detach the human sciences from the natural sciences, only to end up harmonizing them.

Gadamer recounts how Dilthey had sought to defend the human and cultural sciences against the encroachments of enlightenment science. He benefitted in his critique of naturalism and causality from the exhaustive analysis and scrutiny of enlightenment rationalism found in the first edition of Husserl's Logical Investigations, published in 1900-01. Husserl had "bracketed" (isolated and interrogated) all the terms used in "naturalistic explanation" in order to follow them carefully to their basic assumptions. Even Cartesian doubt would be bracketed, for it was not at all clear that doubt could be construed as a method capable of opening up a neutral and objective perspective in which reason could gaze upon the "undoubtable," i.e., the self-evidence of pure experience and the forces that are said to move it. Not only this, it was not hard to show that Cartesian doubt concealed an unjustified objective standard that always went "undoubted," an objective standard that both authorized doubt as a method and identfied that which was an appropriate object of doubt. But why indeed should not the Cartesian method, with its standards and rational processes, also be subject to doubt? Obviously, following this line of reasoning would involve us in an endless regress. Moreover, since doubt is supposed to take us to certainty by dissolving the residue of error that keeps the truth from being seen, Cartesian doubt must implicitly assert that the truth is essentially self-evident and thus beyond doubt. As will become clear later on, none of these assumptions can resist Husserl's phenomenological analysis. For clearly, what seems worthy of doubt is always historically conditioned and in the case of Descartes, the very truth that seems beyond doubt and indeed does not get doubted is enlightenment science's own idealized version of the world, of science, and of scientific rationality.
But Gadamer shows how Husserl's analysis goes further. Not only does Cartesian doubt fail to provide the historian with an objective point of departure, but naturalistic explanation itself cannot claim to provide a justifiable methodology capable of objectively accounting for human activity. Consequently, it is an inadequate foundation for historical scholarship. Gadamer follows Husserl in his painstaking investigation of the assumptions inherent in naturalism and shows why they cause problems not only for Dilthey, but also for revisionist historians.
To demonstrate this inadequacy, Gadamer relates how Husserl disputes the argument that naturalistic understanding can ever be based upon brute or raw perception. This, of course, is the claim made when historians say that the truth was clear from just looking at the facts, just reading the historical texts. And, despite Thorp's qualifiers, this is what he and other revisionist historians claim to do. Actually, naturalistic explanation never gets to nature or the brute facts. In a certain sense, Kant had already demonstrated that experience is not something external or exterior to consciousness that comes in from the outside to inform consciousness. Rather, as Kant points out, all understanding is cooperative. In the absence of a "mind" or a state of "consciousness" capable of organizing the inflow of sense data into discernable patterns, we could not have understandable experiences at all. Imagine, for example, a hose running water out into a street. Of course nothing builds up because there is nothng to contain the water. But were one to put the hose into a round pool, the sides of the pool would contain the water and form it into a circle. So it is with sense data or perception. Without concepts provided by the "mind" to contain and form (organize) incoming perception, there could be no experiences and thus no understanding. Perception could never be more than an undifferentiated flow of sensations with no meaning at all.
This, in part, is what Husserl is getting at when he argues that all claims to empirical knowledge must presuppose the prior existence of the unifying activity of consciousness. This state of consciousness (or mind) is already structured by an integrated set of ideas (by a worldview) capable of intelligibly organizing the inflow of sense data into some kind of understanding. Otherwise there could only be a diffuse and inchoate influx of sensation. Another example might help. When we see a book, what we really understand as a book is not how book atoms feel. Rather, it is how in consciousness a stream of perceptions are apprehended, processed, and organized under an ideal meaning (or concept) called a book. Gadamer emphasizes Husserl's surprising conclusion that the "real world," the "natural world," is never found in, but rather precedes, our apprehension of "raw experience," or the "brute facts." Indeed, it is always within the categories of this ideal world or preconceived reality-categories already pesent and underway in the unifying activity of consciousness-that the influx of sense data gets connected together and grasped."

Now rather, than take the time to author my own words, I borrowed from an acquaintance mine because we have discussed these issues. Does that clarify?

I could go on, but to ask me how I function in relation to that question is to ask for a dissertation.

thanks for responding john

you ask if the following "answers my question?" I can only say, NOt really

You wrote
gave my interpretation of the "Only true church" concept quite a few posts back. I think many Latter Day Saints would agree with that definition and it falls completely within the bounds of Mormon orthodoxy. It does not contradict what I said in my last post about other faiths. In the examples I gave, the concepts that were equated with Mormon-like spiritual experiences were concepts Mormons also recognize as more or less valid.

Nope John, it avoids the question.

Mormon Doctrine CLEARLY says The Church is True, and Mormonism is the ONLY True Church.

You do not say "Mormonism is the ONLY true church."
You do not say "Mormonism is NOT the only True church."
You do not say.
You do not answer the question.
It is of course fine if you say
I'd prefer not to answer that question.
That in fact is what you (and Derrida) have so far said.

You bring up important issues Betty, thank you for addressing me. To answer you:

I believe in the validity of a certain quality of revelation. It is not equivalent to my emotions.

I believe in this for the same reason one might believe another credible source.

It has never failed me or lied to me.

That does not mean you should trust it. Perhaps it failed you. I cannot make spiritual decisions based on the experiences of others, for I can only look to my own experiences with God, and allow others to do the same.

I gave my interpretation of the "Only true church" concept quite a few posts back. I think many Latter Day Saints would agree with that definition and it falls completely within the bounds of Mormon orthodoxy. It does not contradict what I said in my last post about other faiths. In the examples I gave, the concepts that were equated with Mormon-like spiritual experiences were concepts Mormons also recognize as more or less valid.

I do not believe two contradictory things can co-exist, but I do believe that things which seem contradictory now may not be when more is understood. So I can be agnostic about beliefs like reincarnation, or Thor.

Perhaps that's my anthropological relativism coming through.

Does that answer you question?

John

You seem to endorse Subjective Truth.

You say, it is True for Me.
It may not be true for other people?

I completely agree that it is "true for you," in the sense that you believe it.

Mormons claim more than that. They claim to be "The One True Church."

I understand if you go against the Church on that. Do you?

If you don't
in what sense is the Mormon claim to be The One True Church true.
The church says Mormon Priesthood is the only priesthood god recognizes as valid.

Derrida,

You didn't answer my question.

To use Betty's terminology (which I use often as well) Young Earth Creationist apologists use an emotion based epistempology. So do JW, Scientologist, alien abductionist apologetists. We feel, therefore we know. The sophisticated among them invoke Heidegger in support of this approach, though he would never have taken it that far.

How do you distinguish your approach, or the Mormon approach, from these?

best,
bob

Just a little comment on this point:

1) I don't really know of any other faith tradition that teaches what Terryl Givens called "dialogic revelation."

2) As I think all faiths have many truths from God, they can recieve spiritual confirmation of them. For example young Muslims report a certain spiritual experience similar to Mormons when listening to a speaker quote passages from the Koran about the judgement day, and the importance of living rightously i.e. charity, chastity so on. Or a member of Jimba tribe describes feeling cleansed after praying to Muruku for forgiveness for an adulturous act.

I thought this was significant the quandry you present of my God vs. theirs, since Mormons don't believe we have a Monopoly on truth or revelation.

It does pose a problem if one claims to receive revelation on that say, the Book of Mormon isn't true. I can not account for their experience. I can only say revelation for me has a specific quality. I do not know the quality of their experience, so its merits are inconclusive.

I have learned through life that when I recieve a certain quality of revelation it is valid.

But I would never expect one to accept my perspective because of *my* conviction. I don't think Derrida would either...

Bob:

I do not engage Christian fundamentalists on creationism.

I have my own view, based on current understanding of geology, physics, biological and other scientific observations. These appear correct and acceptable to me. However, "evolution" isn't really an interesting topic, even though within the LDS Church there were debates during the turn of the 20th century.

I'm okay with probability matrices, and have a rudimentary understanding probabilities.

Nonetheless, I am comfortable with a more flexible, pragmatic blending of faith, science and additional dynamics.

Betty:

My training is one aspect of my dialetic, not the sole source of how I conduct myself, in terms of reconciling my religious beliefs as well. A good expression may be truth is paradoxical and constellational, and incapable of being completely and universally captured by reason--this is the weakness of modernism in it's attempted supplanting of the universal discovery of truth via religion--that doesn't mean that anybody relinquishes reason, but rather, like Emerson, James, Benjamin, and many others, use it dialectically with faith. They are like pedals on a bicycle who's productive opposition propels one forward in one's quest to catch little glimpses of knowledge and truth.

Derrida quotes G Hinckley thus:

“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY SINCERELY QUESTION ITS ORIGIN; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”"

I think this hits the nail on the head as a delineation of the Mindsets of True Believers and Others.

By this standard of truth, anything I read that gives me the right burning in my chest is true,
"The test of truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God."

What if I am delusional. Is it still the truth.
What if what is in the book says one thing, and the testimony of 400 independent witnesses says the opposite.

As a standard for truth, this is an amazing statement. God tells me it is true, so I believe it.
God tells the other six billion people in the world it is not true.
Who should I believe?
You 10 million people with YOur God
or
the other 10 Billion people with their God?

Don't you see the problem here?

Fine for you to believe anything you want. But believing does not make it true. First rule of epistomolgy, right Derrida?

Derrida,

This is probably just my linear, lawyer mind working again, but it seems to me that we should only assign probabilities with regard to whether something is real on the basis of evidence. If we don't follow that basic rule, we lose our ability to critique anything and so even the most simple decision-making becomes problematic. But perhaps this is too pragmatic (in the Peircian, not the Rotyan, sense) for your taste.

For example, how do you dispute the truth claims made by the young earth creationists? When I read their apologetic material, I find striking similarities between that and Mormon apologetics. How do you reject one and not the other? Or do you accept both?

If you are is a disciple of Derrida, Gadamer, et al., you will recognize the devastating effect the application of their techniques would have to Mormonism's truth claims. They emphasize the uncertainty of alleged realities, and the way in which that uncertainty should undermine authority claims. It is high irony when religious people use this technique to defend themselves against the extremely probable scientific falsification of foundational religious premises. I have no doubt that the old Catholics would've use this against Galileo had the concepts been around then.

best,

bob

Derrida,

I agree with the sentiments in the first quote in your post 100%. It was not my secular education that instilled me with these sentiments, but my religious education. I took an institute class on "world religions" that took that same approach to the faith of others.

John D:

Correct that, we know about Mycenean Linear B Greek, but we don't much about things before that, even preliteral Greek.

Your reasons make sense, and when dealing with a population for which we have so little data...I am sure the reasons for this difficulty are innumerable.

John D:

I read a friend's opinion that expresses many of my sentiements.

"As a correlative to this, I’m not inclined to look for truth exclusively within the Church. I read philosophy, literature, holy books from other traditions (such as the Qur’an and Bhavagad Gita), and have found much value in them. I believe that the ordinances of my Church are valid and that it is an excellent framework for my search for truth, but I don’t make the kinds of exclusive claims that many Mormons do. If you want some insight into my perspective, read 2 Kings 22 where Hilkiah finds the lost book of the law and sends people out to all the various and sundry Israelite sects to come and perform the temple ordinances again. In other words, I believe that while a priest may be a prophet (and in the case of the LDS church, is), a prophet doesn’t have to be a priest. I believe this view is very much supported in scripture, and even in the 1978 First Presidency statement that said there was a measure of inspiration in Mohammed and Confucius. Moreover, the bible speaks of prophetesses like Deborah, and that even after some very patriarchal folks had control of the manuscripts for a long time."

More importantly,

In conclusion, a quote of President Hinckley on the BoM. This is from the First Presidency Message of the February, 2004 Ensign (p.6). The emphasis is added:

“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY SINCERELY QUESTION ITS ORIGIN; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”"

Thanks Derrida for the explanation.

John D:

McCue is big on, "if there were any validity, somebody would have discovered crap." He then juxtaposes the alien abduction scenario to show people will research almost anything to get their names out.

Well, that false line is objectionable on many levels. First, who funded the alien thing? There are many strange people funding that personally, because for reasons unknown to me, they find it interesting. However, funding comes from two basic sources, government and private. Government funding must satisfy a broad enough purpose to justify it. Private funding depends upon whatever a private person will find funding for.

I've been involved in many grant writing episodes to know this to be true.

So government will not fund the types of expeditions to explore the validity of LDS claims. What private person will fund finding LDS claims? LDS of course.

And if nonLDS are looking at something that might be supportive of LDS claims how would they know? How would they even be aware of LDS claims?

There is some archeaological evidence on the fringes which is suggestive of LDS claims, but only LDS can recognize them for what they are. Additionally, archeaological knowledge of this hemisphere is very incomplete.

What would a person look for? Let's say Nephi's band included 24 persons, with no particular tools indigenous to the Middle East, but instead resorted to indigenous materials. How would one distinguish from what already existed or was developed on the new continent?

Linguistic evidence. If Nephite culture merged with indigenous cultures acquired the indigenous languages, except for elite liturgical purposes, as was already the norm for the Middle East, how should we find such a small sampling?

Except for liturgical elite, the general populace did not read per se, and so language changes occur rapidly. This is demonstrable in many situations. For example, we have evidences of preliterate Greek which showed tones instead of syllabic emphasis but we don't know much about preMycenean Linear B Greek.

Well, if the writings of the Nephites was changed over time for a discreet few, why should we find evidences of it?

I could go on and on, with the false dichotomy presented. But it was presented, not out of true interest in exploration, but in the attempt to win a debate. That's what a lawyer does. Bob is a lawyer using his training.

There is nothing unreasonable about rejecting a false dichotomy. Linear dichotomies are typical of fundamentalist thought.

Derrida,

Why do you reject this particular dichotomy as false?

James:

Your method of arguing is basically baiting.

And it reminds me of the kids on the playground, "Chicken, chicken, go ahead and fight."

"Oh, he's a loon!"

Fascinating.

James:

I can look up the ICD 10 if I have a mind to as well. What's your point other than ad hominem?

For fun, I have included the definition to show your distorted application:

"ICD-10 Criteria for Paranoid Schizophrenia

The following information is reproduced verbatim from the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1992.
F20.0 Paranoid Schizophrenia

This is the commonest type of schizophrenia in most parts of the world. The clinical picture is dominated by relatively stable, often paranoid, delusions, usually accompanied by hallucinations, particularly of the auditory variety, and perceptual disturbances. Disturbances of affect, volition, and speech, and catatonic symptoms, are not prominent.

Examples of the most common paranoid symptoms are:

1. delusions of persecution, reference, exalted birth, special mission, bodily change, or jealousy;
2. hallucinatory voices that threaten the patient or give commands, or auditory hallucinations without verbal form, such as whistling, humming, or laughing;
3. hallucinations of smell or taste, or of sexual or other bodily sensations; visual hallucinations may occur but are rarely predominant.

Thought disorder may be obvious in acute states, but if so it does not prevent the typical delusions or hallulcinations from being described clearly. Affect is usually less blunted than in other varieties of schizophrenia, but a minor degree of incongruity is common, as are mood disturbances such as irritability, sudden anger, fearfulness, and suspicion. "Negative" symptoms such as blunting of affect and impaired volition are often present but do not dominate the clinical picture.

The course of paranoid schizophrenia may be episodic, with partial or complete remissions, or chronic. In chronic cases, the florid symptoms persist over years and it is difficult to distinguish discrete episodes. The onset tends to be later than in the hebephrenic and catatonic forms. "

Hebephrenic Schizophrenia is:

:ICD-10 Criteria for Hebephrenic Schizophrenia

The following information is reproduced verbatim from the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1992.
F20.1 Hebephrenic Schizophrenia

A form of schizophrenia in which affective changes are prominent, delusions and hallucinations fleeting and fragmentary, behaviour irresponsible and unpredictable, and mannerisms common. The mood is shallow and inappropirate and often accompanied by giggling or self-satisfied, self-absorbed smiling, or by a lofty manner, grimaces, mannerisms, pranks, hypochondriacal complaints, and reiterated phrases. Thought is disorganized and speech rambling and incoherent. There is a tendency to remain solitary, and behaviour seems empty of purpose and feeling. This form of schizphrenia usually starts between the ages of 15 and 25 years and tends to have a poor prognosis because of the rapid development of "negative" symptoms, particularly flattening of affect and loss of volition.

In addition, disturbances of affect and volition, and thought disorder are usually prominent. Hallucinations and delusions may be present but are not usually prominent. Drive and determination are lost and goals abandoned, so that the patient's behaviour becomes characteristically aimless and empty of purpose. A superficial and manneristic preoccupation with religion, philosophy, and other abstract themes may add to the listener's difficulty in following the train of thought."

In any debate, it's the framer who usually wins. I do not allow myself to be boxed in, in a debate, to do so would be foolhardy.

There is nothing reasonable about McCue's tactics and strategy. You're in his orgy group, so go ahead laugh away, but if you wish a reasonable engagement, I can always change the tone.

However, if you wish to sink to the level of offering misguided diagnosis based on limited internet interaction, one would hope you are not really a clinician, as that would be a wonderful malpractice case. Harvard has plenty of money to pay for misdiagnosis and treatment.

Good idea.

Paranoid Schizophrenia
(with a bit of Hebephrenia thrown in)

Look up the symptoms.

Compare them to Derrida's behavior.

Bingo.

First example:
You are acting as a lawyer, who is not inquiring but rather setting up for an argument. It's a rhetorical device. I'm very familiar with the manner of establishing commonality before one goes in for the kill.
(from Derrida's post above)
Twilight Zone Time.

Bob:

I reject your dichotomy. You haven't thought through the problem.

You are acting as a lawyer, who is not inquiring but rather setting up for an argument. It's a rhetorical device. I'm very familiar with the manner of establishing commonality before one goes in for the kill.

I do NOT accept the premises of your presentation. They are not nuanced, and carefully thought out, except for the sole purpose of winning a debate. In other words, for you, it all boils down to polemics. I don't play that game.

That may seem unreasonable to others who want to play the same game.

Check the validity of your assumptions. I don't accept the challenges, because the initial premises are faulty.

So much more is possible than you're willing to admit. Thor Hydahl showed it would have been possible for Middle Easterners to traverse the oceans in boats known to have been made by Egyptians.

However, to even have this debate, we would need to examine textual criticisms, and many other basic assumptions which I don't believe should be accept at face value.

As I understand your shock and disillusionment process, you had one worldview that eventually or perhaps suddently eroded over time, and all of a sudden, you went or realized you rejected the world view and thus everything else stated by your former culture was a deliberate fraud and a lie. There are other options as well. Yet you are blind to them.

I'm aware of the rhetorical devices employed in polemics, but choose not to play by those rules.

The only rules I appreciate are academic rules, because they require caution, time, and scholarship, together with continued re-evaluation of initial premises. However, in a polemic, neither side is concerned with truth but with winning the debate. This isn't about winning, but poking fun and noticing how flawed people's examination of assumptions is.

Good luck Bob

I tried this tack 10 ways from Sunday.

He dismisses the problem.
This is where his borderline sanity is most evident.

I expect you will see another example of it.

Derrida,

In order to make this manageable, let's limit our discussion to one point. That is, the significance of the fact that the academic community has found virtually no evidence in support of the Book of Mormon's many scientific and historical hypotheses. I haven't done much reading with regard to Mormon apologia during the past couple of years, so it is conceivable that something has come out of which I am unaware. But up until two years ago, I was aware of everything relevant to this topic. There was no evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that anyone outside of the Mormon apologist community took seriously. If you disagree with me, justify your position.

On the other hand, consider the scholarly/scientific evidence and debate with regard to the alleged alien abduction phenomenon. This has been studied extensively. A Harvard psychologist (Mack) felt that there was enough evidence that the reality of alien abductions should be taken seriously. This basically ended his career as an academic, but it is a fact that a respected psychologist reviewed the data, came to that conclusion and published his views. And many other respected social scientists have been carefully looking into the evidence related to this alleged phenomena. The same cannot be said with regard to any of the many hypotheses related to the Book of Mormon.

For example, anyone who can mount even an arguable case (something like the case match made in favor of alien abductions, for example) for migration between the Near East and the Americas Circus at 600 B.C.E. will have a tremendous academic coup. There are so many social scientists and others studying in the fields relative to this issue that if there were any material evidence in support of this hypothesis, we should expect a lot of people to be all over it. Since nothing has been published in this regard, and I have not even heard of any relevant research underway, it is hence reasonable to conclude that there is no such evidence. And yet, Mormonism's apologists blather on and on and continue to be ignored by the real scientists studying in the relevant fields.

This reminds me of something I read a number of times in Hugh Nibley's writings that have the time I mistook for scholarship. That is not to disparage his scholarship per se, but rather to note that when he turned Mormon apologist he checked his academic abilities at the door. This often happens to talented people who attempt ideological defenses outside their areas of expertise. See Richard Dawkins (a renowned biologist) two-part video series titled "The Root of All Evil" for a classic example of this.

In any event, Nibley complained over and again with regard to the failure of non-Mormon academics to take the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham's hypotheses seriously. He said that if they would only read the books and carefully consider the evidence, they would see how meritorious it was. Many Mormons hold this failure out as evidence of the way in which one can only see the truth through the eye of faith; that Satan has blinded the eyes of the non-Mormon community to the reality that is obvious for those whose Mormon eyes are enlightened.

I now see this for the ridiculous proposition that it is. It makes as much sense when the Mormons take this position as when the Jehovah's Witnesses, Young Earth Creationists, alien abductionists or Taliban, Scientologists do the same. And they all do this.

The study of social dynamics and the various cognitive biases related to them explains to a high degree of probable accuracy this phenomenon as it appears in countless social groups. Its incidence within Mormonism fits the textbook description perfectly.

So, we have two hypotheses. First, that the entire non-Mormon scientific and historical enterprises relevant to the Book of Mormon have missed the boat. Second, that the study of social dynamics and a variety of cognitive biases explains why Mormons (including Mormon academics) fail to see what is obvious to those who are not affected by the same cognitive biases.

It is clear to me that the second hypothesis has a far higher probability of being correct than the first. Given what you said in your reply to me, I presume that you believe the first hypothesis is more probable. Please justify your position.

Best,

bob

James:

No the interpretative spin is not the nuance we traditionally discuss. Instead it focuses upon issues such as whether the BoM was midrashic, in the same manner that the Torah, and Talmud might be considered such.

How God interacts with mankind is sophsticated and a learning process at the sociological as well as at the personal level. It is extremely difficult to describe to anybody, and JS showed extremely interesting nuances in approaches to divinity, unlike any other we have previously been privileged to examine.

Most are unwilling to distinguish between culture, knowledge, training, expectations and other influences. Most do not even understand their own thought processes, and rarely challenge them, relying instead, "well that's absurd, I'd never believe that." End of inquiry.

John D:

Thanks for the sane reading of my rhetorical endeavors. Did you study at Michigan? Many of my favorite anthropologists earned their doctorates there?

By nature, you are more deliberative, and in scholarly discussions, I understand the polite deliberative approach. However, in polemics, it all boils down to rhetorical devices. My only hope is for one person to try to examine "common sense" assumptions.

My first philosophy class (decades ago) opened a brand new world to me, when I discovered I don't really know what I think know. The perceptive abilities of us, as humans is very limited, and there is much in Nietsche that is valid.

When we review the debates by polemicsts, very little thinking occurs and all we see are rhetorical devices. Anthropology, together with sociology, provides wonderful insights into how humans behave, learn and react. So your discipline is truly a wonderful contemplation.

It's nice to have you balance the discussion which I know I necessarily encite.

Modernity and Reason

interesting perspective, John

I, an ex-mormon, think that Joseph Smith was clearly a religious genius. He was able to feel and communicate important spiritual aspects of humanity in a powerful and engaging way. Much of what he said was universally valuable.
"Men are that they might have joy", while far from original, was a laudable sentiment.

What I and others DO NOT believe is that he was what he claimed to be: A prophet who communicated directly with a Supernatural God.
I don't believe Moses was either.
So a nuanced interprestaion of Smith, and of Mormonism, might say that Mormons are great people and proactice some very powerful religious principles, but their claim to be THE ONE TRUE CHURCH because they have Prophets who talk to God is either True or not true. No nuance there. One is free to believe it. Many smart people do, or believe equivalent things regarding God.

Re Witches and Evolution: every historical and scientific question is an OPEN question: if there is new evidence or arguments for or against evolution or witches that holds water, let's take a look.

Religous Dogmatism does NOT consider lots of things to be open questions.

First, thank you for your kind acknowledgement of me and other Mormons here participating.

As a student of cultural anthropology, I come from a tradition that questions the very assumptions of modernity in way that baffles many.

One article I read by a University of Chicago professor attempted to argue that historical arguments for the existence of witches are of the same quality as modern arguments for evolution. In the end, he concluded that witches were real. I think his arguments made sense. They were a splendid affront on the very foundations of post enlightenment confidence.

If I tried to make the same argument here I would be laughed off the stage, and possibly branded psychotic.

Mormonism affects a similar affront on Modern confidence. Which would explain why most informed folks reject it out of hand.

Most of Derrida's arguments do make sense to me. But, they do not take for granted common sense assumptions. Hence, they likely seem irrational to many.

He is an astounding case of one who was able to overcome predjudices of modernity and comprehend the undeniable quality of Joseph's revelations. I do not think these revelations should be dismissed the way they are.

I see most attacks on them as grossly oversimplied, unuanced interpretation.

Derrida draws our attention to the complexity of life. God's interaction with this world should be expected to reflect that complexity. Most criticisms of Mormonism that attempt to dismiss it out of hand do not allow for nuance. Any attempt to argue for nuance might be branded an enemy to reason.

That is to be expected.

There was a minority who challenged prevailing opinion on witches (which at that time was an assumption of "modernity"). They were also branded enemies of reason by the intellectual elite.

Where is the Pathology

Please let me clarify.

I do NOT think John D and RTC and the good humane active mormons on this site are pathological.

I think that
The Official Mormon Church
has a pathological relationship with the truth.

Their tradition,openly acknowledge, of 'lying for the lord,"
is thorough going.
Deny and cover up the truth if we think it hurts the church.

Write "Faithful History", not actual history.
Excommunicate Mormon scholars who write about inconvenient historical facts.
Have "academics" rebut real problems with the Books of Mormon and Abraham with torutured and deceptive arguments.
(eg "only a small group of middle easterners came here, even though Joseph smith said they were a major civilization).
Women are really equal: they just can't hold any leadership positions like the priesthood.

These are the kinds of behaviors that, if presented in an individual, would inevitably lead to the diagnosis of
"Sociopath."
Again, I AM NOT talking about individuals like John D.
(I am talking about Derrida however).

John D the First

there is a huge differene between
rational Mormons
like you and RTC

and Derrida,who just plain makes no sense.

You make sense and engage logically and humanly.

Derrida does not.

Yockel does. McCue does. RTC and many other active mormons do.

Diagnosing Derrida's Borderline Sanity

Sorry to talk about you in front of your back,Mr Derrida,

but
Notice to DV, YOCKEL, Bob, others

Derrida is tottering on the borderline between sanity and hebephrenic schizophrenia in his "reasoning" and argumentation on this thread.

He *appears* to be sane
but he really is not.

Trying to nail down a psychotic by logic, consistency, and appeal to evidence is a game we can't win.

I suggest we all nod benignly towards Derrida and say, "that's nice dear."

However, Derrida aside, he does illustrate the pathology of the larger Mormon church the McCue has detailed so thoroughly, responsible, and morally. So his arguments should be recognized for the far-from-benign symptons that they are.

What I find patronizing....

In these threads I find few posts that follow the format of detached professional debate. But when a Mormon exhibits the very human tendency to step out of these bounds when encountering endless unfair criticism, it is by default attributed to our "cult" status. It would be nice if we could be human like the rest of you without being labeled "cultish" as a result. As I browse the threads I find just as much defensiveness among our Christian, Atheist and Muslim counterparts. That’s all. Peace.

Yockel:

Nice contribution.

Basically, conclusory and ad hominem.

When we swim in a scatalogical river, we get cotton mouth.

Your descriptions of excommunications is comical, wherein you will respond listing some horrible excommunication informing us of how noble the excommunicated, knowing full well the Church does not describe the process or the reasons.

Truth is rarely absolute, but like a partial differential equation. It is true within accepted parameters.

In truth, I will discuss with well-informed person of differing religions. These persons are a joy, but former adherents who kick against the pricks are not honest questioners, but those with an agenda, so one uses the rhetorical means at one's disposal. Most nonLDS can see the difference.

Derrida,

Your attempt to silence people that disagree with you about religion is troubling. It is ironic that you would chose the cipher of a philosopher who strove to liberate discourse from authoritarian interference.

Unfortunately, your behavior is a fairly typical manifestation of Mormon social dynamics. Derrida, however, would be ashamed to be associated with your efforts to discredit speakers for who they are rather than engaging their arguments on the merits.

When we put religious loyalties above the requirements of citizenship then we are reducing our faith to just another form of tribalism. That means that we have parted ways with science and Christianity.

Mormonism has a living tradition of excommunicating scholars for their research. Your language about people that disagree with you continues that tradition.

In light of such behavior, I am surprised that Mr. Otterson would accuse atheists of relativism and situational ethics when his leaders have no qualms excommuicating scholars whose research challenges Mormon dogmas. Refusing to engage scholarship on the merits according to logic and evidence, Mormon leaders can only rely on tradition and authority, which is the ultimate manifestation of situational ethics and relativism.

DV:

You have no idea what I believe, as I would not present it here.

LDS doctrine presented simply for those who first desire the simple portions, are just that. Beyond that, each searches for himself.

My only point is we elevate ourselves and our personal beliefs to ones of such importance it is beyond arrogance.

You present simple doctrines in distorted context, perhaps because you do not understand. They would make more sense if you applied a more sophisticated approach and blend them with more complex realities. No religion will hold up if you look at it two dimensionally, stating JS said only this, when in fact he did not.

Oh yeah, and what section of the D&C did you pick up the beautiful doctrine of "soul dismemberment" in? It sounds like such a mainstream doctrine, I can't wait until the dismemberment of my soul. Is this one of the teachings of Brigham Young culled from that impressive work the Journal of Discourses? Maybe it's something that we don't teach anymore, like the beautiful doctrine of Blood Atonement.

You may attempt to sound orthodox and defend mormonism from an orthodox position, but your cosmic view of existence, and the possibility of "soul dismemberment" and "total annihilation" reveals how unorthodox your belief are to mainstream accepted mormon beliefs. Most mormons believe Joseph's (Swedenborg's) version of three heavens in the afterlife. It is cannonized in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 76. You seem to be at odds with this core, fundamental principle of the gospel. If you taught your version of the afterlife, total annihilation and soul dismemberment, in gospel doctrine class, the church would surely excommunicate you for teaching false doctrine.

Yet, you present yourself as a mormon defender. You are simply one who has found a religion, any religion, after a hollow life of disbelief. Your simple faith in a creed with so many contradictions is laughable. When you actually open your eyes to the possibility that your faith doesn't represent a mormon faith, then I will welcome you to adulthood my friend. Your posts are reminiscent of the pauper posing as prince. You have the appearance of a mormon, your lips utter many words of mormonism, but your heart is far from the mormon God.

Derrida said: "Many wonderful possibilities. I worry not if my soul matters, just use my time diligently and if it matters not, then into the deep abyss of a black hole."

You defend mormonism, but you don't even believe in life after death. Throw out Christ's resurrection, throw out the restoration of the gospel, the restoration of the priesthood, throw out everything Gordon Hinckley says because at the end of life, its possibly the "deep abyss of a black hole."

Nice.

Sounds to me like you haven't left atheism behind.

DV:

So you learn about conflicting views?

Wow, good for you. Welcome to the adult world. And evidence is always multi-faceted? Wow, another world shaking concept.

Joseph had no credentials, yet somehow, as an ignorant farmboy, magician, money hunter, he was able to build a following "deliver" several works which are thought to be "scripture" and which pass several textual tests, not ones interesting you, but nothing interests you apparently except the critical.

There is more to the story of Dr. Anthon, and you can choose to believe as you wish.

Examine also what evidence Robert Ritner examined, before you accept his conclusions, lock, stock and barrel. It appears you have only superficially examined the evidence.

And let's examine the metaphysics skeptically, what if God is a Deist, lightly manipulating the world by subtle tinkering and doesn't give a hoot who lives and who dies. What does each of us elevate our souls to being so d..d important.

For crying out loud, we think we're the center of the vast universe or multiverse. We're not. Perhaps in addition to a Paradise Lost, we're also subject to total annihilation, soul dismemberment?

Many wonderful possibilities. I worry not if my soul matters, just use my time diligently and if it matters not, then into the deep abyss of a black hole.

Or, there is but Purgatory, and Paradise, but be we judged of our works, good and bad?

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
وَيْلٌ لِّكُلِّ هُمَزَةٍ لُّمَزَةٍ {1}
الَّذِي جَمَعَ مَالًا وَعَدَّدَهُ {2}
يَحْسَبُ أَنَّ مَالَهُ أَخْلَدَهُ {3}
كَلَّا لَيُنبَذَنَّ فِي الْحُطَمَةِ {4}
وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا الْحُطَمَةُ {5}
نَارُ اللَّهِ الْمُوقَدَةُ {6}
الَّتِي تَطَّلِعُ عَلَى الْأَفْئِدَةِ {7}
إِنَّهَا عَلَيْهِم مُّؤْصَدَةٌ {8}

Yusuf Ali Translation

Surah 104. The Traducer, The Gossipmonger

1. Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and-backbiter,

2. Who pileth up wealth and layeth it by,

3. Thinking that his wealth would make him last for ever!

4. By no means! He will be sure to be thrown into
That which Breaks to Pieces,

5. And what will explain to thee That which Breaks to Pieces?

6. (It is) the Fire of (the Wrath of) Allah kindled (to a blaze),

7. The which doth mount (Right) to the Hearts:

8. It shall be made into a vault over them,

9. In columns outstretched.

Derrida said: "We have no geneticist, have no archeaologist, and nobody of note. Yet, despite having no credentials to judge the source materials, you're willing to condemn and castigate the institution. Fascinating. What world leading experts on matters of archeaolgy, anthropology, genetics, textual criticism, Semetic linguistics, have you consulted? None, but you "know" a lot of things by reading others who claim to know others who are experts. Again, strange. The UN was correct in pointing former adherents are not good sources of information accurately depicting any religious movement."

You're right Derrida, I am a nobody. I'm only a primary teacher for hell's sake. Why would God ever consider my soul to be valuable? Hmmm.

You bring up a good point though, credentials. Joseph Smith had some pretty impressive credentials you know. But, to your point of credentials. Robert Ritner, at U of Chicago, an egyptologist has some interesting information regarding the Book of Abraham. He has studied it quite thoroughly. Also, Charles Anthon has some interesting things to say about reformed Egyptian. He had some nice credentials for his day, enough for the Church to hang its hat on fulfilling ancient prophecy. But his account contradicts the Church's own account. His own letter about Sidney Rigdon's infamous visit is quite informative, if not quite the same story I was taught in Sunday School. You know, the Sunday School version of mormonism, we've gone over that before.

You brought up consulting world leading experts on matters of archeaolgy, anthropology, genetics, textual criticism, Semetic linguistics, and the UN. I wonder what these people's assessment of mormonism would be, given that mormonism claims to have discovered the largest golden tablet in the history of man; claims to have discovered (and translated) the actual writings of father Abraham; claims to have discovered the remains of a white Lamanite named Zelph; claims to have discovered a new language named reformed Egyptian; and claims to be God's one and only true world religion. I would be interested in what these experts had to say about mormonism, based on these claims. I wonder if the any of the Church's claims would stand up to their scrutiny? Rhetorically, of course. Oh wait, I'm just a primary teacher with no credentials. Never mind.

-DV

McCue, we know you and you know us not.

First, you should apply your world famous reading skills. Nowhere will you see me endorse my credentials.

All of the naysayers invoke the "authority" card. You just did so, by arguing your association with a geneticst. Geeze, astound me that you spent a couple of days with a geneticist, allow me to get up off the floor. You are full of yourself. Any honest person will know it takes a lifetime to become a decent geneticist, and there are debates within the community. Are you aware of the Icelandic gene pool gene-mappign study?

The "Dr." title was a derisive title served upon me by your cohorts, in jest. You have no sense of humor on any subject, so that would fly past you. A challenge: identify where I espoused any credentials. I need not, as the crapola spewed hereon is unworthy of credentials. In fact, the anti garbage mocks the very credence of credentials.

Second, attorneys, especially tax attorneys are a dime a dozen. Your reasoning will tend toward inductivity, as opposed to deductivity given the rigidity with which one practices tax law. The degree matters not, but what you've accomplished with it.

Third, it appears from reading your vast array of attacks on an institution which I consider worthy of support, that you take narrow, reductionist approach to evidence. One would hope you never become a judge, given your predisposition for prejudgment.

For one example, of understanding how a leader in his field, I recommend an agnostic, Dr. Bart. D. Ehrman, a leader in textual criticism, which by definition means reconstruction to the origional. He has the leading, "Introduction to the New Testament", and "Misquoting Jesus". Reading his writings, even though he no longer believes, you can see a nuanced approach to understanding how men make mistakes but yet the Divine may act phenomenologically upon us. It provides an interesting insight into a newfound dialectical.

Most of your arguments are argumentum ad reducio ad absurdum. You present a cheekish, narrow view of the LDS culture, brandished by anecdotes which you or others my hold true, but not buttressed by dialectic, of opposing viewpoints.

As a former atheist who joined the crowd, I remember the texts as I examined them, not as a babe in the woods introduced from family but by reason of my own intellect.

For example, I know the falsehood of a principle representation to be false. The Church, for example, had NO creed, a la the Nicene Creed, or other creeds, for good reason. We have very little uniformity and no need. Thus, although you can find misinformed statements as to the prevalence of the semetic seed, you can also see a debate amongst the early leaders as to the proper application, Oliver Cowdery being a detractor of universal application. I remember my own questions, as well computations, and was taught, many peoples came and populated the US. So it is a blatant fraud to state what the Church taught concerning the native americans. yes you can cite some misinterpretations, but I can counter the early discussions where nobody really knew, just speculated.

IF you are so well-versed in genetics, I ask you, and it shall be a simple answer, what are the limitations of the methodology which he used, and how does the Icelandic study impact it?

What assumptions in seeking out Cohen mitochondria did your friend make, and what would happen if those aren't true?

Let's talk analysis, not overstate representations of fact which I know I will not accept, as your approach is neither fair nor nuanced.

I don't give a crap about credentials, but I do care about methodology.

So far, you have invoked the "authority card", the "everybody knows card (gee that's a real winner, and any forensics coach would shoot you for that one), the "distortion card", the "ad hominem card".

Even your most basic argument is not compelling. You shout for the world, that Joseph was a liar and a sinner and hence is a fraud. This is neither logically compelled nor compelling. Are you stating that God cannot work through sinners? It is not an exclusive argument.

Let's try on one of your favorite canards.

You argue, why haven't any nonLDs found any evidence supporting any LDS claims?

Well, first I assert there have been but you wouldn't recognize them if they hit you across the head with a sledgehammer.

As an aside, a simple one, LDS asserted long ago that the KJV of the Bible was inaccurately translated.

I read the introduction from the New Revised Standard Version, (Oxford) written by Bruce Metzger, not LDS but a prominent textual criticalist, "Yet the King James Version has seriious defects."

Bart Ehrman writes, again an agnostic and nonLDS, speaking as to the source materials for our current translations, "Possibly it is easeiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

You claim, if they found them, it would guarantee them notoriety and support any where. BS.

First, finding funding is very difficult for research. How does a state funded researcher gain funding for determining archeaological evidence of a religious nature? The answer is, they don't, especially not one as narrow as looking for lost LDS sites, which we don't know where they were or what they looked like.

If you know about preColumbian societies, did they build upon each other?

How far back does our good archeaological evidence go?

Are you stating that our archeaological discoveries even uncover one tenth of the previous societies?

Depending on your answers, we will see if you're aware of the answers or not. If you are aware, and you still take the tact you take, then shame on you for the intentional deception you seek to accuse Joseph Smith of. If you're not aware, then that explains it. This is an example of your many false syllogisms which you seek to create. In many respects, your approach is irredentic.

Anybody can paste "horror" stories of events of Joseph Smith's life, portraying them as accurate. The truth is, nobody has taken a completely academic approach. Only two persons claim to have done so, Bushman and Brodie. And Brodie paints with such a broad brush that no independent historian would accept her cruxifiction of Joseph Smith. Bushman's attempt was just the first endeavor. The source material to which you allude is relatively ludicrous. But you know that. You simply wish to replace Gerald, that is all.

Pretenses are irrelevant, and if you wish to resort to classical forms of rhetoric, it will be easily recognizable. You have your congregation. Some of these guys or gals were entertaining, but you are neither entertaining nor informative. If you wish to be their patron saint, so be it.

Allahu Akhbar.

I have not read the thread above, and I hope those who participated there called BS re. D’s claim to have a PhD in anything. Arguing with him, even for a lowly BA, MBA, LLB like me (or my high school aged son, for that matter) is like shooting fish in a barrel. No undergrad student of anything, let alone philosophy, could survive with his “reasoning” skills.

Who are you D? Give us your real identity. Prove you have a PhD. I appear here and everywhere else I go on the Internet as I am because I want the consequences of my words to stick to me. I don’t hide behind pseudonyms. There is no doubt about who I am, what my credential are, or what my history is.

Now, to your arguments.

D: On a side note, you should note, no scholar, LDS or nonLDS, can determine (at this time) if any BoM sites have been located, because we do not know what we are looking for. It's that simple. We had a better idea what we're searching for in terms of the Middle East, you knew that was a red herring when you started it.

bm: The point is that no evidence to support the existence of any of the alleged locations has been found. As I pointed out, there is a huge incentive for non-Mormon as well as Mormon academics to find evidence of this type, and none has been found. And, the whole point of the apologetic enterprise re. the BofM is to create a non-falsifiable hypothesis. We can’t disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn (see http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/) hypothesis either. So what?

D: We have no geneticist; have no archaeologist, and nobody of note. Yet, despite having no credentials to judge the source materials, you're willing to condemn and castigate the institution. Fascinating. What world leading experts on matters of archaeology, anthropology, genetics, textual criticism, Semetic linguistics, have you consulted? None, but you "know" a lot of things by reading others who claim to know others who are experts. Again, strange. The UN was correct in pointing former adherents are not good sources of information accurately depicting any religious movement.

bm: I have read carefully a mountain of material from each of the disciplines to which you refer. I spent a couple of days with Simon Southerton (the geneticist who wrote “Losing a Lost Tribe”) last fall. I have spent a week each summer for the past two summers with some of the worlds leading geneticists, biologists, neurologists, religious studies scholars and theologians at Star Island (see www.iras.org). I have their respect. Some of them consult with me regarding their religious studies projects. I have done my homework. I have found nothing of substance – not a material scintilla – of evidence in support of the BofM and other Mormon foundational hypotheses. That is what I said in my post above. If I am wrong, please demonstrate it. You are defending an invisible pink unicorn; a flying spaghetti monster; Zeus. Good luck.

If would have been far easier for me to pretend to believe and go quietly along my way with the respect of my family and Mormon community. I chose to take some hard hits of a variety of sorts because I did not believe it was ethical to do otherwise. And I could not bear the thought of leaving this problem for my children to deal with as I had to deal with it after they had been conditioned at the tender mercies of the Mormon institution.

You talk big. Let’s see your walk.

best,
bob

the Verdict

As a Philophy major who graduated from one of the two top private colleges in the country,

let me pronounce the Verdict here.

Derrida derides his opponents. He says they distort facts and "ignores a credible intellectual approach of ambiguity suspension."

I never heard that phrase, ambiguity suspension, in my first class philosphy department, but of course D will tell me I need at least a Masters.

My first class logical mind says that James, and the much maligned McCue (who looks nothing like D's characterization)
have arguments that are significantly clearer than Derrida's, no perceptible fact distortion, and that their arguments may reflect their displeasure at having the truth concealed from them for many years, they don't distort their arguments out of malice or hatred.

In summary, I would say that McCue is 9.3 times more intelligent, cogent, rational, and convincing than Derrida.

I have a definite burning in my chest, so I know I am right.

I would hate to have to spend time at the academic environment where Derrida has spent a lifetime.
Must be in the telestial kingdom.

Well, Heraclitus and James, you can spam a board and ruin fun discussion.

McCue is a closed mind, who will spam the board with his lies and without polite discussion. Peterson can take him on, because you two were kinda fun, even in your perspectives. He is simply malicious. I'm probably more familiar with the sources he claims to make his strident and overstated representations. He is certainly no historian, with no such credentials. Although Quinn has moved awawy, even he is unwilling to make all the claims our strident adversary will make.

On a side note, you should note, no scholar, LDS or nonLDS, can determine (at this time) if any BoM sites have been located, because we do not know what we are looking for. It's that simple. We had a better idea what we're searching for in terms of the Middle East, you knew that was a red herring when you started it.

What is interesting is that none of your are scholars with firsthand knowledge of any of the source data, but instead you all regurgitate without examining what others have said, even so in a nonscholarly manner.

We have no geneticist, have no archeaologist, and nobody of note. Yet, despite having no credentials to judge the source materials, you're willing to condemn and castigate the institution. Fascinating. What world leading experts on matters of archeaolgy, anthropology, genetics, textual criticism, Semetic linguistics, have you consulted? None, but you "know" a lot of things by reading others who claim to know others who are experts. Again, strange. The UN was correct in pointing former adherents are not good sources of information accurately depicting any religious movement.

For example, if one wishes to understand textual criticism of the New Testament, one consults a multitude of experts on the issue, including Ehrman, David Parker in London, Bruce Metzgler (sp?)(wrote introduction to Oxford NRSV Bible) and others. It is not difficult, but because claims which do not comport with your worldviews cannot be verified by this technique, you rely upon third rate information.

The approach you have taken is simple to describe. For reasons known only to you, you attack an institution with which you once affiliated. Don't tell me about your pursuit of truth as your analyses belie that fact. However, a LDS states we believe religion and science can coexist, a fairly simple declaration. You then proceed to distort facts based on your perception stating these things are not true, not in accordance with "science", hence it is all fabrication. (It ignores a credible intellectual approach of ambiguity suspension, but you knew that).

That's the long and the short of it. However, none of the derisive persons have academic qualifications to examine the source material and to come to any conclusions but you certainly are willing to do so. I've been involved in evidence, academics and matters of examination for a lifetime, this production is no better than any other nonacademic production.

Go ahead spammers, you can have the floor. Veni, vidi, vici.

Derrida

My dumb blond friend James (who is a VERY good dancer, BTW) left out the important next paragraph of McCue's, which speaks even more directly to your fantastical defense. he writes

But, some Mormons ask, why did Joseph Smith and so many other Mormon leaders teach so clearly that the Book of Mormon civilization covered all of North and South America? Elaborate educational and adoption programs related to Amerindians and Polynesians were for many years run on the basis that these people were direct descendents of the Children of Israel. People joined Mormonism in huge numbers in Latin America and elsewhere on this basis. I served my Mormon mission in Peru and persuaded many people there to become Mormon and radically change their way of life, break up important family and social relationships, etc. on the strength of this idea. No earthly sacrifice was too great given the Celestial rewards they would earn, we taught.

MCCue believes the Mormon Church may well be sued one day for recruiting under false pretences, and other Fraudulent activities. He isn't being mean or hating. He is looking at it from a legal standpoint.

Book of Mormon History

Derrida My lawyer McCue puts it better than I can when he talks about Mormon justifcation for the BoM having no evidence of historical truth. He writes.

The best they have been able to do in this regard is to propose that only a few Israelites came to the Americas and established a much smaller civilization than Mormon leaders, from Smith to the current group, have consistently maintained. This requires a tortured reading of the Book of Mormon, and ignorance of mountains of widely accepted scholarly material. In fact, this civilization was so small – the Mormon apologists say – that it will likely never be found. That is, the Book of Mormon hypotheses are not falsifiable. Religious leaders prefer non-falsifiable dogma because religion’s track record since Galileo when it goes head to head with history and science has been bleak.

this Mormon apologist tack (yours) truly would be, and is, laughed off the floor in any serious academic setting.

I admire your lack of shame in still espousing it. Very brave for a philosopher as brilliant as yourself.

Once in the Mormon door, the institutional hooks go in so gradually that before many people realize what has happened, they are stuck. Getting out requires leaving friends, sometimes going through divorce and rupturing other family relationships. Not a good religious deal. There are many far better on offer.

My thoughts regarding Mormonism and related topics can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm.

best,
bob

It is not surprising to find that those with the most invested in Mormonism have the hardest time seeing it for what it is. Again, this is the case for all ideological groups. Hence, people who teach at BYU, who are employed by Mormonism (as is Mr. Otterson), who receive a lot of ego gratification from Mormon leadership positions, have big Mormon families, etc. should be expected to persist in arguments non-Mormons find silly.

It is Mr. Otterson’s job to make sure that as few people as possible have enough data and context to see Mormonism in a realistic way. In this he is following longstanding advice of Mormonism’s leaders. And if you ask him a direct question, don’t expect a direct answer. Mormons are taught to answer the questions people should ask to get at the “truth” instead of those they do ask. This is a standard persuasive technique used by people who sell everything from political ideology to used cars. “If they ask about the rust, talk about the stereo system …”

The kind of double-mindedness Mr. Otterson illustrates is so much a part of the Mormon way of life that practicing Mormons tend not to notice this. They are taught to think for themselves, for example, but are subjected to a multitude of institutional and social penalties if they reach a conclusion that disagrees with Mormon dogma. There is little doubt Mormonism’s attributes of this type are largely responsible for many of the social problems evident in Utah, and hence probably attributable to Mormon belief and practice. These include the fact is that Utah leads or almost leads the United States in a number of unflattering statistical categories, such as per capita anti-depressant consumption, personal bankruptcies, multilevel marketing participation, investment fraud, tax evasion, and certain forms of assault.

I suggest that people who interact with Mormons, and particularly Mormons who are part of its well-oiled marketing machine, ask a lot of questions and do as much independent research as possible before believing what they are told. This is not because Mormons are evil or mean spirited. On the contrary, most of them truly believe that they have a special truth and that it makes them happy. This belief is maintained by an odd social matrix and the absence of the information necessary to apprehend reality. The same can be said of countless literalist, life narrowing, religious groups. There is nothing special about the Mormon claims to the “good life”. Do not believe it.

We could walk through a similar analysis with regard to the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith’s teachings with regard to cosmology, Mormon beliefs with regard to its code of health – the so-called “Word of Wisdom”; Mormon beliefs with regard to homosexuality, and a variety of other important topics.

In short, Mormonism is still for the most part the literalist, dogmatic religion. This is a far cry from the picture Mr. Otterson is attempting to paint in a high profile public forum.

The interaction between Mormonism and the scientific community has been going on for close to two centuries. It has already caused many Mormon beliefs to be abandoned. One only needs to look at the history of Christianity, Judaism and other older religious systems to predict the route for Mormonism. If it grows larger, it will likely gradually reject its literalist dogma and go metaphoric. Mormonism is at present a long way from this position.

Should it concern us that countless lives have been shaped by belief in what amounts to a ridiculous fairy tail based on commonly held 19th century folk beliefs (like that the native Americans were of Hebrew descent) that were turned into religious dogma by the Book of Mormon? Why should the people responsible for this kind of debacle be believed about anything important? The answer to this question is as obvious to non-Mormons as it is obvious to Mormons that the JW belief that blood transfusions must be avoided at all costs or female circumcision is required by god are at best inhumane.

And so it is with many Mormon beliefs. Again, this is the kind of thing Mr. Otterson has in mind when he says that unanswered questions don’t trouble him. It is tough to survive as a well informed Mormon without this attitude.

I am not aware of a single non-Mormon academic who assigns any of the hypotheses that underlie the Book of Mormon more than a minuscule probability of being accurate. We should also recall that because of the way in which the scientific and academic communities’ work, any scholar or scientist who is able to find evidence that strongly supports the Book of Mormon hypothesis would have accomplished the kind of thing that brings research grants, offers of full professorship, and in other ways provides the kind of recognition most academics crave. How can we explain, then, the fact that the non-Mormon academic community gives short shrift to the many historical and scientific hypotheses embedded within the book of Mormon? They don't want success? They are all wrong? Satan is darkening their minds? The last one is often trotted out by Mormon scholars, indicating the depth of their magical thinking mental bifurcation. As long as you believe in magic, you can justify any belief.

And we note that these hypotheses are given more or less the same kind of inattention as the hypotheses on which Scientology is based, and far less attention than is given various New Age hypotheses (such as those related to the mind-body nexus) or the possibility of the alien abductions.

My Great Grandfather spent a number of years stumping around New Zealand because the Maoris were believed by Mormons to have come from the Americas and to be descents of Israel as well. Grandpa even supervised the translation of the Book of Mormon into Maori. His personal testimony – in Maori – is still found in the front of the Book of Mormon published by the Mormon Church for use in New Zealand. One of his children died there, likely as a result of their extreme living conditions. His absence produced a host of family problems. Grandma’s eventual immigration to Canada is likely attributable to this in part.

So, my family’s history – and countless others – has been radically affected by this Mormon belief. And it is of minor importance relative to many others.

While Mormons are only starting to talk about this, the apologists and the few Mormons who are aware of the issue write this whole tragic chapter of Mormon belief evolution off to another of those instances when Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were acting as men instead of prophets. That is, they got it wrong. Oh well. Move on. Don't worry about it. And certainly don't talk about it.

For example, Mr. Otterson does not mention that many of Mormonism’s foundational beliefs amount to either historical or scientific hypotheses that have been firmly, consistently and thoroughly rejected by the scientific community. Exhibit No. 1 in this regard is the Mormon Church’s official position that the Book of Mormon is literal history. If that is the case, then Israelites emigrated from the old world to the Americas sometime around 600 BCE, and established a flourishing civilization here. A host of hypotheses related to this proposition can be tested using scientific and historical analysis. The Mormon position contradicts the most well established hypotheses with regard to human migration and the establishment of human civilization in the Americas. Some Mormons academics have created a pseudo-scholarly industry out of defending the Mormon position. The best they have been able to do in this regard is to propose that only a few Israelites came to the Americas and established a much smaller civilization than Mormon leaders, from Smith to the current group, have consistently maintained. This requires a tortured reading of the Book of Mormon, and ignorance of mountains of widely accepted scholarly material. In fact, this civilization was so small – the Mormon apologists say – that it will likely never be found. That is, the Book of Mormon hypotheses are not falsifiable. Religious leaders prefer non-falsifiable dogma because religion’s track record since Galileo when it goes head to head with history and science has been bleak.

But, some Mormons ask, why did Joseph Smith and so many other Mormon leaders teach so clearly that the Book of Mormon civilization covered all of North and South America? Elaborate educational and adoption programs related to Amerindians and Polynesians were for many years run on the basis that these people were direct descendents of the Children of Israel. People joined Mormonism in huge numbers in Latin America and elsewhere on this basis. I served my Mormon mission in Peru and persuaded many people there to become Mormon and radically change their way of life, break up important family and social relationships, etc. on the strength of this idea. No earthly sacrifice was too great given the Celestial rewards they would earn, we taught.

And, Joseph Smith was either consciously deceptive or simply wrong with regard to the wide variety of other important matters. There is a strong correlation between those times when he was having trouble getting people to obey him and when he would resort to deception. His statements with regard to ethics indicate that he justified many of his behaviors in this regard on the basis that he was doing God's will, and that at times deception was required in order to achieve God's will. This idea became known as "lying for the Lord" within Mormonism, and continues to influence the way in which Mormon leaders communicate with the Mormon membership and non-Mormons regarding Mormon history, belief and practice.

In light of all that, one of the questions Mormons should be required to answer is why anything J. Smith tells us should be believed. He was not trustworthy. That is obvious to non-Mormons and only eludes the Mormon grasp because of the power of social proof and other carefully studied cognitive biases that are known to apply in this type of situation.

These troublesome aspects of Joseph Smith's history have been sanitized in some ways and suppressed in others in order to make him more useful as an icon within modern Mormonism. The Internet is making this more difficult for Mormonism to do. Hence, look for Joseph Smith to decline in influence and for Mormonism to move toward the mainstream evangelical Christian model.

When Mr. Otterson refers to questions that do not have answers, the kind of thing I just finished outlining is part of what he has in mind.

Mr. Otterson continues: “God works with natural laws – he understands their complexity and what appears to us as a miracle is simply the operation of some principle or law we don’t understand. I subscribe to the view that science and religion will be in harmony when all is understood.”

Mr. Otterson, in effect, leaves the impression that the belief in Mormonism amounts to embracing something akin to Einstein’s open-ended science based spirituality (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm and http://www.deism.com/Einstein1.htm) and that we should not be surprised if some time in the near future Bishop John Spong announces that he has converted to Mormonism because it so completely accords with his liberal, metaphoric view of Christianity. In this and related passages, Mr. Otterson shows his readers selective and in some cases exaggerated facts while not disclosing the context necessary to understand what he is saying.

Let me first state my biases. I am a post-Mormon – that is, someone who has grown out of Mormonism. About five years ago, at age 44, I began to read Mormon history and the social science related to Mormonism for the first time. Within a matter of weeks, my belief in Mormonism crumbled. This came after a lifetime of service within the Mormon community, including five years as a Bishop. And somehow I had managed to get three near top of the class university degrees and developed a successful law practice as a partner of an internationally recognized law firm without realistically examining my own faith.

I am taking the time to respond to Mr. Otterson because he has presented us with a textbook example of the kind of Madison Avenue Mormonism that caused me to reject it. That is, the impression Mr. Otterson leaves with regard to Mormonism has about as much to do with Mormonism’s reality as the typical piece of Madison Avenue marketing has to do with the reality of the product in question. “If you want to be good looking, wealthy, happy beyond belief, and spend your life partying with attractive members of the opposite sex, just buy [insert product name here].”

Time and space does not permit the sentence by sentence analysis of Mr. Otterson’s essay I would like to provide. Accordingly, I will restrict myself to making a few of the most obvious points.

Mr. Otterson says: “My religion not only allows for but encourages a cosmic view. Its scriptures teach that there are worlds without number, that many of those worlds are inhabited, and that as worlds pass away, others come into being as part of God’s grand design for the immortality and eternal life of man.” For those who understand a bit about quantum physics, this is a nod in that direction. That is, Mormon belief on this point is consistent with cutting edge science. But Mr. Otterson does not mention the host of bizarre Mormon beliefs that came from the mouths of its founders – the same source for the belief he does mention. These beliefs include people who look like Quakers on the Moon; that God had sex with Mary to create Jesus; the Sun gets its energy from another yet undiscovered planet; a mind boggling and specific cosmology that makes as little (or as much) sense as Scientology’s foundational beliefs, etc. Nor does he mention that Joseph Smith seems likely to have plagiarized both the belief Otterson mentions as well many he does not from other people. The source of much of Smith’s cosmology, for example, is likely to be Thomas Dick’s “Philosophy of Future States”.

Were we to complain to Mr. Otterson that he had not fairly represented Mormonism’s position, we would likely be reminded of the Mormon dogma that the prophet is only a prophet when he is correct, and that prophets make mistakes. So, whenever J. Smith and other Mormon prophets have been found clearly to have been wrong and so acknowledged by a subsequent Mormon prophet, their views can be ignored. But, they must be accepted as speaking for God wherever they have not be definitively proven wrong or this has not yet been admitted by Mormonism’s leaders. Tails I win; heads you lose. There is no way to mount an argument within the Mormon system that it is false. There is nothing unusual in this. Relatively new, immature religious systems are often set up this way. It is an institutional defence system, kind of like the turtle withdrawing into its shell or repeating “la la la la la la” when people say things that you don’t want to hear.

And, as a religious culture matures, it tends to gravitate toward more rational decision-making bases. For example, instead of insisting that the religious leaders are right until proven wrong, the tests for wisdom generally applicable will eventually be applied to them. When one does this Joseph Smith, it is easy to predict that his influence within Mormonism will fade. For example, for over a decade he lied in public, private and in every other imaginable arena with regard to his sexual activities. That is, he was having sex with many women under the guise of what eventually became known as polygamy while insisting that he was not. Some of these women were married to other men, and some of these men he sent out of town on Mormon Church business in a way that made their wives more easily accessible to him.

D
You say
"it is not an historical account."
You are pulling my leg, right?
Joseph Smith and the Mormons do not believe the BoM is True,that it is what Joseph Smith said it was, a true account of middle eastern peoples coming to the Americas?
The things the BoM says happened didn't "really" happen?
Wouldn't you be excommunicated if I told people that was what you believed.
Luve you Derrida, but your distinction here is TrULY non sensical.

History may not be its main purpose, but is is part of the Mormon truth claim concerning the book. Are we to ignore the "history" of Jesus appearing here after the resurrection?

I don't believe in Prophets,
but the definition of a Prophet is one who speaks God's word.
Isn't God's word The Truth.? If you say no, you're excommunicated again. Joseph Smith told us many times he was speaking as a Prophet, translating as a Prophet, inspired by God and his truth.
Regardless of his Sex Life. Let's just focus on the Truth of his prophecies. Here we agree, almost.
We can limit our examination of our truth claims to things that everyone agrees in the Mormon Church were "prophecies" rather than off the cuff remarks.

Lots works for me currently, Dr. D. Don't be sad for me. I don't need a belief in a superstition to make me happy.

Many people appear to. I totally respect your right to believe in one. It is also totally your right to believe whatever you want about the Truth of the Mormon Prophet and his prophecies.

D response coming to your last.
in the meantime, i am not trying to convince you
but this is what people in the wide world see
when they go to Wikipedia and look at the topic
Mormons and history:

Unlike other 19th-century religious movements such as Bahai, Shakerism, and Christian Science, Mormonism is a religion predicated on both the historicity of a prophet's testimony and a sacred book that describes a detailed pre-Columbian history of North America.
Although traditional Christianity is likewise a history religion, few primary sources survive from two or three millennia ago. Furthermore, biblical places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho, are acknowledged to exist by scholars of every religious persuasion, and the Assyrian and Babylonian empires are treated in every ancient history text. Locations of Book of Mormon places, by contrast, are acknowledged to exist by no non-Mormon scholars, and no non-Mormon text about the pre-Columbian world describes the wars and kingdoms of the Book of Mormon.[1] Martin Marty, an historian of American religion, has observed that LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."[2]
Mormonism relies on the historical reality of the mission of Joseph Smith, Jr as a matter of faith. In other words, if Joseph Smith did not actually translate the Book of Mormon from Golden Plates engraved by Ancient Americans, then the entire Mormon faith is without foundation. President Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth LDS prophet said:
Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect.[3]

James:

I believe the BoM is a religious accounting of a small group of persons in the Western Hemisphere. I believe the objections which have been raised concerning items therein have been adequately addressed and remaining questions are irrelevant for my purposes.

It is not an historical account, but an account that purports to testify of Christ. It does so. Historical artifacts are contained therein, but that is NOT its purpose. You try every time to sneak that, but either you are attuned to nuance and are simply trying to dupe me, or you aren't. I opt for the former. That IS NOT ITS purpose. You are setting up a strawman by stating it doesn't achieve a purpose it never seeks to achieve. Wow. I don't want to be a baseball player, so I'm not a baseball player.

You also couch events in terms which I do not use.

Joseph Smith fulfills all markers of being a prophet, but culturally, spiritually, physically and his words resonate even today. However, he opined on many items and that does not make not a prophet but rather human. If you expect a perfect man, then there never will be a prophet. You can also set up false parameters, by stating, well, if somebody did this, there is no way he could be a prophet. Here is one biased account that he did X, so he can't be a prophet.

The falsehood in that is that you limit God on whom he can call. God will call whom he calls. Sometimes that person disappoints. Sometimes he succeeds. JS fulfills the markers of a prophet and therefor is a prophet for me. His movement works for me. Saying that does not mean I approve of all of his actions, but that is also irrelevant as God will judge him, perhaps for ill or good. I'll use what good he has left behind and not worry about the extraneous stuff, except to be aware of it. If it doesn't work for you, find something that does. It appears nothing works for you currently, which is sad.

Dr D

you dawdled too long. I already have a date for Saturday night. With Noam Chomsky.

Serious question: Joseph Fielding Smith said that Mormonism stands or falls on whether Joseph the first was a true prophet or a sham.

I tend to agree. I also agree that JFS's statement applies to the Book of Mormon first and foremost.

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is what Joseph says it was: a god inspired historical account of inhabitants of the Western Hemisphiere?

I always thought that having a testimony that LDS was the One True church rested on the belief that "the Book of Mormon is true."

Just to be clear. Do you think it is "literally true," as the Prophet claimed?

Now we're getting somewhere but I didn't know James was blond, as that changes everything.

First, if the purpose of the BoM were to prove those things, then I would agree with the Burden of Proof.

However, the BoM is a religious record of a small group of people coming to the Americas, not a historical record. To me, that's a major distinction.

It should be of interest that LDS discover what evidence is discoverable. In light of the nature of the societies of PreColumbian era of which we have knowledge, it is NOT surprising that such evidence is scant, if not nonexistent.

Second, LDS wish to convince persons that the religious claims have archeaological evidence to support it, then obviously they have the burden of proof.

My speculative guess is we might find evidence some day and we may not.

I understand societies recognize the existence of some historical sites within the Bible, although there is usually a question of which sites really correspond to the sites referred to in the Bible. The difference is, it is much easier to provide that evidence, as these sites were never really lost; the consciousness of industrialized society never lost them.

The Americas are and were an unknown quantity, so it is harder to find what we don't know existed, and for what we don't know something should look like.

I submit LDS do not wish to convince persons of the antiquity of its religious claims on archaeology alone but it would be a nice benefit. It hasn't happened yet and archaeological discoveries occur at their own rate. No amount of evidence will ever convince the doubters. Those who are curious and don't know might be convinced some day.

RE The Tryst.
Yes, you're right. You caught me. you know how we Greeks are. I think James may be a bit of a bimbo, but that's OK. I like dumb blonds.

I don't know of any peer reviewable studies.

The Moses Red Sea story is just one part of the Bible, and given the nature of the story it can most likely never be proved or disproved. The existence of Babylon or Caesar Augustus's tax census or Mt Sinai can be ascertained however. That certainly has NO BEARING on whether the Bible is the Word of God, but it does have bearing on its historical grounding.

Here is what I think all three of us can agree on. Correct me if I am wrong

Mormons generally believe the BoM is "true," a true record of peoples in the Americas with christ's visit to them.

For whatever reason, No Non Mormon has found evidence of a genetic, linguistic, archeological, or historical nature
that confirms any of the BoM history as having any basis in Historical Fact.

That does not prove the BoM is a fraud.

However, many Non Mormons do think it is a fraud. They all may be third rate scholars.

When analysing a position, the educated thing to do is to examine the Point of View and Interests of the person holding the position.

Mormons have a natural incentive to defend their dearly held beliefs.

Non Mormon scholars have an incentive to either build their reputation by publishing reputable work, or sometimes by being sensational. The second tack is not usually a good idea. Academia is notoriously hostile to Poplulizers.

Again, I agree that all this does not PRove that the BoM is an invention of Joseph Smith's imagination.

I do believe that the burden of proof for such an extraodinary claim:
To wit: the BoM is God's inspired word, was given to Smith by an angel, translated through a treasure hunting stone, and is an historical record of Middle easterners who traveled to the Americas in 600 BC

the Burden of Proof is on the Mormons to show that there is some evidence to support their claim that this IS,, in fact, an historical record.

Do you believe the Burden of Proof is on the doubters to prove that the BoM is NOT True?

If somebody looks for evidence that Moses divided the Red Sea, where will the proof in that be? Joseph Smith never sought to prove matters, only to provide religious guidance and to ask his listeners to believe or not to believe.

The magnitude of devoted scholars examining biblical studies to mormon studies is of a magnitude of 10,000 to 1. Eventually, evidence may be provided. (Over thirty is a small, small sampling).

Of course, with a differential as that, some stuff will be found.

What exists is research of persons not looking at the issue that some LDS scholars believe is supportive. That's what exists.

Are you aware of any peer reviewable studies?

Now if you're interested in a tryst with James, go ahead, be my guest.

Derrida

Apologies again for breaking into your tryst with James.

You are smarter than both of us put together, so it is only fair that I help the poor boy out. Isn’t he a dim witted Harvard guy?

Let us agree with you for a moment, for the sake of argument.

Your position seems to be: No credible Non Mormon scholar has examined the evidence for the authenticity of BOM history.
(it’s not true, but lets assume it just for fun)

That would PROVE James’s assertion that

No non mormon scholar etc has given a positive opinion of the authenticity of the BoM.

Stipulate Egyptologists point> that has more to do with the Book of Abraham anyway.

You write:
“I have read many of the so-called "studies" and they do not meet with sufficient merits to be credible. Unless I've missed one, I don't believe any have been published in peer review journals.”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this.

But Again, James’s hypothesis, and I quote, is

No Non Mormon has found ANY supporting evidence for the authenticity of the BoM.
further, a good number have looked at it.

He did NOT say, all the studies disputing the BoM are not up to Derrida’s standards. He said: I can find no non Mormon who thinks there is any support.
A good number HAVE looked at it (over 30). Not Derrida-certified scholars, but scholars and writers.

James’s hypothesis does not PROVE the BoM is a fraud. He acknowledges that.

There IS much independent evidence that archeological sites and events described in the Bible actually exists.

There is None that sites and events from the BoM actually existed.

If you, or Joseph Smith, says something happened, and I say “
Prove it”, the burden of proof is on him to prove it happened, not on me to prove it didn’t. Remember the difficulty of proving a negative, like “the tooth fairy story is a myth.”

You hide behind blanket statements.

I don't want love or respect, but would appreciate a better examination of the facts.

IT is not true that very many have looked into LDS issues.

As far as the Egyptologists are concerned. What have they examined? The facsimile translation? Other than that we have very little if any of his work. That's what is bothersome. You simply are being fast and loose with the facts. The most we have is a cursory description of what somebody else told the Egyptologists. We do NOT have a thorough examination, because the evidence isn't there to examine. You're not being honest here. That's disturbing. Again a classic overstatement akin to a political discussion mode.

The sites you cite are merely conclusory. You have no thorough studies, because no thorough studies exist. And one should expect disbelievers to have negative casual conclusions regarding anything religious.

You have not presented any reputable study conducted by persons who thorughly reviewed the evidence in an unbiased manner. If I wanted to cross-examine the "experts", I know I could get them to say,

"No, I did not speak with Smith and he did not inform me as to his thought processes."

"Yes, I relied upon the belief that this is the actual parchment he translated."

"If it wasn't, then my opinion has no bearing."

So you can quote me all the conclusory, meaningles negative comments you wish, have them repeated by people who actually believe them, that doesn't make them valid.

And why do you resort to ad hominems? You don't wish to discuss it civilly? I neither seek nor hope for your approbation. It is an attempt to see if you are willing to conduct a logically honest discussion.

Assuming facts not in evidence will not advance the discussion.

And if I were to examine the evidence, I would start for first source of funding to determine credibility, second scope of work, and third, evidence examined.

I have read many of the so-called "studies" and they do not meet with sufficient merits to be credible. Unless I've missed one, I don't believe any have been published in peer review journals.

Look at your statement analytically, not with prejudgment. You can ask me the same.

I do not state scientific studies confirm LDS claims, but they are not advanced enough to dispute them intelligently enough either. You and others go overboard as to what the evidence is. That's my point.

If you simply return to your song, "all this wonderful evidence refutes LDS claims" then I will know that you are your not honest in your desire to even discuss it intelligently.

Derrida, I'm getting to Like You.
In a purely Platonic way, of course.

A cupla responses.you say i ignore the issue of no significant non lds studies.

I noted that there are many. U of Chicago guy, a munber cited at Religious Tolerance (non fundamentalist) site by academics.

you may not like them, but the point i make is non of them support the mormon view. dismiss them if you like. but they don't help you.

Some completely reputable egypt experts have said Smith's work is nonsense. You know that.

If I claim there was 60,000 seat football stadium in the Yucatan during Book of Mormon days,you could not disprove it. But I guarantee you that you would find no archeological evidence for it.

My hypothesis
No Non Mormon has found ANY supporting evidence for the authenticity of the BoM.
further, a good number have looked at it.

You still have no substantive argument to attack that hypothesis.

You say, well the ones who have looked at it aren't smart enough.

EVEN if that were true (it isn't) is is NOT responsive to the point. It IS pathetic, in the sense of being and "Argument from Pathos."

Even Harvard would not accept you as a graduate student if you used this kind of reasoning.

But I do love you.

I meant, why would nonLDS bother funding and research on LDS issues. Should reread my stuff once in a while. Answer is, most won't.

His hypothesis may be correct in that none of the few nonLDS who have casually looked at the evidence have found confirming evidence.

To show you nonLDS studies, I would have to splice things reported from LDS sources, where people not specifically looking at claims of LDS, but who independently found things that "validated" LDS claims. It would be painstaking work, work for which I would not be paid. For example, I've seen some archaeological research on metal working wtihin certain preColumbian societies.

You ignore the issue that no signficant nonLDS care about LDS issues. You can't have studies that aren't being conducted.

Some of the stuff is polemic. What does "Reformed Egyptian" look like? And it would not surprise me that we won't find it. Other than for polemics, does it surprise you?

Let's look at the Jews, their liturgical language was not related at all to the common language of Greek and Later Latin. Subsumed populations acquire the lingua franca easily with liturgical languages being reserved for the few elite. It is not surprise that those records no longer exist.

Each issue could be addressed in this manner. Yet the nature of the discussion is unreasonable because the two of you have closed minds. My mind is open in that I don't know what we will find, but I'm certain the the meager resources being devoted have not discovered the vast quantities of evidence related to various societies out there.

Have you read 1421 about the Chinese discovering Americas? The claims have interesting relevance to archaeological research.

My responses to the "hypothesis" of James is not pathetic. What is "pathetic" is the lame framing of the debate which has been stated.

This has been a polemic, not a discussion.

If either of you are familiar with research funding, you will know that funding is the key to research. And why would nonLDS bother funding research on nonLDS issues?

Answer that question.

Derrida, Let me Put A Word in to Defend You.

I don't think you are homoerotic.

Derrida, did you say you are good at philosphy? Does that include logic? My friend Euclid was very good at logic. What system you use for logic, it is Greek to me.

James states the simple proposition:

All Non Mormon experts believe that the BoM has NO supporting historical, literary, linguistic, or archaeological evidence that supports its veracity.

YOU then say
"First, because Mormons are relatively small, almost no non-Mormons have looked into the Mormon questions, given the fight for research dollars. So the only legitimate scholars are usually those interested, active LDS. The others are usually hacks."

snd other exrraneous, obfuscating wacky opinions about research funding, etc.

What you NEED to do to counter James's argument

is

find ONE non mormon who is on the Mormon's side on this one.

Until you do, James's hyptothesis has not been disproven.

You say: "well, non mormons aren't interested, there is no funding, its all crazy baptists." your defenses to James's hypothesis are pathethic.

Derrida

You have gotten so many things wrong, that I hesitate to point out YET another one.

It is clear to me, having been polluted by this Satan-directed Marxist coven around Harvard Yard, that your philosophical characterizations (eg fundamental reductionists) are themselves, to use the technical term they use at Stanford, gobble-de-gook.

It seems clear we are all ex-mormons, and none of us look stupid enough to be fundamentalists. How could you arrive at that conclusion? Induction?

Our point is SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE.

There are loads of questions about BoM authenticity.

A number (not 10,000, but over 30) of non Mormon sources have looked at the questions. Some are scholars, university professors, archaeologists, geneticists, museum curators, egytologists, etc etc etc

Of course, many official mormon sources have rebutted the charges.

SOLE POINT we are ALL making.

*Not one Non Mormon* from whatever source believes that the BOM has a chance of being an authentic historic record of what it purports to depict, given all the inconsistencies.

All the official Mormon sources (who have not been excommunicated) say it is.

Doesn’t that tell you something? Even you?

Your comments about the bible and history are UNBELIEVABLE. Many many historical and geographic references in the bible have been widely verified. Are you smoking something?

In summary, OUR OUTLANDISH CLAIM is

Not one Non Mormon from whatever source believes that the BOM has a chance of being authentic, given all the inconsistencies. And a significant number have studied the issue.

This is as verifiable as the fact that Mt Everest is 29,030 feet high. It is NOT a matter of opinion.

Accept my apologies for misspelling archaeology, I never spell it correctly unless I spellcheck it.

Don't you guys ever tire of the same crapola.

From I can gather from the two or three of you, you are either ex Mos, or evangelical Christians, who are fundamental reductionists (a group I refuse to even engage in light of their lack of scholarship).

If there is an ounce of honesty in any of you, you will recognize the honesty of this statement and framing of the debate.

First, because Mormons are relatively small, almost no non-Mormons have looked into the Mormon questions, given the fight for research dollars. So the only legitimate scholars are usually those interested, active LDS. The others are usually hacks. So I don't expect fundamental reductionists such as baptists to find anything about anybody. Their sites are almost never scholarly.

It is not true that the historicity of the Bible is verifiable scientifically. Skeptics are NOT impressed, despite thousands and thousands more scholars looking into the equations. In fact, most of the good German researchers do not believe in the claims of the Bible.

So, you frame a debate where the answer is obvious. You will find no legitimate nonMormon looking at the very weak science of archealogy of LDS religious items, because no legitimate nonLDS are looking into it. Our claims aren't important to leglitimate scholars.

If I were to rely upon legitimate unbiased scholarship, I would not believe one iota about the Bible. It would simply an interesting collection compiled by early first millenia religious leaders and later translated to promote the political and religious hegemony.

Very much of the historicity of the biblical claims remain in doubt despite much more knowledge about the Middle East, than about the Western hemisphere. Our knowledge of its peoples is sparce, and given the limited geography that the band probably occupied, we won't ever discover it.

And I am not an archealogist, and neither are any of you. So I am not fully familiar with the body of those interested except for some of the LDS archealogists.

It's nice to make broad, sweeping claims, when if you were honest about the limited status of archealogy of the Western Hemisphere, you would understand why we have limited discoveries. Our knowledge is poor, even of Mayan history and Incan history. Compare that to our knowledge of Greek classical history or Roman history, and there is NO comparison.

And either the group of you are purely ignorant as to the claims of geneticists and their limitaions, or you're intentionally distorting it. Yes, I'm familiar with the initial report, and the weaknesses of its claims.

Here is a simple question for you to ascertain if you're at all familiar with what you're claiming:

What percentage of Semitic persons are identifiable through the initial Cohen maternal mitochondrial testing is detectable?

And is that test valid for Lehi's family during the Jeremiah period?

What assumptions does it make relating to the Leviticus roots?

If you are unable to answer these questions, they discussing these materials is useless, as it shows, you're just regurgitating canned responses which you don't even understand.

And no I'm not a geneticists, but friends are who educate me as to the meaning of various tests and analyses.

Whenever, somebody starts as the group of you have, with claims of universal denial or acceptance, that is a standard of uncautious, and perhaps dishonest analysis.

The true framework is, we will not see nonMormons funding legitimate research into Mormon questions. It won't be justified within the academic framework how research works. So surpriese, surprise, if nobody is looking, except for casually, you can't find that which you're not searching for.

Until you answer these questions, stop with the ad hominems, "i.e., Derrida is an idiot genre", then no legitimate debate can occur.

A legitimate framework involves these sets of inquiries.

How limited an area may have been included in the small group?

What other groups have travelled to the Americas but have little genetic contributions?

What happened to the Icelandic genetic study that astonishingly revealed 60% of the known Icelandic population didn't exist?

If a small group is subsumed with a larger group, what happens to the morphology of linguistic tendencies? Look at the cultures the Greeks subsumed, the Persians, studying them becomes very difficult.

Sure polemicists can make outlandish statements such you have made, but honest researchers in the future will struggle with these questions over time. I do not fear time, but expect nothing miraculous, because if I relied even our vastly greater knowledge of biblical lands, I would consider the entire biblical paradox, one grand charade.

The textual criticisms are so revealing that the efforts of orthodoxy to manipulate texts, as shown by persons such as Bart Ehrman, that one is almost compelled to agnosticy or atheism.

Poor Derrida

Not to gang up on you, but in the interests of ganging up on you

I was interested in this debate so i googles book of mormon authenticity and found the following quote from NAMB.org, Southern Baptist site (you know how nasty those baptists are).

I fear James is right. No non mormons i can find see anything but contradictions/lack of evidence in BoM history claims. Here's the quote:

Christians do not claim that the science of
archaeology “proves” the Bible is a supernaturally
inspired book. Nonetheless, archaeological research has
provided evidence for the historical reliability of the
Bible. Many discoveries have confirmed names, cities,
geographic locations, dates, political leaders, and other
incidental information mentioned by the biblical writers.
Even some skeptics have been amazed by the accuracy of
the biblical data.
The Bible, therefore, is supported in its truth claims
by the corroborating evidence of geography and
archaeology. That assertion cannot be said for The Book
of Mormon. Several decades of archaeological research,
funded by LDS institutions, concentrating in Central
America and Mexico, have yielded nothing that corrob-
orates the historical events described in The Book of
Mormon.
1. No Book of Mormon cities have been located.
2. No Book of Mormon names have been found in
New World inscriptions.
3. No genuine inscriptions have been found in
Hebrew.
4. No genuine inscriptions have been found in
Egyptian or anything similar to Egyptian, which
could correspond to Joseph Smith’s “Reformed
Egyptian.”
5. No ancient copies of Book of Mormonscriptures
have been found.
6. No ancient inscriptions of any kind indicate that the
ancient inhabitants held Hebrew or Christian
beliefs—all are pagan.
END QUOTE

I really don't see how a reasonable non mormon can think the BoM is anything but a complete fantasy. No evidence indicates otherwise.

OH NO!! Heraclitus is Back Bashing the Book of Mormon

sorry derrida and james to break in on your little homoerotic intellectual wrestling match,

but you two need some more data.
Here is a
typical Non mormon view
of the Book of Morman, from a review by a Washington State professor on Christiananswers.org of a film on the DNA

After watching DNA Evidence and The Book of Mormon it is painfully clear that Joseph Smith was a fraud and willfully attempted to deceive people. If these great cities actually existed across the Americas from ocean to ocean, where is the archeological evidence? Where is the linguistic evidence, the biological evidence or the historical evidence? Most importantly, where is the DNA evidence that links the American Indians to the Hebrew people? While the absence of such evidence is one issue, it is quite another thing when existing facts clearly contradict what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are asking people to believe. This is simply unacceptable!

Non Mormons often, as this reviewer does, react with moral outrage at the obfuscations and intellectual gymnastics that Mormons employ to justify their continued, and plainly incredible, belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

As James has challenged you, Derrida

FIND us a NON Mormon
who ascribes any possible credibility to the historical account that the BOM purports to present.

Dr D

Since it seems to be just us two, lets speak Man to Man.

Take me out of the equation.

The state of the world at this date in 2007 appears to be this:

Virtually ALL faithful Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and confirms that Mormonism is True.

No Non Mormon scholar or investigator, whether they be Religion Professors or curators at Museums or Archeological Experts
Think the Book of Mormon is Other than an invention of Joseph Smith's imagination.

This state of affairs is what exists
regardless of what you or I or Heraclitus believes.

The Book of Mormon has not been incontrovertably DISPROVED. Neither has, pardon the example, Santa Claus.

But the fact remains: no respectable non mormon thinks that there is any evidence that the Book of Mormon is a true account of what it purports to describe. Most think it would Take an incredible "suspension of disbelief" for a serious non mormon to believe it happened like Joseph Smith says it did.

Counterexamples (non mormon) gratefully examined.

And I thought you were smart.

What a hit and run piece.

There has been no systematic attempt to verify many socieities and the LDS views are not important to most.

Archealogy struggles for decades and centuries to find much. Where is Atlantis?

It is believed to be Minoan society but even that is not certain despite centuries of searching.

Smug statements that LDS claims have been repudiated are simply untrue. And they reveal ignorance of the archealogical process.

Smug claims about genetics are also overstated.

If you do not wish to believe, don't believe. However, do not reveal ignorance of the processes involved. Those leaving the faith are usually not sophisticated archealogists, or sophisticated world class geneticists. I'm aware of the few genetic tests, which are inconclusive at best. However, disbelievers are happy to proclaim the search ended because it "proves" what you already believe. So be it, but don't call yourself a scientist with true scientific inquiry at stake.

Derrida my Buddy

The contradictions have been refuted by Mopolgists.

Here is a quote from the viciously anti mormon National Geographic

Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." Statement by the National Geographic Society

Religious tolerance site (again non partisan)
says

no NON mormon archeaolgist has found evidence supporting the Book of Mormon history.

on and on.

I agree, the Mormon church ans its members, in their own minds, have conclusively countered the problems to their own satisfaction.

James:

Talk about a broken record.

The supposed "contradictions" have been discussed and refuted ad infinitum. Ah well, if that is your swan song, so be it.

Scientific Contradictions in the Book of Mormon

the basic mormon scripture, the Book of Mormon,
is rife with contradictions to scientific evidence.

it names animals and plants that did not exist in the Western Hemisphere.

It states the Native Americans came from the Middle east, and current genetic evidence shows that the ancestry is Asian.

Many many many others.

The BoM is the foundational belief book of mormonism.
it is rife with statements that are verifiably untrue.

Yet Mormonism remains the One True Church.

James:

I didn't see your post.

Some of the incidents still leave me scratching my head. Jacob and Esau often does, though it may teach us more about the Hebrews than a spiritual lesson.

When Judah and his brothers have the husbands of their sisters foreskins cut off, then murdered, is also an interesting lesson, but I'm often uncertain what of. Yes I know it points out that Judah was unworthy of the blessings bestowed upon Joseph, but it's still very odd.

People will be accepted into the fold, depending how one interacts within the fold.

If one is standoffish, doesn't attend often, does not labor to help, then one will probably not sense the love and appreciation one desires.

Can members do more to make others feel welcome? Absolutely, are those who do not feel totally associated bear some of the blame?

And I suppose one can be upset with conservative parents conveying what they believe in the manner which they know, but I was grateful my parents gave me birth, allowed me to think and didn't beat me like my neighbors.

Whether a person accepts the teachings and traditions of the fathers is ultimately a personal choice, and blaming the parents for some sort of grand common conspiracy seems unwise.

This is our experience, and we must grab hold of it by the proverbial ... and make our own lives.

Shock and dismay applies in many fora. It really applies to politics. Watch a neophyte in poltics, who's all energized, ready to take on the world, a zealot in belief, but a novice in the actual workings of government and politics. Years later, if he survives the grueling learning process, he will be much more griseled and cynical, but wise in the workings of the political machinations.

Before we fully become apprised of the workings of men, we need an understanding of politics, organizations, economics, social strata, social movements and the micro and macro view of these things. Disillusionment is common, but if we stop with disillusionment we retard our personal develoment.

As far as I know, “progressive orthodoxy” is not heresy, but is widely accepted as a faithful form of Mormonism.

I think many people employed by the church adopt a progressive orthodoxy that is adapted to evidence made available by an academic enterprise, both historical and scientific.

Bushman might be a good example of this: he was quoted in general conference by Elder Holland.

Not a sign of censorship.

It is the flat out rejection of postulates which are axiomatic to Mormonism that is viewed as heresy.

Which of the above interpretations of Mormonism do you mean by "Liberal Mormonism"?

Whatever your take on things, I hope you are accepted in church with love and fellowship.

I think your experience is interesting. And I'm sorry you have struggled so. Indoctrination stopped for me when I entered public schools, had discussions with friends who were atheists and orthodox Christians, and browsed a secular book store, read non-fiction books found therein etc. If your parents and church leaders discouraged these activities, it is a shame. They did you a great disservice.

I grew up with impression that my Mormonism encouraged these activities. I was raised in California however...

It would be good if parents and leaders were aware of the difficulties that can be encountered when intellectual engagement with the world is discouraged.

What did they testify to you about that you are now compelled to disavow?

My Mormonism required an adaptation to my experience and knowledge, not renunciation.

James stated: "I might have done it myself if I were human." Am I to assume this is a joke, that you are one of the legendary three Nephites, or that you are from another dimension, James?

Derrida -

If you are Rorty, you have a well-publicized former disdain for God. If not, then your former atheism provided you an opportunity to examine religion from a secular standpoint. Your characterization of McCue's "Shock and Dismay of the Newly Informed" is also my own shock and dismay. I was born and raised mormon, served a full-time mission, and have risen through the ranks to a few obscure leadership callings.

When you compare someone who has been indoctrinated in a religion for 40+ years, with an avowed atheist who later converted to mormonism, I submit that the former wasted a lot of time believe a steady diet of whitewash, while the later was able to study all religions objectively, impervious to potential fallout for examining inappropriate material. I understand you may have a royal view of peasantry, having never tasted of indoctrination yourself, however many of us have suffered excruciating pain at the knowledge that our parents and church indoctrinated us with beliefs that are not literally true, when they were taught to us, and testified to us over and over again, as being literally true.

I would love to be able to trade places and look at religion objectively as an adult, never having been indoctrinately with a particular creed as a child. But that is not my lot in life, I was born and raised in an authoritarian mormon household, and had to make the journey that most of us lifetime mormons do, the journey toward accuracy and truth. I hope Derrida, that you will see that many who experience a disillusionment in this journey are not critics of the church, or apostates, but simply people raised with blinders of authoritarian control over their ability to think outside a basic mormon worldview. It is miraculous that any of us have been able to do it, given the restrictions we were raised with.

I only hope that people like you, who have been able to examine mormonism free of interference, guilt, or censorship, in an open manner, can have some compassion for those of us who were indoctrinated under very strict parents, and have felt some shock and dismay that the world is not like we were taught. Somehow the church seems to embrace those who come from atheism to liberal mormonism, but not those who go from strict mormonism to liberal mormonism. I tend to think both type of people are equal before God.

-DV

John

Nice quote from your antropologist.

It IS an interesting view. What is MORE interesting to me is how the
Real Life Mormon, the 80-90% who don't spend much time thinking as abstractly as we are doing,

understand the issues of Mormon belief and practice.

for instance:

Do I feel special and different from others because I am a Mormon (I did when I was growing up)?

Do I think I have to behave in certain ways in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom,and to avoid being separated from my loved ones?

Do the ambiguities of Joseph Smith's history make a difference to the truth of his teachings?

Again, I clearly know 98% of Mormons are as good people as anyone else in most respects.

I really am most concerned about the effect of relgion on people's attitudes towards social issues.
Stem Cell research, equal rights for women and gays, the belief that God is on our side in the war, Aids prevention through condom use, etc.

Last post not aimed at you James, or anyone in particular...though it may appear that way. I don't want to ruin the nice tone of our conversation.

I didn't see your post before I posted it.

Polemics seem to entail exploiting inevitable ambiguities. Not to solve them, but to assert their very presence de-validates an entire worldview.

Derrida

thoughtful post.

you say "the spiritual lessons in all scripture is worthwhile."

while I generally agree, it is interesting to discuss cases like Jacob and his mother cheating Esau out of his blessing by fooling Isaac.

Do we use that as a negative example, even though Jacob was a holy man?

I don't know the answer. It illustrates that rich stories raise difficult but very interesting real life questions.

(Whether it ACTUALLY happened exactly that way or not).

Derrida,

I think ambiguity is the price of awareness. No matter your ideology.

Here is an interesting quote by a Mormon Anthropologist that might help us understand each other more:

"Any particular construction of the Mormon religious world view is contingent and partial, susceptible to reformulation at any time borne of subsequent revelation. Thus Mormons can adapt to even radical reformulation at any time of their theological constructs with relative ease. Witness in Mormon history the relatively smooth transition out of 19th century polygamy and from racist policies of priesthood ordination in the present century. There will, therefore, likely never be in Mormon theological crises like those which traditional Christianity experienced with the eclipse of Aquinian and Calvinist theologies. It is even possible, because of their belief in continuing revelation, for Mormons to live in religious universe that is ironic, dialectical, paradoxical, and even contradictory. For example, Mormons have no difficulty in holding simultaneously to the beliefs in special creation and the geologic age of the earth, in Mendelian genetics and the gender of specific identity of pre-mortal spirits, in democracy and theocracy, in charismatic and bureaucratic authority, in communal and individual salvation, and in spiritual and material imperatives, to name a few. On a more purely theological basis, Mormons hardly ever concern themselves with the question of whether faith or works is more essential to salvation, whether God?s foreknowledge limits man?s agency, or of the dynamic interplay between justice and mercy, unless the discussion relates directly to a person?s actions or attitudes vis-à-vis God. In other words, there is hardly anything purely abstract about Mormon religious thought. By the same token, almost every aspect of Mormonism is capable of theological abstraction. Witness, for example, the spiritual justification for basketball courts in Mormon meeting houses, for the interdiction against consuming tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea, and for participating in family outings, quilting bees, community service projects, and congregational dances and dinners and so on."

I agree with much of what John D has stated, as I live with constant ambiguity, not knowing what aspects are factually accurate and which aspects are myth or legend.

For example, I submit that David was a historical person, who reigned over a state of Israel. However, I find that Goliath being nine feet tall as myth probably promulgated by scribes or a king who wanted scare off enemies of Israel. If I saw Shaqille O'Neal, he'd be ten feet tall.

Job appears to be allegorical, even if a good man named Job may have inspired it.

Scholars like Ehrman show that much of the text was manipulated for the purposes of upholding orthodoxy.

As far as the BoM is concerned, the nature of divine reception of the material is still unclear, despite reading the versions of multiple accounts.

The spiritual lessons in all scripture is worthwhile.

Actually, Ehrman, who started out as an evangelical, no longer believes. That doesn't diminish his scholarship, and in fact, may aid his scholarship as he is not tied to one interpretation over another. He is excellent in textual criticism, and believes the Orthodox Church manipulated the texts to achieve their version of orthodoxy through the scriptures.

Perhaps he might believe that as well.

James,

Thank you for your interest.

I have not quite figured out where to draw the line between literal and metaphorical on all accounts, it is a continous process in which I am engaged.

But I am sure that metaphorical interpretation is what is intended by many scriptures and stories.

That does not mean they don't have *some* historical reality...what that is I do not know.

As for those tenants of Mormonism that are axiomatic, I accept as Literal. The adventure of Mormonism, like the adventure of any field of knowledge and discovery, cannot beggin without them.

I accept them until God gives me more light and truth.

I suppose I am a literalist in that I think certain historical events are necessary for Mormonism to be meaningful.

Mormon theology is fused with historical consiousness in a way very different than other theologies.

But I do not claim to understand everything about these historical events (though I try to read Signature Books when I get the chance).

For example I believe the testimony of these involved that The Book of Mormon was translated from Plates. But I know very little about what translation means in this case. It was not an academic translation.

And evidence suggests that there are both ancient and modern elements found in the text (many anceint elements were not available in Joseph's proximity). I think the best way to account for both is the dialectic form of revelation I outlined earlier.

Though the B of Ms precepts are Divine, and it is historical, the transmission of information is not perfect, so it need not be taken literally on all accounts. What is to be taken literal, and what metaphorical is, like I said, a continual process of discovery which engages my intellect and my soul.

To me, the True Church concept does not mean the church has a monopoly on truth, or that all it has is necessarily 100% true, but rather refers to Preisthood, and the legal connection that preisthood enables between affairs on earth and affairs in heaven.

"That which you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven" Jesus said. That is the essence of the true church concept as far as I am concerned.

Covenants carried out in ordinances are like a legal transaction, not a sacramental fusion of Grace in a Catholic sense. They primarily concern commitment to certain obligations, their Eternal validity depends on keeping this commitment.

For me, the combination of the scriptures, the Prophets, the Preisthood, the Temple, and Spirit provide me with the blessing of the Atonement on earth, and in Eternity--blessings which are very real in the here and now, and which I have faith will also be available in Eternity.

Once again James, thanks for your interest.

Derrida

an inconsequential but amusing error you made in your post just above

the title of the book is
MISQUOTING Jesus

You misunderstood, and misquoted.

Again, a very human error. I might have done it myself if I were human.

It looks like Ehrman might say:
"I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as long as it is translated correctly and not misunderstood."

If one wishes to see interesting viewpoints of scripture, one should read Bart Ehrman, who argues against fundamentalist reductionism and orthodoxy.

He has many works and is a first rate scholar. Misunderstanding Jesus is a fine work as is his undergraduate textbook on the New Testament.

Derrida,

Thanks for your thoughts.

God is the only being in the Universe capable of full objectivity.

All He does for the immortality and Eternal life of His children is inevitably mediated by human subjectivities.

Also, I agree with you, He does not micro manage His Kingdom.

Also, though His disclosures are limited by the constraints of language and culture, we need not assume that His truth is.

That being said, I generally accept what the revelations say about the supernal place of the human race in the Universe, and the grand drama of Eternity.

I find it terribly moving, and in line with what the spirit wispers to my soul (from my experience, these two are not the same thing). I've never had a reason to doubt the spirit.

John
Sorry for misunderstanding you. And again, interesting points you raise.

It leads me to wonder where the line in YOUR mind is between literal and metaphorical.

I truly don't mean this to be critical, just interested.

Which of these mormon concepts to you think are literal and which metaphorical?

Celestial Kingdom: Does it ACTUALLY exist?

Jesus's return to earth at the Last Day.

Mormon sacraments are the ONLY way to achieve the highest degree of salvation.

Joseph Smith *literally* saw God and Jesus.

It has always seemed to me that if the above are not literally true, than Mormonism is just another religion like Methodism and Unitarianism.

And it is NOT true that "The Church is True", as we are all expected to Testify in Testimony meeting.

All emotions aside, these are interesting Theological questions, in the Jesuitical sense.

Joseph Fielding Smith's quote on this subject is a smart and provocative one.

That's too long a process to describe, it's real qualia.

Derrida,

You said you used to be an Agnostic and atheist? How did you come to be a Latter Day Saint?

Thanks James. I understand the difference between a literal and metaphorical understanding of the Bible.

I was actually more interested in understanding how DV thought that could be applied effectively to Mormonism.

Also, if he meant something similar to a metaphorical reading of the Bible, I think he read Derrida's interpretation wrong.

I, with him, believe to the authority of the Priesthood to be a literal reality, as well as the atonement.

I don't think the choice is between literal and metaphorical, I think an intelligent interpretation of Mormonism can employ both.

The problem is, I think, are we willing to live in ambiguity?

Are we willing to admit that what we have is only a small part of what actually is?

Because we take certain theological postulates literally we must not assume that they are sufficiently desciptive to stop our searching and questioning.

Reductionistic hegemony of certain snipits of truth is what stifles increasing understanding. That is what I understand as fundamentalism. It can also be applied to a non-religious interpretation of reality.

One term I heard used often while studying at the University of London was "Darwinian Fundamentalism." Mary Migdley is one philosopher who criticized this view of the world as stifling to knowledge aquisition and a fuller picture of reality.

Not to say Darwinian fundamentalism doesn't have much to add to the conversation. I was rivited while attending a seminar by Nicolas Humphreys on possible evolutionary origins of qualia.

John

Belief is cyclical, and as one who came out of the wilderness to sit by the fire, I accept many things at different levels.

First and foremost, the faith and culture, with which I have disagreement from time to time, is basically beneficial, taking into account the sum total of all pros and cons.

I believe a few absolutes. There is a God and I am NOT he.

I accept two primary principles, the authority of the priesthood and the linchpin of our universe-- the atonement. All other things may not be absolute.

God permits many things, even so far as to allow error under his name. Eventually in his time, he will correct it, but usually in a very gradual manner.

Much of our culture is permitted not inspired. Some of our policies are cultural and permitted and will be corrected over time. Although I disagree with certain administrative approaches toward our education, including the disclosure and understanding of Church history, I do not find, generally the disagreements arise out of malice, or a desire to deceive but rather a desire to do the most with the least.

In fact, most of today's leaders are selected on the basis of effectiveness in administration and in reliability to get the job done. Leaders are NOT chosen based on their visions or Gospel knowledge. I suspect many of our leaders are relatively ignorant of our histories.

John D You raise thoughtful and interesting questions. In humankind there are many flavors of belief.

for instance, if believers could see the picture of God that other believers have in their minds, all the pictures would likely be quite different. I bet Derrida would call these "Qualia."

Joseph Campbell (wonderful writer, read him if you haven't_
talks a lot about the distinction between literal and metaphorical understanding of scripture and religious stories.

Example
A literalist will believe that the Serpent actually talked to Eve, resulting in the Apple incident.

A metaphorist will believe that this did not actually happen, but that the story has rich metaphors and symbols that can promote human spiritual understanding if intelligently interpreted.
I believe Campbell would say the Metaphorical approach is a more spiritually elevated approach.

I am an ex Mormon who does not believe there is a God, but who finds richness in many scriptural stories (seen Bill Moyers' Genesis tv show or book). I do think that the analysis of Harris and Dawkins is pretty close to right.

But neither Dawkins nor Harris has any problems with an intelligent metaphorical approach to reading scripture. They do, of course, hae a problem with believing in God.

These last two posts made me curious to know about both of you...

DV, what do you mean by metaphorical and literal view of Mormonism?

DV, what are your reasons for staying in Mormonism?

Not that I do not wish you to stay, I think it's great...I just think if I were as disillusioned as you sound, I wouldn't really want to stick around. I might do something like James's rout and read Dennett, Dawkins and Harris instead of my scriptures (not saying you do this James), or, if I could still believe in God, go Betty's rout and join a Liberal protestant sect.

And Derrida...which historical claims of orthodox Mormonism do you accept and have faith in, i.e. first vision, preisthood, Book of Mormon Etc.? I know that's broad, just give me a general idea.

I assume you accept basic Mormon axioms as reality, but incomplete reality--which is my perspective, and I think was Joseph Smith's as far as I know.

But I ought not assume, you can speak for yourself.

Thanks guys.

What the point means is that a tax attorney is more likley to be more rigid, inductive, whereas an imaginative litigator is more likely to be flexible and deductive.

So it doesn't surprise me that a rigid thinking tax attorney might be shocked and believe everybody prevaricated.

Contrasted with Joseph Smith, who was one of the most imaginative religious thinkers of his time and was not limited by the confluences of his time. In fact, he frequently broke paradigms and was not hemmed in by his time, even though he built upon fragments from his time.

DV:

I can understand wishing the LDS Church promoted differing discussions regarding its history. I doubt you and I would agree as to what "facts" are, but I yearn for the Arrington approach as opposed to the Packer approach, who fears more persons will be lost than saved by having a more thorough briefing of our history. Fortunately I will never be in a position to decide.

Once one leads an organization, or provides organizational advice, one can understand the answers are not black and white.

Without revealing more than matters, I am very familiar with legal education and philosophy in this country as opposed to Canada. Even though our traditions are similar, they are not identical. We derive our deductive as opposed to inductive thought processes from the British style but have adopted uniquely American approaches to the law. McCue is basically a tax lawyer as I understand, which actually more inductive than traditionally deductive. We usually joke that a person who is a tax lawyer chooses that course because he doesn't have enough personality to be an accountant.

A mormon Gorbachev

smart and sensitive post AGAIN, DV.

I agree that in this age,
when information can no longer be controlled and reined in,

Mormon official efforts to perpetuate the moral abomination of "faithful history," which means
"untruthful history",

will collapse under its own wait.

Not only will the truth set You and Me Free,
the Truth will destroy efforts of self-protective power bases to preserve themselve by telling lies and half truths.

Maybe Harold B. Lee can be re-incarnated.?

Or even Joseph Fielding Smith, who I used to think was an old Son of a *****, til I found out he was Gay.

Derrida, now that I understand you are a philosopher, this discussion makes much more sense. If all the church members took the metaphorical view of mormonism that you do, there wouldn't be many issues or debates over doctrine, because everyone would simply accept factual contradictions as varying philosophical theories, which can all be explained away.

It must be wonderful to be with your clan and understand Mormonism metaphorically, while the masses trudge along taking their Sunday School lessons literally. I wonder how many Sunstoners took the Kool Aid version of mormonism literally past the age of ten. I would dare say that there have been a few. Of course, God loves the intellectually-challenged, just as he loves you and I. Maybe his church could make a better effort to enlighten its followers to the post-Sunday School version of mormonism.

You mentioned Bob McCue. I have had correspondence with Bob McCue. He is a very intelligent individual, albeit not with amorphous philosophical theories. His legal background enables him to think more clearly than many pragmatists. Fortunately for the world, attorneys are trained to think in a way that eliminates irrelevant data, examines and issue, and provides a solution. I wonder if disparaging him was your way of elevating the status of philosophers over attorneys? No matter. McCue has been deeply wounded by taking the gospel literally, as we were taught in Sunday School. He has recovered, as have I, and we have chosen divergent paths. He has decided to leave the fold for personal reasons which I admire. I have chosen to stay in the fold, for now, while I sort through this grand deception and decide what path to follow in the future. Who knows, maybe I will be following the metaphorical view of mormonism that you hold.

I still believe you are not being fair to simply toss aside as frivolous, all criticism of Mormonism's Sunday School version of indoctrination, when the church intentionally teaches the watered-down Kool Aid version well into adulthood. The church does a disservice to its members by having two versions of the same history, a faithful version and an authentic version. You and I can argue semantics about "truth" and "reality" and "perception" ad infinitum, because you are a philosopher, but obviously when historians present vast amounts factual evidence which is openly ignored in the correlated materials, we have a problem Houston.

Look what Glasnost did for the USSR, the people went from communism to a free democracy, hiccups and all. Maybe the LDS church could promote openness, like Gorbachev, as well. The LDS church desperately needs a Mikhail Gorbachev style leader, to take it out of its Cold War into the future with daring and bravado.

Why is there this assumption that religion and science are mutually exclusive? Couldn't science prove religion and vice versa?

Hundreds of years ago, "science" stated that the earth was flat. After we learned a bit more, we discovered that the earth is indeed round. Just because science and religion SEEM to contradict each other right now with regards to specific topics, maybe we simply haven't discovered the rest of the scientific facts yet.

I for one believe in God for two reasons. First, it's logical to me. Just as athiests reason that religion is false, I see just as much evidence (I personally see more...thus my stance) to prove that it's true.

Second, I believe that revelation confirms my logical beliefs. I have prayed about it and have received an answer that there IS a God. This type of answer cannot be denied. I challenge anyone to honestly and humbly ask God in prayer if He exists. The trick is...you have to humble yourself and be willing to believe in Him if you receive an answer in the affirmative. Otherwise, why should you deserve an answer?

God is willing to answer our prayers as long as we are willing to listen to the answers.

The most amusing part of Philosophy is you can spend a fortune to earn a degree that earns you a pittance.

My one friend was once counselled by his Philosophy Prof, "Don't get a Phd in Philosophy. Go to law school where you can opine in Hawaii."

It's odd that a once heralded position in academia is not almost impoverished and rare. Sociology profs do better than Philosophy Profs.

Dr. He.

In fairness, they are close to what I've heard. There are actually a number of sites that decry, in philosophical terms, ranking philosophy departments as inherently unfair. Those debates are, I suppose, intended to be humorous.

But then again, anything that has Stanford ahead of Harvard is okay by me.

Go Cardinal!

Dr D
this rankingmakes more sense to me

NYU first, Princeton 3rd, Stanford 6th, Harvard 7th

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp

aren't the rest of you (anyone out there?) fascinated by this exhange.

Betty, YOU are the best Philosophy STudent.

Philosphy ratings from a few years ago. Note, none of the big names received high ratings. (I don't know who's right, but enjoy when Harvard doesn't get top billing).

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1575/report.html

scroll down. The first part is the debate of analytical in terms of continental philosophy.

Here it is.

Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.

and its sister the Naturgesetzformulierung,

Handle so, als ob die Maximen deiner Handlung durch deinen Willen zu einem Naturgesetz werden solle.

Kant is very difficult but fun.

Here's a cheap review of some of his works.
Empfindungen allein führen aber noch nicht zu Begriffen. Kant führt seine Überlegungen hierzu in dem Abschnitt über die transzendentale Logik aus (Lehre von den Grundlagen des Denkens). Die Begriffe kommen aus dem Verstand, der diese spontan durch die produktive Einbildungskraft nach Regeln bildet. Hierzu bedarf es des transzendentalen Selbstbewusstseins als Grundlage allen Denkens. Das reine, d. h. von allen sinnlichen Anschauungen abstrahierte Bewusstsein des „Ich denke“, das man auch als die Selbstzuschreibung des Mentalen bezeichnen kann, ist der Angelpunkt der Kantischen Erkenntnistheorie. Dieses Selbstbewusstsein ist der Ursprung reiner Verstandesbegriffe, der Kategorien. Quantität, Qualität, Relation und Modalität sind die vier Funktionen des Verstandes, nach denen Kategorien gebildet werden.
Kants Kategorientafel Quantität Qualität Relation Modalität
Einheit Realität Substanz und Akzidenz Möglichkeit
Vielheit Negation Ursache und Wirkung Existenz
Allheit Limitation Wechselwirkung Notwendigkeit

Anhand der Kategorien verknüpft der Verstand mit Hilfe der Urteilskraft (dem Vermögen unter Regeln zu subsumieren) die Empfindungen nach so genannten Schemata. Ein Schema ist das allgemeine Verfahren der Einbildungskraft, einem Begriff sein Bild zu verschaffen. z. B. sehe ich auf der Straße ein vierbeiniges Etwas. Ich erkenne: dies ist ein Dackel. Ich weiß: ein Dackel ist ein Hund, ist ein Säugetier, ist ein Tier, ist ein Lebewesen. Schemata sind also (möglicherweise mehrstufige) strukturierende Allgemeinbegriffe, die nicht aus der empirischen Anschauung gewonnen werden können, sondern dem Verstand entstammen, sich aber auf die Wahrnehmung beziehen.

The philosophy joke I remember involves Dr. Kant. It shows his student approaching him, stating,

Herr Doktor Kant, you need to go out and see the world to make a name for yourself.

If you know Kant's life history that's funny.

another nonHarvard department of some note,

http://philosophy-data.uchicago.edu/index-faculty.cfm

Das Kategorische Imperativ von Immanuel Kant sagt:

Do you want me to quote to you in the original German, or in our translation?

Now Derrida, my Future Philosopher Husband/King:

Don't be so mean to those Harvard communists.

Kohlberg did NOT compare himself to Aristotle. He works in an area of philosophy that *goes back* to Aristotle. (and he's not REALLY a communist).

Intellectual argument is usually a good thing. It is much better if it is *informed* intellectual argument.

Is there consensus in Moral Philosophy, you ask.

I would say that there most certainly is on the point I made in my last post:

that is
The stage of Moral Reasoning that is characterized by Unquestioning Obedience and Fear of Punishment (Hell) - i.e. the reasoning that fundamental christians engage in: jesus will save you from Hell.

is beginning level, lowest level, moral reasoning than higher level
Reasoning from Conscience and Universal Principles (have you heard of Kant's Categorical Imperative?)
which is the highest level.

In fact,most would agree that it is hard to call the first, lowest, Christian Fundamentalist level "moral reasoning" at all.

I'll see your Harvard and raise you.

Here's my Stanford.

http://www-philosophy.stanford.edu/fss.html

Home

Department members are listed with their respective areas of interest.

Visiting instructors, listed under Faculty, are noted as such.

Jump directly to Faculty, Staff, or Graduate Students
Arch Detail

Faculty
R. Lanier Anderson History of late modern philosophy
David Barker-Plummer heterogeneous logic, logic education
Chris Bobonich Ancient Greek Philosophy
Michael Bratman Philosophy of action and moral psychology
Josh Cohen political philosophy, law
Mark Crimmins Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind
Graciela De Pierris Historical Topics in Epistemology, especially Hume and Kant
Fred Dretske Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind
Katherine Dunlop
John Etchemendy Philosophy of logic, philosophy of language
Solomon Feferman Mathematical logic, Foundations of mathematics
Luca Ferrero
Dagfinn Føllesdal Contemporary Continental Philosophy, Phenomenology, Existentialism
Michael Friedman Kant, Philosophy of Science, History of Twentieth Century Philosophy
David Hills Aesthetics; History of Modern Philosophy, esp. Kant
Nadeem Hussain metaethics, philosophy of action, 19th century German philosophy
Agnieszka Jaworska ethical theory, political philosophy, medical ethics
Krista Lawlor philosophy of mind, epistemology
Helen Longino
Grigori Mints foundations of mathematics, philosophy of logic, proof-theoretic methods
Julius Moravcsik Greek Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Language
Reviel Netz Ancient Science
Andrea Nightingale Greek Philosophy and Literature
Josiah Ober Classics and Political Science
Marc Pauly Logic
John Perry Philosophy of mind, philosophy of language
Denis Philips Philosophy of Education
Rob Reich political philosophy, ethics and applied ethics, contemporary liberal theory
Richard Rorty Continental Philosophy, Pragmatism
Thomas Ryckman (visiting faculty) Philosophy of Science
Debra Satz Social and Political Philosophy
Tamar Schapiro ethical theory, history of ethics, Kant
Patrick Suppes Philosophy of Science, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Foundations of Neuroscience
Kenneth Taylor Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind
Johan van Benthem Logic and its applications to language and information
Thomas Wasow Theory of grammar, Psycholinguistics
Allen Wood History of Modern Philosophy
Rega Wood Medieval Philosophy
Edward Zalta Metaphysics/Epistemology

Notice a certain Richard Rorty? Hmm.

Betty:

Now, you're sounding like my wife, speaking for me on issues I haven't spoken.

Although I'm not smart, not be a long shot, it's just that people who don't even measure up to me are plain dumb.

Kohlberg rivaling Aritstotle, now that's a treat? Talk about Harvard arrogance. There are many works but who amongst the philosopher kings believes any remaining philosophers is worth is weight against the Post Modernists, the Phenomenologists or anybody since Derrida? :)

However, being familiar with one person's declared principles of ethics does not mean one agrees with them. In fact, you may find I will disagree just to disagree, for the sake of intellectual argument. But if it's from Harvard, I usually object to it on the matter principle, pitting the world against the enclave of the Cave.

Do you argue there is a consensus in the field of Moral Philosophy? I don't. Is there a consensus on our disagreement?

Derrida's Moral Development

D my friend, and I hope one of my future husbands:

I must jump in and defend you. A wife's duty, no?

Unfortunately, I can not defend you against the assault of the Mayan Elephant. Your dismissal of McCue is, as he stated, not consistent with the On Faith Agenda, or, as Heraclitus accurately points out, with high moral development.

Unfortunately AGAIN, I can't defend you against Heraclitus's disdain that you were not familiar with the concept of higher and lower ethical/moral principles.

Remember: I am a Philosophy Major. you claim to be really smart in philosophy. Every educated philosopher knows that Kohlberg's work is first and foremost a work of moral philosophy, going back to Aristotle's Ethics.
You do know there is an area of study called Moral Philosophy, don't you?

So for my defense: you had very few typos and mispellings and usage errors in your last post. You are making noticeable progress.

Will your other wives be at the wedding?

You might be surprised I don't read FARMS much, but what does "consistent with the on faith agenda" mean? Not meaning to be insulting, because perhaps my lack of intellect can't follow it.

I could follow most of the insults but not that one.

derrida said, re: mccue-

"His site and posts wouldn't pass any standard for scholarship. It sounds like one big whine. What I call the "Shock and Dismay of the Newly Informed." It is shocking that he could have gone as far in his life before encountering his "shocking revelations."

Here I was expecting something more challenging that McCue. Please, something better that."

This again, is standard argument for any apologist of among the mormons.

it has been said on this site, but apparently deserves a repeat mention:

apologists for mormonism have a couple main arguments, the favorite being - "everybody knew that."

derrida is simply using a derivative of that here by implying that mccue is simply a diminished idiot that is acting outraged by finding information that everyone knew. and, that he is both intellectually challenged and weak, and that it was his own slothfulness that kept him from finding that information in the first place.

derrida. give it up. we have posted dan petersons responses on here. we know, there are about two dozen references to peepstones since 1978 in church publications. you are so smart to think that this is so godly where mccue is just a flunky to be surprised by new information.

and too derrida, we know that when the information is not convenient for your little church and your arguments, it probably came from a man, not a prophet, which is the second favorite apologist response.

derrida, keep your FARMS inspired insults of mccue and others to yourself. your toolish commentary about him isnt consistent with the on faith agenda, imnsho.

Ranking Philosophies

Yes Derrida, there is a great irony in ranking Buddhism. Though Buddhism itself does specify a highest level of spiritual development, when we get out of having to be reincarnated again and again, and can, I suppose, rest in the Celestial Kingdom.

Another famous Marxist Harvard Professor, L Kohlberg, created a widely esteemed paradigm of "Stages of Moral Development." You can look it up on the internet. *Everyone* in education knows about his scheme.

The first (lowest) level is
1.Obedience and Punishment/Reward Orientation
(for instance, I act Good so I can go to the CK and not be punished with outer darkness)

The top (most highly developed) is
Principled conscience
(I act Good because it is the right thing to do - for instance, having compassion for suffering of my fellows).

You didn't know this?
There may be other things you don't know.

Betty:

yes, compassion is my strong suit. :)

Why do Americans typically rank philosophies, as if they are hiearchal?

E.g., "a much more highly developed spiritual philosophy". I didn't know it was a competition where rankings were handed out. :)

Derrida's Spiritual Struggle

D, if I am ever going through a spiritual struggle, you my friend will be the first person I will turn to for sympathy and understanding.

Heraclitus was clearly referring to McCue's Spiritual Struggle.

I found McCue to be honestly and humanely laying out his issues with the Church, not "lashing out" or "just being bitter."

And it was clear to me that he felt much pain in coming to the point that he came to.

I think what Heraclitus was saying about
Ethics and Moral Response

is that our first human obligation
When we see a human being who is suffering
is to have COMPASSION FOR his suffering.

Not to argue that he should not be suffering, or that its his own fault, or that he has a psychological problem.

The Buddhists, who in my opinion have a much more highly developed spiritual philosophy than any Westerners, including Mormons

believe that the FIRST moral duty is to have
compassion - loving kindness - towards the suffering of others.

Perhaps what H found Morally despicable is your characterization of McCue's spiritual crisis and his expression of it in hopes of helping others as "emotional masturbation."
Many would consider that the furthest thing from a compassionate response.

When did Sen go there? That's interesting.

Monty Python is great.

Harvard still doesn't produce like it should, given its resources. You equate Nobel Prizes with necessarily giving back to the general academic community? You and I both know it will always have people with credentials, but at the turn of the twentieth century, besides England, it had virtually everybody. Now, it has no monopoly.

My first example is the weblibrary made available to the public by Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/ What is Harvard giving back, despite its tremendous resources?

Is Goldfarb in computers? Mathematical Logic typically revolves around computers but not always.

Are you really that impressed with Harvard given its endowment which exceeds all others? My challenge to Harvard, give back to the rest of us a la Stanford and others.

Derrida's Philosophy, Harvard Style

Thank you for expressing your uninformed and much outdated prejudices about the Harvard Philosophy Department.

The Chair of the dept, Warren Goldfarb, is a professor of Mathematical Logic. Have you ever heard of Marxist Mathematical Logic?

Members include Nobel Prize winner A Sen, indian philosopher. The Nobel Committee as a communist front? Interesting philosophy.

Your philosophical *facts* and interpretations are so off base that I am continually suspecting them to be a Monty Python parody (btw, the Pythons went to Oxbridge, so they DO know their philosophy).

Your Philosophy seems to be
"My world is everything that IS NOT THE Case."
Your revision of Wittgenstein.

Perhaps tensions and tensions fall.

Apologies.

The Harvard button just got a rise out of me. For personal reasons, it would be nice if Harvard did better with its resources.

For example, which university has the most useful philosophical weblibrary? You probably know it's Stanford. Why can't Harvard return to its legacy of producing great philosophical minds instead being a harbor for Marxists who mostly loathe this country? End of rant.

And Heraclitus, "morally despicable"? Words are just words, formed within the mind to entertain.

I don't see Betty as going through a spiritual struggle, but a person is who confident and set in her ways. Good for her. Why do you believe she needs compassion, it didn't sound as if she were looking for any? Or are you referring to McCue? We all go through personal struggles, but we don't create websites asking for emotional masturbation. Public displays of the struggle are unbecoming, unlike our Mayflower forbearers, our Chinese railroad workers or Mexican fieldworkers.

As for me and my kind, we're not that touchy-feely, but more a sink or swim type of people. Hardy coalminers who don't ask for much and just desire the daily struggle. Sisyphus is our hero.

You also address the formal world of ethics too broadly. McCue strikes out against an organization still beloved by his relatives, and then desires compassion?

The world is not a compassionate place, but a lone and dreary world. So be it. You're an able hunter, so are we all. You have the warrior spirit, don't apologize for it. The ancient Greek within you can look to Cimon of the Delian League for guidance. Hopefully, you can appreciate my humor my referring to Cimon.

Derrida's Philosophy
A Legal Analysis

Dr.D: let me comment on your critique of McCue from an intellectual, moral, and practical perspective.

You say McCue makes logical leaps, unworthy of a legal education.

Betty, who just told us she got an A in logic at a first class college, apparently finds him quite clear, while she finds you frequently baffling.
maybe you are not the best critic here.

As far as the grade of the site: I run one of the country's premier adult education centers, and we have a pretty good web site.
I know web sites.
McCue's is perfectly appropriate, clear and navigable for a personal web site. No sane person would spend $10k to get a professional designer for a personal web site.

On a moral basis, all the ethics courses i have taken (which I got As in) tell me that your
Condescension to this person who is clearly going through a spiritual struggle.
RATHER THAN PUTTING OUT *ONE* word of Compassion
is morally despicable.
(you say "It sounds more like a "Whoa is me, I'm shocked as newly informed." We call the "Outrage of the Newly Informed.""

Now I have said despicable things too, so that doesn't make me better than you.

I don't hate you the sinner. I hate the sin.
I love you.

Betty:

I don't know whether to take you seriously, because any philosophy major knows that your know nothing about philosophy until you have a masters degree in it. As a result, I know nothing because I have no masters. And despite what Harvard thinks, it is not considered the most vaunted Philosophy Department in the country. It has a few good Marxists but I would venture across the Pond to find better philosophers.

Again, whether I spend enough time teaching my children is another matter. Probably not. My only point is, it might be nice to expose children to every point of view, and most parents try, but we fail, because there just isn't enough time.

Teach Your Children Well

Derrida
let me get this straight again.

You don't have time to teach your children that there are other belief systems than Mormonism, and they wouldn't be interested anyway

BUT

you DO have time to teach them ONLY Mormonism for the many hours per week that usually takes, and they will be interested in it because....what?...they won't go to heaven with you if they aren't?

Derrida,if I ever get married, it will probably be to a man llike you.

But I must say

I majored in Philosophy at a private college that is frequently rated the top ONe in the country.

My best subject was Logic.

My sister has a PHD in Philosophy and has taught at a non-BYU University for many years.

I am in the middleof the the best University in the country and pay lots of attention to what its philosophers say.

And as delicately as possible:
Your philosophical reasoning and understanding, vaunted though it is by yourself,
often leaves me completely baffled.

Does this mean you won't marry me? Even if you are already, follow the prophet.

John D.

You're correct, if one is convinced something is false, any explanation is presumed to be a mental gymnastic. Ah well.

The Book of Abraham and mental gymnastics....

It is understandable Wes that since you perceive the book of A to be obviously false, that any defense is necessarily some kind of trick, or as you say, mental gymnastics.

My point is that there were no gymnastics in my last post on the Book of Abraham, just plain logic.

This is how I think my logic proceeded.

The proposition: "the Book of Abraham is an indisputable fraud" is contingent on the premise that the Papyri we currently have in possession is the Papyri Joseph purported to translate from.

So in order to come to this conclusion we must conclude that A (the Papyri Joseph translated from) equals C (the Papyri we now have).

If A = C and if A has B properties then C must also have B properties.

If A has B properties and C does not have B properties, then we must necessarily conclude that A does not equal C.

We have four credible, independent eye witness reports that A had B properties.

We know that C does not have B properties.

Therefore it is logical to conclude that A does not equal C.

Or in other words the Papyri we have is not that purported to be the Book of Abraham.

For experts to reliably conclude otherwise, they would have to deal with these four credible eye witness reports.

It seems to me that to conclude anything else other than that A does not equal C would require mental gymnastics.

Betty, I think deferring to experts who base their conclusions on the questionable assumption that A=C is inadequate given the evidence.

I think the two latter confirmatory witnesses I cited have only recently been publicized by Mormon Scholars; therefore I do not blame certain experts for being unaware of how their theories on the Book of Abraham did not square with the evidence.

Thanks Wes for giving me an opportunity to further clarify.

BTW- Betty I'm glad you're here. It's nice to get an occasional break from this man-fest : )

BTW, any lignuists here? Has anybody aids in learning bantu languages. They appear somewhat primitive yet strange.

Learning European languages is okay, because you have about four groups, slavic, finno-ugric, romance and germanic. You have lowly inflected to highly inflected languages. It ignores the Greek and other isolated languages but learning them involves the same process.

Semitic languages require a different approach, as do the two asian languages which really aren't the same at all, Mandarin and Japanese. I suppose one might characterize the Japanese language as inflected, but it's really honorific, whereas Mandarin is tonal and patternal.

Bantu languages appear somewhat analogous to austranesian, but appear to incorporate some arabic base words. However, it appears to have more a rhythm of a completely spoken language only within the last hundred years acquiring written script.

So, other than moving to Kenya, what linguistic aids are there for this group? By the way, the weirdest sounding language I've heard spoken is Eritrean, a cabby in LA. It was the weirdest combination of frontal sounds combined with glottal stops I've ever heard. Truly alien, with the exception of the South American native languages.

The weird thing about linguistics is that despite desparate origins many languages share characteristics. For example, either you have conjugation of verbs or you don't. You have tense or you have particles. Language impacts thought processes. It seems to have the ability to develop a certain type of logic requires one to learn certain languages.

German has a certain rhythm and it produces a certain order of philosophers.

Chinese, not my best language, still produces a different approach to its philosophies but apparently linked to its linguistic structure.

Sanskrit which appears to be the source of many Hindi related languages has yet another rhythm, followed by an interesting set of philosophies.

How much of our culture is shaped by our language and structure and how much of our language is shaped by our culture?

If I decidded to prepare a website, it would be of first class quality. Its functionality would be one of usefulness, and the clarity would be professional.

Again I hold my level as the minimal acceptable level. I can follow McCue, but he makes logical leaps, unworthy of a legal education.

Anything below my poor level is really poor, that is all.

A site should be professional grade, better than this site in functionality.

Its sponsors should have a multitude of expertises, including significant linguistic training, a knowledge of antiquities, a knowledge macro- and micro-economics, a la Milton Friedman, a thorough knowledge of statistics in order to know how to conduct acceptable studies and parameters, editors, advertisers and a broad base of knowledge. His site does not possess that.

It sounds more like a "Whoa is me, I'm shocked as newly informed." We call the "Outrage of the Newly Informed."

To each his own.

Betty:

How many children do you have?

Let's see, besides taking four children to soccer, football, karate, swimming, volleyball, and track practice; on top of scouts and charitable organization activities; in addition to visiting the arts, travel and economics, how much time does one even have to convey one's own faith let along multiple faiths?

Instructing my own children is time consuming as it is. To some extent, Judaism and Catholicism is possible, but going much beyond that before high school, is simply squeezed out by other time constraints. Even if we have intellectual interests they may not. My sons would sooner hear me tell the telling of the Peloppenesian War, than listening the hiearchy of Sikhism or forms of henonism.

Derrida, you rascal.

I said McCue was much more logical than you.

Of course he is not as brilliant. And we all despair of possessing a revelation that you have not yet come upon in your wide-ranging information gobbling.

But at least he can write in complete sentences, and one can follow the logical chain of his argument.

Those are two qualities you might want to develop.

On McCue.

Nothing earth shattering and he displays some ignorance on some of the subjects he professes knowledge. Big deal.

I'm certain I've read his stuff before, but it's fairly amateurish. His website is of poor quality, his information is one of self-asorption and his analysis almost juvenile, but if you're impressed then godspeed.

I'm aware of the facts he purports to have shocked his world. Yeah, big shocker, a polygamist had sex with his wives. If I had had multiple wives, at least I would have had sex with them. Who would have figured otherwise.

His site and posts wouldn't pass any standard for scholarship. It sounds like one big whine. What I call the "Shock and Dismay of the Newly Informed." It is shocking that he could have gone as far in his life before encountering his "shocking revelations."

Here I was expecting something more challenging that McCue. Please, something better that.

Selecting One's Church

Derrida, you write
"Let's be candid. Most persons select religious traditions because it is comfortable to them. Some, who are intellectual by nature, intellectualize their faith, and those who are not, do not."

this is definitely one area where we have evidence.

The overwhelmingly number of people choose their faith based on what their parents tell them to believe.

The hard part, for all of us,
is to honestly examine what we would have chosen
had we not been "taught" by our parents.

Many highly spiritual thinkers today strongly advocate that you teach your children, at age appropriate times, about ALL (or at least a variety) or world religions (plus Buddhism)

and encourage your child to investigate and decide for herself.

BTW, why am I the only Dame on this discussion?

thanks Derrida,
for being so gracious in the face of my impertinance.

You mention that "deselectors" are often illogical and Hodge podgy.

I have seen the website of Bob McCue, whom Betty refers to above. If you want to dip in for a look, you will find an *obsessively* thorough and logical analysis. McCue is a lawyer and is very evidence based. His web site is:
http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/postmormon.
htm

And, one reason he can't just "Get Over IT" is that he has a son who is on a mission, and who has to represent Church positions that McCue knows to be untrue or unjustified. He feels pain that his son is put in that position by the church and the General Authorities.

The authorities know, for instance of BH Roberts' insider critique of the many inconsistencies etc in the Book of Mormon that Roberts presented to the Council of the Twelve. But the church is so boxed in it can not revise truth claims that are now known to be not true.

The Mormon Church and Thought Control

Most reasonable observers realize that the Church seeks to discourage questioning by its members, to limit them to reading only "Faithful History."

I found this Web site by an Ex Mormon, Bob McCue. Bob is eloquent and thorough, but not bitter or one sided. This quote is taken from a letter he wrote to a friend, General Authority Holland.

Quote from MCCUE:
So my question is, will the Church move toward becoming an open network designed to
facilitate individual choice and growth, which is what Joseph Smith said he was trying to create,
or will it continue to attempt to seal its members off from all information that casts doubt on the
misleading stories the Church tells, and by so doing stupefy and weaken them? endquote.

Thought control,to the extent the victims allow themselves to be controlled, DOES weaken and stupefy. Mormons are so industrious that they often do well economically (when they are not bankrupting themselves with MLMarketing).

But in an age of the Internet and expanding international competition, our country can ill afford to not engage with the real world of facts and open information.

This causes me to doubt Derrida's confident prediction that the Church will survive for Centuries if not Millenia.

And anyway, isn't Jesus coming back in the next 50 years?

Heraclitus:

And to set the record straight I never pretended to be DV, but I am more accustomed to boards where one simply replies to one. Thus I began replying by typig DV's name. If you look carefully at the string, you will note two DVs who were me and then a line where I noticed what I had done. It was not an attempt at obfuscation but given the speed at which I do these things, an occupational hazard I guess.

Yes I know I can be unclear when I don't slow down. Additionally, I may assume knowledge of discreet topics which many don't have an interest in.

My impatience is tied to the general polemic of assuming conclusions without examining the evidence firsthand.

From what I read here, nobody is a scientist by training, as no poster appears familiar enough with the scientific method. It is therefore comical for nonscientists to comment upon science, a subject about which they appear to know little, and then to use it to put down a religion which has produced some very good scientists.

So I guess people who don't understand the investigatory process invite my impatience for which I should apologize. My experience with former adherents is not positive, and I have not witnessed personally very much intellectual rigor with former adherents with regards to their former religious tradition.

Let's be candid. Most persons select religious traditions because it is comfortable to them. Some, who are intellectual by nature, intellectualize their faith, and those who are not, do not. Those who deselect their faith, may seek intellectual justifications for their deselection, but it is usually not a systemic analysis, but usually a hodgepodge of reasons. Somebody was mean to them at Church. They didn't like a select doctrine. It is usually an emotional reaction. It's just the way humans are wired. As a pragmatist, once deselecting something I tend to leave it behind. So those who constantly kick against the pricks after deselection are irrational.

I don't expect you to be Christian and you can character assassinate me as much as you wish. Better me than somebody who might take greater offense. My note was just one of irony.

Derrida
My apologies for insulting you.

I am very supportive of Wes and DV (except when you pretended to be him) and Nathan and Betty. I don't believe I have ever insulted any of them. They can correct me if I am wrong.

I felt I needed to be frank with you about your style, because you assume a position of intellectual superiority so regularly,

and I thought you would want the feedback that your ideas are frequently incomprehensible.

You have also frequently been extremely belittling to people who disagree with you, and I do feel some moral obligation to defend those whom you abuse. That has involved tweaking you back. Sorry: un Christian of me.

I wouldn't hold myself up as a model for all to emulate,
but I do try to use clear syntax and to express ideas in a comprehensible way. I edit an educational catalog that goes out to well educated but non academic readers, and I have to be careful to avoid academic gobbly-de-gook.

Unfocused is my writing technique, as I usually have multiple windows, including several word processing documents open simultaneously.

If I slow down, my syntax approximiates reasonable. However, writing for internet and writing for professional journals are not the same thing.

So occupational hazard often creates errors, as well as usage of multiple languages. Romance languages often drop pronouns. Germanic languages often kick verbs to the end. Highly inflected languages cause problems. Sino langauages don't even have tense, but rely instead upon patterns and adverbial phrases.

Often I just don't care and just type akin to Faulkner, or Joseph Conrad, without the literary skill.

Do you consider your writing a model of clarity?

Try this exercise, handle a phone call, have eight windows open concurrently and then type a cogent argument devoid syntactical complexities.

As far as my own intellect, you have no idea how pagan my intellect is, when compared to that my friends and colleagues. The only advantage I have is the ability to process massive amounts of data quickly. Are you capable of posting any post without insulting to whomever you address? You are the master of insults, I'll grant you that.

Derrida

Is French your original language?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your syntax is , shall we say, quite original when compared to examples of straightforward English.

I know that you are quite impressed by your own intellection, but I must tell you, having read Strunk and White, Hemenway, John Stuart Mill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and many other exemplary writers of the English Language,

you are just about the most unclear, idiosyncratic as to usage, logically choppy writer I have encountered in a long time.

If I were your BYU professor, I would respectfully suggest that you employ a writing coach.

I invite my fellows to reread your response to Wes just above, and see if they agree.

Sorry to be critical: I am just having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

Much of the world of philosophy, including phenomenologists examine "facts" and what we "know". It appears you take to a superficial examination of what you claim to "know" about the LDS.

Wes:

The fact that the chain of custody argument could be used to state we cannot verify claims of the BoM in court does not limit its application to the BoA claims by detractors. Can't you academically see that what I state logically must be true, in terms of an intellectual argument?

In terms of DNA evidence, you do not appear very well-versed in the recent developments of matriarchal mitocondria, the study in Iceland showing the paucity of evidence for identifying all persons, and others, including the limited geography theory which is evident from reading and thinking about the BoM.

Wes, you're not careful in your examination, simply because you detract but do not analyze. A detractor has no purpose but to conform the evidence to his beliefs. A nonbeliever and even a cautious believer are more likely to take a wait and see attitude because all the evidence is not in.

Betty:

I read the BoM for the same reason, to learn lessons inspired by God for me. The BoM is not a history book, but a religious document which is important to me and others. The BoM is not historically verifiable and probably never will be. I'm okay with that. It has significance for me. Despite what fundamentalist say, the Bible is unverifiable, and I'm okay with that as well. My faith in God does not depend upon the verifiability of certain facts, but it is the principles that matter for faith. Facts help understanding and with greater knowledge of facts, it forces us to explore how God might actually act.

And what I know about Unitarians and Episcopalians, that experience would be very alien for me. I'm familiar with Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, some aspects of Islam, some aspects of Chinese Buddhaism, Christian Scientists, Roman Catholicism, Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Presbytarianism, Lutherism, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, Seventh Day Adventists, and some paganism, but the more politically liberal religions are not common to my experience.

On Abraham, I'm saying, I'll accept my tradition because it works for me. And I'm also saying, the Museums only resolves what was presented to them. The whole story was NOT presented to them. Only a minute portion. I'm glad we have interpreted in a scholarly way what was presented, but to assume is anything but a miniscule amount would be dishonest.

On sexuality, it just doesn't seem very Churchy to discuss it there, but elsewhere we discuss it in great detail, usually cynically, but it's discussed. I just don't want to imagine what Brother Fatso and Sister Fatla are doing. Spare me that. I'd rather sit with my colleagues and discuss it our level, not be forced to hear the community wide discussion. At a community wide level, it must be very watered down, because not all people are at the same level. If emotional issues need to be discussed, they should be presented for academic discussion by professionals, not speculated upon a la Oprah by a bunch of Church wannabees.

Derrida and other Mental Gymnists:

I find the "chain of custody" argument to be full of holes. You talk about courtrooms and evidence. Let's apply your legal analysis to the Book of Mormon. Could you prove the Book of Mormon to be true in a court of law? No you couldn't. Why? There is not one shred of evidence to support the foundational claims of the BofM. No bones or swords at Cumorah from the millions that died in an epic battle, no evidence of horses, steel, or cement anciently, no discovery of Nephite coinage, no discovery of the ruins of cities with names like Zarahemla, etc., etc., etc... Can we prove in a court of law it is a fraud? Possibly. Facts - DNA evidence shows conclusively Native Americans are not from Israel (oops, I forgot the "Limited Geography" theory put out by the eminently reputable FARMS). Book of Abraham proven a fraud. BofM proven to be mostly plagiarized (see Grant Palmer's An Insiders View of Mormon Origins). blah, blah, blah. I could go on and on. Quite a bit of evidence showing the fraud, wouldn't you say? D boy, sometimes the answer is the glaringly apparent one staring you in the face. Put the mental gymnastics aside and pop your head out of the sand. Facts don't lie.

Derrida
Glad to hear that you "condemn a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible or any Scripture."

I presume you include the Book of Mormon.

Is believing in the Celestial Kingdom as Mormon Scripture describes it a "fundamentalist interpretation?"

It seems you do believe however that God inspired the bible, that they are His Stories. Yes?
Many do, so you would be in good company. Just curious.

I understand how you would want your church experience to be an intellectual one, not messed up by the real life issues and feelings that we women are so concerned with.

But I assure you, here in my neighborhood Episcopalian and Unitarian men and women, of high intellectual achievement, discuss (tastefully of course) issues that actually relate to the most important personal spiritual and emotional issues of their life. That includes discussion of sexuality from time to time.

If one is going to discuss the Bible stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of men giving away their daughters' sexual favors in Old Testament stories, one has to, however delicately, talk about sexuality. I wouldn't want to force you to participate, however.

The more important question is whether Mormon culture allows its members to have some venue to discuss these most important issues. I know the Bishop will tell us what to do, but that is often not enough.

On Abraham, you seem to say "we don't really know, so let's accept the Mormon version."

I am in the middle of a first class academic community and am quite familiar with research methods. From what I read, the University and the Museums were at least as credible as FARMS, and with less of a stake in the outcome of their research.

What five o'clock shows up and everybody goes home?

Betty:

I believe you're ignoring what the actual exercise was.

If I understood the projects presented to the Museums, somebody presupposed what the museums had, told them what they thought was done with it, and asked for their opinions.

We do not know your field of expertise, but if you understood how research is conducted, without the specific research question as presented and the exact of parameters of the investigation, none of us really are able to judge the results in a meaningful manner.

Now you're casting aspersions on what I posted, ignoring the intended ambiguity of my postings.

I really don't want to know about a person's sexuality in Church. Sitting around the proverbial bar is another thing, but this emotional masturbation doesn't do it for me. Thinking about an overly rotund person being sexual is kinda a turnoff for me, but that's me and my selfish fitness crazy attitude.

No spirituality is an intellectual exercise of understanding traditions, intellectual philosophies, engaging in the assistance of others, and working the field.

Buddhist traditions are many, and there are some which are not reconciled with the positions you take and others that are.

It is also interesting that you ignore Islam altogether, when you could borrow some of your arguments from Sufism.

Betty:

The concept of literal interpretation of the Bible and inerrancy of the Bible is false. Anybody familiar with the derivation of the texts can see that.

The Torah was compiled centuries after the period, if not millenia, it was said to depict.

No many of these traditions are cultural and cannot be verified historically. I'm certain many of those persons existed, but which did, and which did not, I cannot know. In small part, it's irrelevant, and it's the religious instruction that's important, not the historicity.

David must have existed, but a nine foot tall giant? Unlikely. But if you were a monarch desirous of establishing your reputation, would he be, 6 foot tall or 10 feet tall, in light of the traditions of the time? Today, we want scientific precision, but in millenia past, that was not the tradition.

The Bible and other scripture are God's religious instructions, with enough historical facts for our purposes. The key concepts of God's authority, sin, redemption are true concepts. God works with what he has, and does not expect perfection of his creations.

I have no idea about Noah, only that he was a prophet with priesthood authority. Whether there was a flood or not, I do not claim to know. I do not believe in a global flood, and I condemn a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible or any scripture.

God does not cause scripture to be written to create a history, but a testament of his goodness. That is a major distinction. He can work through old parables, myths, legends, whatever we as people will accept to be taught. There is much where I have no opinion one way or the other. So I can only rely upon existing scholarship, knowing archealogy is sketchy at best and accept tradition for what it is, what our culture wishes to convey to us about our past and our culture.

Abraham's Authority

So Derrida, let me get this straight.

You are not impressed by the authority of the Metropolitan Museum or the U of Chicago on matters of Egyptology

but you DO trust FARMS and Hugh Nibley?

great. You can be my guide from now on.
Are you married?

If I got up in the sharing session of my Unitarian Church and talked about my coming to terms with my Lesbian Sexual Orientation, and how the spiritual teachings of the Unitarian and Buddhist traditions had given me comfort and guidance in this process, my fellow members would lovingly embrace me afterwards and applaud my openness about my personal struggle.

I would probably not go into detail as to which erotic toys I use in personal relations. I think I would know not to do so even without your warning.

My point, which you probably see, is that the range of spiritual issues/doubts/real feelings that Mormons are allowed by custom to share with each other are very restricted when compared with many other settings (Unitarian, reform Jewish, many Episcopal congregations).

This is too bad. It leads to repression of some of our most important spiritual issues.

It would be great if some members of the church could open the topic publicly about broadening the range of discussion.

DV:

I simply disagree with what the "Church" holds true and its interpretations. And I am comfortable that I could present my views to the leadership, to all but the most hardliners, who would be comfortable with it.

Yes, there are the hardliners, with whom I might differ theologically, and you can throw around the Sunday Scholl rhetoric, but it has no power over me, as I've resolved the simplistic rubrics for what they are, namely, generalized salves for those unwilling to dig deeper. You must have simplistic incantations for those less interested, and then the truer doctrines for those more interested.

And, "official Church position on Church history" is a misnomer. Many active LDS want a more detailed, less sanitized version, so that members can enjoy the richer fabric which is the LDS history. The released sanitized version is boring and basically useless beyond age 10 or 11. But that is as it is.

The strange point is, at the turn of the twentieth century, the Church was more open about its history but became less open. As most trends are cyclical, one hopes this trend is dynamic and reverses itself. There are internal forces working to make our history more open and available. Lenoard Arrington was considered a great historian who fought for truth. The LDS Church is not monolithic in its approach. If you have interpreted the Church to be so, then perhaps it is its unified PR approach that has convinced you of such, but disagreements exist and there more and more, through Sunstone, Dialogue (started by Oaks), and others where those with the knowledge, seek it out and discuss the history in a more open and academic surrounding.

In the proper setting, I would be willing to look at a line by line review of everything stated. If the expert were here, I'd be willing to sit down with no lexicographers on the translation. Egyptian takes a semitic approach, with vowels being assumed and grammar somewhat confusing.

LDS scholarship is quality. Review if you wish, what nonLDS say about LDS contributions to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I remember when LDS believed all this wonderful stuff would be revealed, which wasn't, through these scrolls. It did reveal differing versions of the New Testament but not what the world expected.

In sum, most persons care little for LDS issues. Fewer care about the minutae. If they care, they care only about the summaries, and know little of the details. And to become qualified requires scholarship, which must be done as a hobby, or at great expense to a normal, economically productive life.

My speculations should not be expressed in a testimony meeting, nor in a letter to the Deseretnews. It is more appropriate with my family members or with my academic friends. In academic circles, intellectual observations are appropriate and in fact, should be considered.

And if I'm ever asked my opinion, I'd share it. The job running institutions is very difficult, but even though American tradition of representative government recommends the speaking out at all times, I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate in all circumstances. Good scholarship requires careful approaches to such things.

Testimony is for the sharing of spiritual experiences, not for divisive speakings or controversy.

If I got up in testimony meeting and stated, "Hi, I'm heterosexual and I really like humping women." My bishop, though he might share the sentiment, would worry where I was headed. He would believe I'd lost my focus. Keep private thoughts private during worship and express differing opinions during scholarship. However, to take a divisive approach if working for Church, should I be surprised that the Church is less than enthused?

It appears that many disbelievers take a, prove it to me buster, instead of, I'm going to investigate approach. My approach is, "let me investigate for myself, and not rely upon others, supporters or detractors." Where I can, I try to learn the language of the text, or at least to learn some rudiments thereof to catch a drift of it.

I'm not impressed by the authority card, Museum of Chicago, or Musuem of Natural History.

Do we know the exact correspondence that took place before the rendering of opinions? No.

So how do we know how they arrived at their opinions?

IF Spalding states Smith said this document says this, then Spalding lied to the interpreter, because Spalding wasn't there.

A better approach would have been, "what does this mean?"

None of the musuems nor there experts make representations as to what Smith allegedly made out of the fragments which the museum possessed.

Neither Betty nor Heraclitus are being accurate in that. A trained person could take apart those comments as they are NOT compended together in a matter, showing chain of custody, interpretation of question presented, and what the quest was. Depending how the question was posed will craft the answer.

The Cost of Free Thinking

First the Common ground:
I think we all agree that there are Mormons who go to Church but think for themselves, sometimes quite differently than the General Authorities direct them to.

However, as DV indicates above,
the consequences of
Actually Expressing in Public
these free thoughts

are often disastrous to the lives of individual mormons who do so.

They are dis fellowshipped, or fired from BYU where the Church controls their very livelihood, or are excommunicated and then have a very hard time finding employment in Utah.

So yes, one can think freely.
A compassionate human being would ask,
at what cost?

Derrida, will you express your doubts in Testimony Meeting, or in a column in the Deseret News?

On Abraham

I guess it's Derrida
vs
the Metropolitan Museum
and the University of Chicago

(the episcopalians have been disqualified)

as Groucho also said:
Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes.

Derrida asserted that an attorney presenting the Egyptian papyrii acquired by the church in 1967 from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Wouldn't a witness who claimed to be a righteous true-believing mormon, yet mentioned that he didn't believe the "Sunday School" version of mormonism, with its visions, and the constant communication of God, wouldn't that witness also be laughed out of the courtroom?

Your simple dismissal of the official version of Church history and visions, as an unbelievable "Sunday School" version of events, underscores your lack of credibility in representing the official position of the church. You are every bit of a heretic as I am, yet you choose to portray yourself as loyal to the brethren, while espousing heretical views that fly in the face of mainstream mormon doctrine.

I am not trying to disparage you or attack you, Derrida, just point out that many issues you have resolved about mormonism, by taking a metaphoric view, is not espoused by the majority of the membership, nor the General Authorities. You can live your religion how you wish, I am not criticizing you in your belief style. I just find it fascinating that those who defend the church online seem to always have personal opinions and beliefs that are out of harmony with the brethren. It is okay though, there are many many LDS who think out of the box, unfortunately ones like Grant Palmer who have the audacity to speak out, receive punishment and public humiliation as their reward.

No,aH, Der-ri-da

D my buddy,
i believe it is you who are ignoring what I am saying. It's because I'm a woman, isn't it. (just kidding, big boy).

I assume, though it is hard to tell, that you don't take every word in the bible literally.

BUT your evasion of my question is the one where I asked whether a reasonable woman would put the Burden of Proof on the Veracity of the Noah Story.

You didn't deal with that one.

Just llike you didn't deal with whether I as a reasonable woman should put the Burden of Proof on Joseph Smith's Abraham story, which experts describe as a Farrago of Nonsense that an educated man would not spend 5 minutes with.

If we're resorting to Spalding, then I'm not interested. I've argued him too much to carry a tired argument for me. Others can carry that water.

Derrida, my Buddy

Thought you said no reputable non mormons had questioned the BofA. Now Heraclitus cites 9.

How many is enough?

I thought you were my friend. why would you mislead me?

Oh, looking back i see you said "few" not "none."
how many do we have to have before we get beyond few.

So far it is 9 to 0 on non mormon support of the BofA bare credibility.

Betty:

You're ignoring what I'm saying. I understand the few "experts" believe the extant documents aren't of Abraham. I accpept that. You ignore the main argument that the larger part is still missing. The experts never opined on that.

On Noah, I have no idea, if it is mythical, related to a distant patriarch but expanded for teaching purposes. Until the geological record dictates otherwise, I do not believe in a global flood. If any occurred, it was probably related to the Black Sea around 5600 BCE and may be tied to the legend of Gilgamesh.

Abraham in Egypt

our good old Religious Tolerance non partisan Website says the following about expert opinion on the BofA.

n 1912, the Rt. Reverend Franklin S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop of Utah, sent copies of the three facsimiles from the Book to world-class Egyptologists and Semitists. Eight responded with uniformly negative appraisals:
bullet the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City: "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end...five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture."
bullet "...difficult to deal seriously with Smith's impudent fraud."
bullet "Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."
bullet "...very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization."
bullet "...the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations."

Our U of Chicago professor was from 2002. He was interviewed inthe movie Scott discredits.

We might guess he would not jeopardize his academic reputation by inventing criticisms of a book he actually thought was authentic.

Marxist Philosophy would say: don't confuse me with the facts. (Groucho, that is).

Noah's Ark

Derrida
I can't tell exactly what your attitude towards the Noah's Ark story and the Epic of Gilgamesh is.

Do you think they are
a. myths with no historical accuracy
b. they probably happened
c. God revealed their story in literal truth.

Most non fundamentalist people regard the Noah story as a fable.

These "most people" would put the Burden of Proof on the Story tellers before they believed it. Of course they could not DISPROVE it. There are thousands of crazy ideas we can't disprove.

On BoA, your explanation doesn't convince me. The 1967 nay sayer was "only" an egypt expert at the Metropolitan Museum, our country's mecca of egyptology. the 1912 critic was from the U of Chicago.

A reasonably rathional skeptical non mormon who believed in God would be very unlikely to hold out much possibility for the "truth" of the BoA.

Talk about burdens.

From one perspective I understand. If LDS were trying to prove to the skeptical world the legitimacy of the "BoA" fragments, then the LDS would bear that burden.

For me, it's not a question of proof, because in one respect, I really don't care, as someone with intellectual curiosity what other perceive it as. I'd rather first try to understand what the world of permutations presents us.

Is the Legend of Gilgamesh subject to a burden? Perhaps, but more interesting, is the textual relationship it may bear with the Biblical story of Noah, and the Black Sea flood of 5600 BCE.

I'm more interested in the what for my own personal understanding than the casting of aspersions and taking a wait and see approach.

Betty:

There really are very few nonLDS scholars who will ever look at the issue.

And all but a very few ever believe God exists, so they all start from the position that God has never inspired anybody.

Thus, if one examines this equation it does not surprise me no nonLDS scholar believes any possibility of inspiration.

First, of the worlds scholars concerned with antiquities, less the one hundredth of one percent are even aware of the BoA dilemmas or ambiguities.

Second, most of them come to the world disbelieving in God and in his interactions with the world. So their outlook will naturally be, "since we know there is no God and people like to mask what 'God' does through his name," let's look for an alternative explanation. So most scholars will be skeptical, and the few who invest themselves will necessarily be skeptical.

Under that equation, is there any surprise that we have no nonLDS speaking positively about the fragments?

Exactly how many Egyptologists have looked at the facsimile? Not very many, but numerous quotes of the few have been made. And how much deeper will they go? Not much. Look at the comments and analysis yourself. Not very complex and very rudimentary.

Even with my rudimentary, crude understanding of Egyptian, I tend to agree that the facsimile is from the Book of Breathings, at least it's consistent. However, the critique from there takes a very simplistic line of reasoning, instead of exploring a more rich textual analysis.

I never expect a nonLDS to make any positive statements until the LDS becomes signficant enough that others are able to fund meaningful research into it.

I understand your analysis, but believe you're missing a richer context.

Abraham and FARMS

Thanks for attempting to respond to my points,Derrida.

But, to repeat

on the first point,
i asked for a reference of a *nonmormon* scholar who thinks there is any credibility to the BoA.

I know many mormons think it has credibility, even FARMS people.

It troubles me that no non mormon scholars I can find are respectful of its credibility. Our Toronto site has some excoriating comments about it from non mormon scholars who are anything but Mormon persecutors.

Second:
no person would consider it likely that a non Mormon named Joe Schmoo "translated" egyptian in 1840 through God's revelation/inspiration.

It is of course *possible* that God would have inspired our Joe Schmoo. But incredibly improbable.

So the "burden of Proof" has to be on us Mormons. And given the historical inconsistencies in Smith's story, the mormon version is even more improbable.

Heraclitus:

Let me answer the second question first.

How does he answer prayers? Interesting question for which I can only speculate. I could use the hypercube (remember your four diminensional hypercubes from calculus classes?) analogy that would present a plausible astrophysical explanation of a physical God actually witnessing past, present and future events and how he manages these events on an infinite basis becomes mindboggling. Of course, my finite mind becomes boggles by focusing upon a numberline of infinite numbers.

It may also be analogous to the situation of wave, particle aspects of light.

But you weren't asking as to the physical mechanics of the delivery. I believe our Sunday School imaginations concerning the answering of prayers are incorrect. In one respect, it doesn't matter, he answers them.

In another respect, it matters so that we can comprehend and modify our expectations.

Most answers we receive are answers of allowance or denial. Frequently we ask the same question, receiving a rejection, until he almost exasperatedly says, "okay, go ahead."

However, I don't believe the Prophet is constantly asking, "How do we do this?" and God answers, "This way."

I think it's more, "This is what we're doing, any major objections?" And he answers, "No, not you can get where you need to eventually doing that way." And unless there is some urgency, he doesn't divert our courses. That is how I believe he answers our prayers 99% of the time.

As to the one true Church dichotomy. I have a different way of answering that.

Remember the Muslim in Lessing's Nathan der Weise? It was the episode about bickering which religion, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, wherein the wise king had one magic ring, and two fashioned like unto it, and that people will have to wait thousands of years to see who manifested the powers of the ring to determine who had his one true ring.

Is there authority given from God, manifested in the LDS Church? Yes.

Is there power given from God to all other religions? Yes.

Will the power and authority eventually merge? Yes, but when? I do not know.

You must choose what works for you, and see where it leads. If the authority in the LDS Church is truly divine, it will manifest itself through good works and bless mankind.

Allegorical? I don't have a vision of paradisiacal glory, so although I understand what the teachings are, I don't have my own vision of what is beyond. I hope it involves an existence with friends, family and great thinkers and doers so that I can pick their brains. I hope I get to understand the mysteries of creation, learn great works of art, and explore the universe or multiverse.

What does any being do that can't die, must not need to eat? It is so beyond my own understanding that I just can't fathom it. However, life has taught me, the more abilities you acquire in this life, the more your life is blessed. So I equate there must be some correlation in the afterlife, but how it equates I am uncertain.

I do not disavow the teachings, but although I can regurgitate them, I don't understand them because they are beyond experience. I have no aposteriori or apriori knowledge of them that I can resort to, to understand them. So I live with a void of understanding.

You ignore, a body of belief regarding the BoA, which you're not discussing.

First, believers, don't believe the small fragments which we now possess, are really what was used to bring the BoA to light.

Second, I will identify a source, which will draw kniptionfits from the disbelievers, FARMS, has many technical articles on this papyrii. farms.byu.edu. The disbelievers will have coronaries as they believe all LDS are of the devil and cannot do legitimate academic research. Now I'm not stating it's all first class research, but it proposes interesting concepts.

Third, the scenario you set up is correct, but I reject the scenario as valid. 98% of nonbelievers aren't even aware of the BoA, and would probably take a cursory approach to it, as we have done here, instead of a painstaking approach of examining the papyrii, learning Egyptian, and learning the history. The "scrolls" were missing for 95 years. We have fragments as opposed to large scrolls. So yes, if nonbelievers were presented with the facts as you have presented them, they would reach that conclusion. However, 98% of disbelievers would not grant any man or woman the ability to translate anything without significant training in a language and would look to a more plausible explanation instead of a miraculous explanation. I know I would in most instances, so I don't blame persons for doing so.

We do NOT have the papyrii in total JS to inspire him to write the BoA.

One thing disbelievers never do is actually read the BoA itself.

I could also bring other speculative analyses to light, but again, it's not the purpose here. I for one reject the common notions of how the BoA came to light, but given the tenuous nature of what we know, I'm also left with the observation, "I just don't know." However, the BoA works as scripture, because its principles are consistent religiously.

Detractors and Derrida

Derrida, very thoughtful post. Your best so far, in my classically humble opinion.

I am intriqued be the philosophical implications of your position, which I truly do find reasonable in many aspects, and I am sincerely interested on how you approach the implied question your statement leads to.

I read your statement to say:
"The Mormon Church is NOT, necessarily, THE ONE TRUE CHURCH" in the sense of its being the ONLY route to the highest heaven (the CK).
That is just the Sunday School version."

Am I interpreting you correctly?

Also, when you say he "doesn't micromanage," how does that relate to our belief that he answers prayers, talks to the Prophet, etc?

Do you take most of the Mormon afterlife belief metaphorically, as many Catholics do their doctrine?

Again, I am truly interested in how you understand these questions. Thanks.

Abraham

thanks Derrida, for your thoughts.

a couple of comments:
in my scan of the evidence, as I noted, i have not found a Non Mormon who thinks the BoA is credible. you said some have. Any specifics? Who? Where can I read about them.

Regarding the BoA's authenticity.

When Joseph S translated the book from Egyptian into English, no one in the world "knew" how to translate Egyptian.

So for Smith to be able to translate it, he had to have relied on inspiration/revelation, as he said he did.

The woman on the street, when faced with the following choices of historical reality:
A. Smith translated the Papyri even though he knew no Egyption, and did so through God
or
B. Smith made up the story out of his imagination and knowledge of other sources like the Bible.

I would think 98% of non mormons would choose B.

Point is: the two scenarios are NOT equally likely.

Betty:

Detractors.

I suppose it depends upon a bent. The Catholic Church is not a monolith, and I am not a Catholic believer, but a nonbeliever as opposed to a disbeliever.

I carry no sword, do not have an axe to grind. For me, the encounters with the Catholic Church have been positive. I am grateful for the academic scholarship as well as the knowledge which its monks and clergy have preserved throughout the centuries. As a cultural, spiritual and physical entity it will continue for the undetermined future. As somebody with no investment therein, I have only a passing interest how it deals with child abuse. Perhaps a bit cynical, but I am not surprised that a system that denies men the right to have wives and children will not create situations where abuse arises undetected. And knowing organizations as a I do, it is natural for such organization not to want these matters to come to light. This is a natural tension.

Perhaps, given my understanding of organizations, and my expectations I am not troubled institutionally.

If God is a CEO of an organization, that doesn't mean he manipulates every act.

Is God more of a passive or active participant? I really don't know.

The Sunday School version of LDS visions is incorrect. He doens't micromanage organizations or persons as we would like to believe. He may be able to monitor everything but he allows much more freeplay than we are willing to acknowledge. Often members judge the Church based on the sanitized Sunday School version of God's interplay with Church, instead real life interaction. God teaches principles, and occasionally tinkers is my view. He allows many things to see what we learn, what errors we make, even in his name. He will cleanse it from time to time, but more often that not he throws a rock into a pool which somehow affects the wings of a butterfly which somehow impacts the tsunami across the world. The permutations and computations required are both subtle and complex.

DV

Once again from you, a thought out,compassionate,realistic view of things,in this case The Church and Change.

Here in Catholic New England,I have many catholic friends who were outraged by the reaction of the Archdiocese to the Sexual Abuse scandal, who think the church is dead wrong on contraception and some even on Women and the Priesthood.

I know there are many Mormons like you who think and question and realize the problems.

It is *understandable*, if not commendable, that the Church concentrates first on keeping the members faithful, with faithful history et al, rather than on exploring the truth, and even more importantly, Goodness.

Being a fourth generation Mormon myself, I know how hard it is to leave the fold, let alone to keep or get a job in Utah if you leave.

Anyway, thank you for your honesty and clear eyed look at the Church and the world.

Betty:

Thank you for your insights, but let me add a few more thoughts about scholarship and the "Mormon dilemma".

Up until recently, LDS were insigificant. Why is that important, because nobody of moment noticed the LDS.

Today, about the only persons who still notice LDS from an academic standpoint are LDS or have LDS connections. The two most prominent nonLDS scholars are both sociologists, with an emphasis on religious aspects, Jan Shipps and Rodney Stark, formerly of Washington State, now relocated to Baylor.

Why is this significant? Because scholarship doesn't happen in a vacuum. Who are the major sources of funding in academia? Government, private companies and private individuals.

For the most part, I don't see government or private companies funding much on the LDS dilemma, so that leaves private individuals. The most interested will be active LDS. To the extent, there is any scholarship, and there really isn't much, it is LDS favorable.

That leaves independent publications, usually poorly funded, which tend toward less scholarship and more stridency.

As far as BoA scholarship is concerned, it is very sparce. The Toronto based Religious Tolerance website is a credible, relatively neutral, collective effort to summarize religious based issues of contemporary interest. It is not exhaustive, but rather summary, but useful. I have used the site myself to understand issues, or to have a jumping off point.

It is inaccurate to state, that nonbelievers have universally rejected the BoA documents. For the most part, nonbelievers don't even know what it is or that it exists. Now, I break the world into three groups, believers, nonbelievers and disbelievers (a term borrowed from Islam and the Surahs).

Jan Shipps, a very good sociologist from an LDS point of view, summarizes what little is known about the current fragments of some Egyptian papyrii, believed to have been in the possession at some time of the Joseph Smith. She correctly notes that the facsimile and other portions represent a primary translation of the Book of Breathings. I could take you through Sir. E.A. Wallace Budge's beginning hieroglypics and show this translation. Now, unless you are an Egyptologist, you might miss out that Egyptians frequently sealed books with mismatched facsimiles and put them to various uses.

Nontheless, although I accept the translation of the fragments in possesion, it still does not answer the BoA question, and neither the site, nor the Jan Shipps recitation, answer these questions, nor establish Jospeph Smith as a fraud. We still know very little. As a believer, it means I know very little, despite what is said or printed about the delivery or discovery process.

And knowledge is difficult to ascertain. One need not study philosophy for very long before one discovers how tenuous knowledge actually is. Strting with Plato and moving through the Greeks, into Descartes, Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Arendt, Husserl, Derrida, Sartres and Gadamer, we discover knowledge, or what we think we know may not really be known. It isn't long before one begins to believe man is incapable of knowledge just as Nietsche suggests.

For that reason when disbelievers state stridently that this and that is a lie, they can be no more certain of that, than anybody could arguably be certain of its veracity. If this were proper, I would argue than, outside of an ontological, or ontic study of the being of a prophet, that one might be able to judge the cultural definition of a prophet if one compared Jospeh Smith with certain characteristics of Moses or Mohammed. We have neither the time nor the inclination here.

I also acknowledge that organizational dynamics will leave many persons wanting for a differing delivery system, different timing for different cleansings, but that does not translate into deception and untruths. We are dealing with a dynamic situation compounded by human frailties and a limited set of resources. Thus dialogue, for it to more than two intersecting monolouges, must be balanced and recognize the legitimacy of concerns and define parameter without a definition set for one side to win in a polemic battle of wits.

Heraclitus, you bring up a good point. Joseph Fielding Smith has encouraged the membership to expose Joseph Smith Jr., if he was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people. He went on to say that Joseph Smith Jr.'s "claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false" etc.

I have endeavored to follow Joseph Fielding Smith's counsel. It seems probabable that Joseph Fielding Smith had his own doubts about his great uncle's claims, or he wouldn't have advised such a specific course of action under a hypothetical premise. I provided many quotes, above, regarding Joseph Smith's teachings on astrophysics, which are totally improbable. Only Derrida seriously engaged me, regarding Joseph's theories on a "parallel earth." Nobody really wants to talk about Joseph Smith's theories, because they aren't remotely credible. It is much easier to ignore them as simple 19th century gibberish, and "his opinion". But under Joseph Fielding Smith's view, we should rigorously pursue an investigation into all spurrious claims of the boy Prophet, and expose him as a fraud if we find the evidence to do it.

I believe there is a new wave of multi-generational mormons who are free thinkers, such as myself, Betty, Wes, Nathan, Heraclitus, and others who have posted on this thread. And I also believe the church is scared to death of us. We are active members of the church, yet we do not believe the lies, hook, line, and sinker. I hope that there are many, many more of us who become enlightened, and start to understand that we as rational human beings do not need to follow along blindly like lemmings. Oh, that our numbers will grow, and start a groundswell of resistance against the church imposed bigotry, lies, and deceit of the past. That is my quest, to enlighten and educate, and follow the truth wherever it leads me.

By the way, Derrida, I was impressed with our dialogue earlier. You seem to be a very rational thinker, and at the same time a dyed-in-the-wool true blue mormon, a rarity in my opinion. I think it was below you to imply that someone was a Nazi, and to lose the swastika. If I met you in person I would probably like you, and you wouldn't have the foggiest idea that I hold so many "heretical" ideas. I hope that all of the other mormons out there can follow Grant Palmer's example and be open about your concerns, so that the leadership will make the appropriate changes and apologies.

I agree Derrida, mormonism may continue to exist centuries into the future. But, if it is ever to be taken seriously as a world religion, it needs to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. The BoA fabrication, the adulterous life of its founder, the bigotry of the Priesthood ban, its mistreatment of gays, etc. Once those things are admitted and changes made, then it can become the cause for "good" that it claims to be. People like me exist to open members eyes to the authentic church history, not the whitewashed version that I was taught.

There are many members like me who are disatisfied yet we do not want to leave, because we have many friends and business associates in the church. Therefore, we are making the best of our situation. I take it upon myself to acknowledge the truth of past mistakes made by my church. Do others? Do apologists help things by obfuscating and confusing the membership? I don't think so. When will a real leader ever rise up from among the General Authorities of the church and take a stand that is based on truth and justice, and admit the mistakes of the past?? Is there such a leader, or are they all spineless wimps? If church leaders at the highest levels are just puppets who follow, then who will take the church into the future?

Gordon B. Hinckley has seemingly been honest about many things he simply does not know. Is there any among their ranks that will admit to the mistakes of the past? Is there any among their ranks that will actually practice equality between the sexes, and the sexual orientations? Is there any of them that will take the church more towards a truly accepting, christ-like organization? I believe Ballard's most recent talk criticizing those who use guilt as a motivator, is a step in the right direction.

I want change. And many other church members want change. I want honesty. I don't think that is too much to ask of this organization that I have dedicated my life to.

-DV

Independent Thinking/Group Consistency

I was surprised to see Scott say that
making a statement about the level of
Independent Thought vs. Group Thought Consistency

was necessarily bigotry.

History is littered with examples where groups have been demonstated by evidence to have either low or high levels of thought consistency.

Nazi Germany is an obvious example,
and NO, I am NOT, repeat NOT
comparing the Mormons to the Nazis.

I was raised a Unitarian. We were explicitly encouraged to be independent thinkers, and of course we had no beliefs,
of our Group Consistency was pretty low.
Didn't make us bad people though.

I would think Mormon Group thought consistency is higher. "The Church is True" and all that.

Gee Scott

I wish you would respond to what I actually said.
Your rhetorical habit of misrepresenting others and then criticizing your own misprepresentation is not very nice.

Neither of the two quotes Betty sites comes from Palmer. They both come from non-mormons who are not anti-mormon.

The point made about Palmer was not that he was accurate and had the whole truth,
BUT
that he was dis fellowshipped for writing a book that contained conclusions that violated Faithful History.

BTW, do you know of ANY non mormons who have an respect for the Book of Abraham? No one else does.

You castigate me for comparing Mormons with Jonestowners.

PROBLEM, Scott: I did not do so.

I said that members of some groups are less prone to think for themselves, and can be demonstated to be so evidentiarily. E.g. Jonestown people.
Therefore, it is NOT bigotry to say that a group exhibits a comparatively low rate of independent thinking if such statement can be justified by evidence.

Again, you misrepresent my statement to make it seem extreme or nonsensical. Bad manners, Scott.

You,Scott, had said, to
"make sweeping statements about one particular group of people's ability to think for themselves. By definition, it is bigotry.”
I was clearly making the point that one could make statements about *a particular group*'s ability, that is, the Jonestown crew.

By the way, I think we can compare the Jews to the Jonestown people. We would find them at diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum.
My Jewish friend says, where you have 4 jews, you have 8 opinions.
Where you have 4 practicing mormons, how many opinions to you have? You tell me.

It is instructive to compare groups. Groups DO have some common characteristics. Consistency of belief within a group is one.
Republicans have more consistency than Democrats, for instance. You can look it up.

At the risk of being accused of ad Hominums, both Palmer's book and Luke Wilson's ministry's movie are filled with inaccuracies. They are both polemic works.

Yes, I have read the Palmer book. It is a dreadful use of sources. The section on the Book of Mormon witnesses is dishonest. The section on the "Golden Pot" is ridiculous. The claims that his point of view is supported by the Mormon History is Association is silly, given the many, many different points of view within that group. (So much for historians not thinking for themselves.)

Yes, I have seen the Book of Abraham Movie. It is very well done but very biased. Only those facts are brought out that support the Ministry's position, and any facts that are contrary to that are conveniently left out.

You say, "Sorry Scott: an intellectually sloppy statement. It may be an evidentiary statement that can be confirmed by, say, psychological tests. Most of us would agree that the Jonestown group who committed mass suicide had a lessened ability to think for themselves."

I find comparing members of the LDS church with Jonestown group yet another example of bigotry. Other than both groups believing in God, there is no evidence of even a remote similarity. Why don't you say the same thing about Catholics and Jews?

Believe Like Children

I am confused.
Someone in this discussion said that Mormons were told to believe like children in the doctrines of the church and the statements of the General Authorities.

Then someone else, Scott I think, said that's ridiculous. We can all think for ourselves.

Then I remembered this article i read in the Ensign (mormon offical publication) by Elder Robert Oaks in Sept 2005, where he says we are to like "little children." What should I do?

"For us, to 'believe all things' means to believe the doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the words of the Latterday prophets. It means to successfully erase our doubts and reservations. It means that in making spiritual commitments, we are prepared to hold nothing back. It means we are ready to consecrate our lives to the work of the kingdom."

"The more we believe, the easier faith-based obedience becomes. Hence the value of 'believing all things.'"

"We are instructed to be like children, who are willing to be taught and then to act without first demanding full knowledge."

Our Mormon History Problem

Guys, we have a problem with our public image. I went to the public web site, Wikipedia, and found the following entry. I think this Wikipedia place is not an Anti Mormon site, so why are they being so nasty to us? This is what they say.

"Although traditional Christianity is likewise a history religion, few primary sources survive from two or three millennia ago. Furthermore, biblical places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho, are acknowledged to exist by scholars of every religious persuasion, and the Assyrian and Babylonian empires are treated in every ancient history text. Locations of Book of Mormon places, by contrast, are acknowledged to exist by no non-Mormon scholars, and no non-Mormon text about the pre-Columbian world describes the wars and kingdoms of the Book of Mormon.[1] Martin Marty, an historian of American religion, has observed that LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."[2]

Mormonism relies on the historical reality of the mission of Joseph Smith, Jr as a matter of faith. In other words, if Joseph Smith did not actually translate the Book of Mormon from Golden Plates engraved by Ancient Americans, then the entire Mormon faith is without foundation. President Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth LDS prophet said:

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect.[3]"

Dialogue

thanks Derrida.

what it appears to me like after looking at some of the evidence is this:

1. Respected historians like Shipps, and Mormon historians like Palmer and Quinn,
believe that historical facts cast serious doubt on the "authenticity" of the book,
ie that it was written by Abraham.
The Religious Tolerance site seems to take this position as well.

2. Mormon believers like yourself think the questions can be satisfactorily answered.

It does seem to me that everyone who thinks the book is authentic is a believing mormon,
and most if not all of the independent observors think it is a blatant fantasy.

But we can all make up our own minds on this.

ON ANOTHER POint

Nobody should expect any organization to be free of detractors. Is the Catholic Church free of detractors? Islam? Judaism?

Not too convincing argument to me.

Does the percentage of Catholic detractors lessen the awfulness of their child abuse problems?

Many voices are saying that a Faith-based approach to the world, and theist beliefs such as Mormons and others hold, are doing serious damage, on balance, to our world.

that is of course a debatable proposition.
But to debate it, we need to clear headedly examine both the positive and the problematic aspects of organized religion, Catholic or Mormon or Muslim.
you note

Betty, those sites you provided are known to most persons and Jan Shipps is a respected observer of the LDS phenomenum.

What few who examine the situation are willing to admit is the "chain of custody" problem. If it were a criminal law case, the evidence would be dismissed out of hand. It could not be considered as the chain of custody is has been broken, so that there cannot be a high degree of confidence that we have the same documents.

The basic problem is that one. I understand why anti-LDS ignore this problem, but I'm not certain why scientists don't make more of an issue of it. If any lawyer tried to admit that current document as the document JS possessed, that lawyer would be laughed out of court in an instant.

Now to be fair, it is suggestive that JS may have possessed some or all of the fragments now in possession. And there are other theories not worthy of mention here due to the closed minds, but the issues have not been ignored, just exaggerated by persons who've made up their minds and are unwilling to consider other possibilities.

Dialogue with nonLDS such as Shipps is possible; dialogue with persons who've got their minds made up is not.

The credibility of the LDS Church is good, as the numbers who detract is relatively small, even though virulent and irrational. Nobody should expect any organization to be free of detractors. Is the Catholic Church free of detractors? Islam? Judaism? Sihkism? No movement, large of small is free of those who oppose it.

Some of it is due to Hegelian dialectic, some by commpetitors, and some, just due to opposition because those who can't do, oppose.

Dialoge Between Mormons and Non mormons

Thanks, Betty, for the reference to Religious Tolerance about the documentary made in 2002 on the book of Abraham.

the tolerance site also contains this quote, which goes to the heart of the Dialog question.

"The writer and producer of the film, Luke Wilson, commented: "We have tried to bring a level of sensitivity to this kind of work, I think, with some success. We are trying to have a constructive dialogue." Unfortunately, LDS officials and scholars refused to be interviewed for the film."

There are difficulties in establishing a full and open dialog with the Church when information comes out that questions the official church position.

Of course, this is expectable. The Catholic Church was not too forthcoming about certain PR problems.

But the fact remains: it is difficult to have a free and open and honest dialog with the church about questions of fact (not Faith, but which bear upon the underpinnings of Faith).

The Book of Abraham

For you investigators out there who wonder about the veracity of the book,
Two quotes from the non partisan Ontario Consultants onReligious tolerance
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_bkab.htm

concerning the Book of Abraham:

Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon student of the LDS church said:

"This story (concerning the resurfacing of the Papyri) has been around since 1967 and I assumed it would undercut Mormon beliefs. But instead of being like a stone shattering a pane of glass, it was more like a **stone being tossed into a pool of water and dropping to the bottom**."

David P. Wright of Brandeis University commented:
"This documentary must be seen by all those who are interested in the origins of the Book of Abraham. In an artful and educational manner, it sets forth in clarity the basic evidence that establishes Joseph Smith – not the biblical Abraham – as the author

Shipps comment is noting the ability of believers to dismiss or ignore evidence that contradicts their firmly held beliefs. Again, any of us interested in searching for the truth here have plenty of evidence to examine. Palmer got disfellowshipped for doing so.

The Toronto Tolerance Group is NOT known for their bigotry.

The Book of Abraham

thanks John, for your defense of the book of Abraham.

As you know, many doubt its authenticity, and many (all of them Mormons) consider it a divine inspiration of Smith.

People can and should examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

Mormon historian Palmer published a book where he seriously questioned the book.

For his sins, he was dis=fellowshipped.

The Church (which published the book itself before reading it, apparently) said

to remain a member in good standing in the church
you can have any opinion you want about the book

As long as you do not express it in public, for instance by writing a book.

Once again
I did not state that the Book of Abraham was a "farrago of nonsense." That was a curator at the Metropolitan Museum who characterized it thus.

I fully admit that there is some chance it may be a divinely inspired document.

I just don't think I could get away with publicly expressing that opinion and then remaining a full member of the Church, even if I sincerely believed my opinion was true.

Derrida,

Classic TBM response. Launch ad hominen attacks on the messenger instead of sticking to the issues. Typical mormon tactics. I used to do it myself when my fantasy mormon view was threatened. Nothing ever changes............

Bigotry and the Mormon Church

This is the headline Mitt Romney does not want to see.

Mitt may love gay people. He said so in 1994’s campaign, though this year, I as a gay person think he is being pretty nasty to me.

But many non-mormons (Ontario Religious Tolerance Group for example) are well aware of the history of what they call “racist” issues in the Mormon Church.

Therefore, politically speaking, if Mormons want non—mormons to think well of them, I would advise them to avoid bringing up the topic of Bigotry.

And remember, this is a public forum as well.

Scott says: “don't continue to make sweeping statements about one particular group of people's ability to think for themselves. By definition, it is bigotry.”

Sorry Scott: an intellectually sloppy statement. It may be an evidentiary statement that can be confirmed by, say, psychological tests. Most of us would agree that the Jonestown group who committed mass suicide had a lessened ability to think for themselves.

The General Conferences of the Mormon church are riddled with statements that say think for yourself, as long as you end up agreeing with our version of history, and don’t listen to the murmurers.

The Unitarian Church, for instance, does not say such things. Result: difference in the value on independent thought.

I do NOT dismiss LDS scientists. My mormon father taught chemistry for 43 years. This is another intellectually sloppy habit you have: change the statements of your disputant so they sound extreme.

In your Otterson quote, there are so many unjustified assumptions that they will have to be dealt with in a different post.

I am very happy to let the LDS church have their point of view.

When the Church presents to the public a picture of their practices that many believe to be a distortion of what they actually are, that picture needs to be critiqued.

There is a serious and important debate going on in this country on the effects of faith (see the Stem Cell debate and Bush’s impending veto) on a dispassionate and rational look at the facts.

Mormonism’s tension between faith, fact, and history is part of that important debate.

This is wonderful logic.

Any unbiased person, as if you are such a person, claims it is not what it is.

First, you've ignored the logic that we have what you claim we have.

For example, if this were a legal battle, due to the loss of a chain of custody, no sane person would the allegation you're trying to make. The persons who had the original document are not in existence.

Second, the document disappeared, and if it is the same, which I doubt, reappeared, where it could not be shown to have been the same.

It meets not standards.

All of us know that the Book of Breathings in New York does not appear to be the Book of Abraham, and there are many other translational issues.

The fact that you are willing to ignore the chain of custody issues shows "Wes" cannot be taken seriously. You have not stated from what walk of life you come, but you are neither an attorney nor an Egyptologist.

Stop with the bigotry and put your swastika away.

John D,

You are defending the indefensible. I would encourage you to recheck your facts about the whole issue of the Book of Abraham as this is an open and shut case. Any objective analysis of this issue by reasonable people without bias would come to the only rational conclusion there is - the Book of Abraham is a fabrication. I am not trying to be offensive. But trying to defend this work of fiction is an exercise in mental gymnastics and detracts from your credibility.

"The sad part is that this makes faithful mormons into intellectual and moral children throughout their lives, who are subject to the decisions of their leaders and forbidden to develop intellectual and moral autonomy and maturity."

As a Latter Day Saint I understand that God wants me to approach Him personally to learn how to apply the teachings I glean from Prophets ancient and modern. It is through a contact with the Divine that is profoundly internal and sanctifying that I achieve a moral compass. I have experienced a dispositional oneness with Christ at General Conference, while reading the Holy Scriptures, and, at it’s most Celestial quality, in the Temple of the Lord. It is internal because it effects one’s very desire, outlook and disposition. Its qualia is nothing short of sublime.

Your description of Mormon morality is utterly unrecognizable. For it ignores the very glue of the LDS community--internal communion with divinity.

"If it has nothing to do with bigotry, then don't continue to make sweeping statements about one particular group of people's ability to think for themselves. By definition, it is bigotry."

Right on Scott. Call it for what it is. I was quite shocked with how blatent it was. Replace Mormon with Jew, Latino, Buddist, atheist or whatever, what do you have?

My freind Wes wrote:

"The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a fraud by modern Egyptologists. The Book of Abraham is nothing more than common funeral documents, The Book of the Dead. No matter how many times you "bear testimony" of it will not make it true. Scott, the truth is painful, it is devastating, and it is life-changing. But the truth will set you free. Stop attacking the messengers of people bringing you facts and evaluate the evidence objectively. I know first hand how painful it is to learn the truth about the Mormon church. It hurts but you can recover from it."

I can't help it, I had to at least address this Abraham thing. It seems a favorite among this crowed.

Perhaps there is some ambiguity surrounding the Book of Abraham. But critics who act like they are dedicated to the truth pure and simple, falsely claim the Book of Abraham an open and shut case, thus betraying their non-intellectual, emotional, ideological agenda .

Major point- there is evidence to suggest that the Papyri we currently have in our possession is not that from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham.

First Joseph Smith described the text from which the Book of Abraham was translated as

1) Long scrolls well preserved

2) Written with black and red ink.

These two characteristics do not describe the papyri we now have in our possession. They contain no red ink, and they are not long scrolls.

This description was not given under duress.

Joseph had no reason to describe the Book of Abraham this way except its convergence with what he actually saw.

This testimony is backed up by three other sources.

First:

Joseph F. Smith in 1906 recollected seeing Joseph Smith Jr. examining the scrolls on which were written the Book of Abraham while on his hands and knees; he describes them as being rolled out, covering the floor and spanning two rooms.

This confirms Joseph Smith’s description of the Book of Abraham as long scrolls.

The current Papyri in our possession are patches, not rolls, and cover a table, if that.

Second:

Charlette Haven, a non-Mormon described the Papyri to a her mother in a letter:

“Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament—and it might have been for anything we knew—but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who—the serpent, I mean—was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear.”

This source is more credible than even the Joseph F. Smith’s testimony because it was contemporary and from a non-member. It corroborates the former two testimonies of the Book of Abraham as long scrolls.

Robert Horne also gave this description:

"Oh, here is the Pearl of Great Price,"…"I've seen these records with my own eyes," … "and handled them with these hands. Mother Lucy . . . showed them to me. . . . The records which I saw were some kind of parchment or papyrus, and it contained writing in red and black. Mother Lucy told me that one was the writings of Abraham and the other the writings of Joseph, who was sold in Egypt."

This corroborates Joseph’s claim that they were written in black and red ink. This testimony was also not given under duress.

Once again, the current Papyri we have has no red ink, and are not long scrolls.

What Egyptologists say about this papyri has no bearing on the Book of Abraham. It is not the document Joseph claimed to translate from.

The greatest testimony of the Book of Abraham comes from the text itself. It’s credibility as an ancient document is increased by it’s correspondence to various ancient writings about the life of Abraham not found in our current Bible.

The attitude eliminates all efforts at discussion. Thanks Scott.

Unfortunately, we didn't get to hear from avowed atheists or agnostics. Perhaps another time.

The first poster was not me. Had I noticed it, I would have used a different name.

No, I don't work for Otterson or for the church.

You say,, "Once again, I think for an active Mormon to accuse non mormons of bigotry is something one should be very careful about. with romney's campaign coming up, let's avod that issue."

If it has nothing to do with bigotry, then don't continue to make sweeping statements about one particular group of people's ability to think for themselves. By definition, it is bigotry.

Otterson spoke on science. We have many strong LDS members who are scientists and scholars. They are award winning. They have been published in some of the most prestigious science journals. Dismissal of them because they are LDS is another example of bigotry.

I do like what Otterson says in his article when he say, "Can we discuss it? Of course, if we honestly recognize that we are all looking at the same evidence from very different perspectives. Unfortunately, since atheism commonly allies itself with science, situational ethics and relativism, many atheists have a tendency to ridicule or be dismissive of religious faith (just read the comments on this site, for example)."

We all have differing points of view. I just hope you will allow the LDS to have theirs. Drop the anger, drop the attitude, and drop the bigotry. Then and only then can we have a serious discussion.

Heraclitus:

People remember many truths. You remember the truths you care about.

My point is, you can belong to something that grows, or you can stand against it.

I choose to stand by something positive, even if imperfect. Those that kick against the pricks can have their truth. You still do not get it.

You wish to deride. That is all you are. You have no separate truth. In that, your words are hollow.

Plato had his own voice. Aristotle had his own voice. Pelagius had his. Even Nietsche had his own.

The great voices had voices. Mohammed, not my prophet, had a voice and was effective.

One can either critisize or build. You have made your choice.

Derrida

I believe you have been reminded that this is a public forum, not a Mormon faith solidification project.

When a PR man for the Mormon church writes on this forum, it is reasonable to believe he is doing PR for the church, not seeking the truth.

PR does not equal Truth.
Euclid taught me that.

Others of us on this forum are interested in Truth.

Thus, when Otterson misrepresents the Church as being dedicated to the truth, which is clearly not its first priority,

it pains many of us.

We do not wish the public to accept this misrepresentation at face value.

As far as 100 years from now, people have now remembered me for 2,500 years. Longer than Jesus.

Itis interesting that an LDS person seeks dialogue on the issue of faith and science and the only dialogue really comes from former adherents who want to claim the Church is false.

It would be interesting to apply the standard to their own lives that they apply to the Church, as I imagine all of them would fail if the standard applied to them. In a hundred not a single one of them will be known, but the LDS Church will remain. As Sisyphus of old, the LDS Church will carry on. Positive movements remain, detractors are but dust after they diminish.

Scott Do you work for Otterson?

I noticed that you are the first poster on this thread, with a very strong endorsement of Mr Otterson's column.

If I were a PR man like Otterson, I'd want to enlist a friend or employee to put a positive first comment up. So I was just wondering if you have a connection to him?

Scott,

This has nothing to do with bigotry. This has everything to do with getting the truth out. I can tell you from years of experience in leadership in the mormon church that myriads of lives have been destroyed or severely damaged by this organization. All is not well in Zion. You can't have a whole organization built on a lie and not expect problems. The depression and self-hatred I have witnessed first hand in people because of the Church is truly horrifying. Christ's gospel is about uplifting people and bringing them to Christ. It is not about heaping guilt and shame on people in order to control them.

As far as the numbers, the Church is flat out misleading people about its demographics. I used to be a ward clerk and know the numbers game well. The dirty little secret everyone knows but won't talk about is that church activity is about 1/3 of the official numbers on the rolls. Over 75% of young men are lost to inactivity when they reach adulthood. In my old ward, the list of "Prospective Elders" rivaled the "single sisters." The church has about 4 million that attend church regularly and roughly about 2 million that pay tithing. Don't be fooled by this "We have over 12 million members" garbage. It is a PR fabrication.

Scott,

This has nothing to do with bigotry. This has everything to do with getting the truth out. I can tell you from years of experience in leadership in the mormon church that myriads of lives have been destroyed or severely damaged by this organization. All is not well in Zion. You can't have a whole organization built on a lie and not expect problems. The depression and self-hatred I have witnessed first hand in people because of the Church is truly horrifying. Christ's gospel is about uplifting people and bringing them to Christ. It is not about heaping guilt and shame on people in order to control them.

As far as the numbers, the Church is flat out misleading people about its demographics. I used to be a ward clerk and know the numbers game well. The dirty little secret everyone knows but won't talk about is that church activity is about 1/3 of the official numbers on the rolls. Over 75% of young men are lost to inactivity when they reach adulthood. In my old ward, the list of "Prospective Elders" rivaled the "single sisters." The church has about 4 million that attend church regularly and roughly about 2 million that pay tithing. Don't be fooled by this "We have over 12 million members" garbage. It is a PR fabrication.

Scott

Let's take the Book of Abraham for example.
"Just making statements" would be backed up by reading numerous accounts of the epiisode, which i trust you have done.

To say
"there is much evidence to cast doubt on Joseph Smith's claim that he translated the Book of Abraham with God's guidance" hardly qualifies as a polemic.

Official Church History makes many claims. It is an important truth activity to examine those claims based on evidence.

A group of peole who aren't able to think for themselves? I'd call it a cult.

The Mormon Church has some foundational beliefs that justify its self-description as the one true church, and the only path the the highest heaven. Most have historical underpinnings.

If those underpinnings are invalid, the foundational claims are most likely invalid, and the central organizing belief,
"the church is true"
changes to
"the church is NOT True".
I'm Heraclitus. I invented change.

That would leave Mormonism as a group of mostly very nice people who spend a lot of time together and have a group of stories they tell each other.

Which is just fine, unless you are a woman who wants equal rights, a gay who wants equal rights, or a mormon family member who doesn't want to be ostracized because of your questions about church history and prophecy.

Once again, I think for an active Mormon to accuse non mormons of bigotry is something one should be very careful about. with romney's campaign coming up, let's avod that issue.

Scott, that 12 million number gets bandied about with little critical thought behind it. The actual number of self-identifying members of the church is more like 4 to 5 million. Look at the census numbers in South American countries for how many people self-identify as LDS versus the church's count. Huge differences. Also, it can be enlightening to go back into the conference issues of the Ensign and add the number of convert and 8-year old baptisms to the previous year's total. Some how the church increases more than the number of baptisms. How does that happen? Also, nobody dies? Something fishy is going on in regard to manipulation of membership totals.

A completely different tack to take when mormons start talking about "12 million people can't be wrong" is to ask them if a billion Muslims can be wrong? Or 700 million Hindus? If you're a mormon, don't start an argument based on number of believers, because you can only win that argument in Utah County.

Just making statements, doesn't make it true. If the truth is so important to you, I am wondering why so much reliance on polemics?

As for attacking the messengers, I know that is on the list of talking points for the ex Mormon board, but I wasn't the one saying an entire group of people weren't able to think for themselves. I call that a clear case of bigotry. What do you call it???

The Truth Hurts...

Wes says.

As I read more and more about how what I was taught in the church is at great variance with the evidence, and stains credulity more and more,

I often find myself feeling physically ill.

Especially in my stomach.

I say to myself: "my goodness, I believed this for so long.."

Bob McCue describes a similar reaction. So yes, the truth hurts, literally.

Scott,

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a fraud by modern Egyptologists. The Book of Abraham is nothing more than common funeral documents, The Book of the Dead. No matter how many times you "bear testimony" of it will not make it true. Scott, the truth is painful, it is devastating, and it is life-changing. But the truth will set you free. Stop attacking the messengers of people bringing you facts and evaluate the evidence objectively. I know first hand how painful it is to learn the truth about the Mormon church. It hurts but you can recover from it.

Scott,

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a fraud by modern Egyptologists. The Book of Abraham is nothing more than common funeral documents, The Book of the Dead. No matter how many times you "bear testimony" of it will not make it true. Scott, the truth is painful, it is devastating, and it is life-changing. But the truth will set you free. Stop attacking the messengers of people bringing you facts and evaluate the evidence objectively. I know first hand how painful it is to learn the truth about the Mormon church. It hurts but you can recover from it.

Scott,

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a fraud by modern Egyptologists. The Book of Abraham is nothing more than common funeral documents, The Book of the Dead. No matter how many times you "bear testimony" of it will not make it true. Scott, the truth is painful, it is devastating, and it is life-changing. But the truth will set you free. Stop attacking the messengers of people bringing you facts and evaluate the evidence objectively. I know first hand how painful it is to learn the truth about the Mormon church. It hurts but you can recover from it.

Scott,

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a fraud by modern Egyptologists. The Book of Abraham is nothing more than common funeral documents, The Book of the Dead. No matter how many times you "bear testimony" of it will not make it true. Scott, the truth is painful, it is devastating, and it is life-changing. But the truth will set you free. Stop attacking the messengers of people bringing you facts and evaluate the evidence objectively. I know first hand how painful it is to learn the truth about the Mormon church. It hurts but you can recover from it.

Scott,

Take your head out of the sand! There is clear indisputable evidence that the Book of Abraham is a fraud. Modern Egyptologists that are experts in the field have shown conclusively that JS' fantasy translation of the papyrus is completely wrong. The documents he had had were common funeral documents, The Book of The Dead, not the Book of Abraham. It had nothing to do with Abraham. Scott, no matter how many times you repeat JS' lie, no matter how many times you "bear testminony" of the book of Abraham in sacrament, no matter how many times you keep telling yourself it is true, it will NOT make it true! The truth is a very painful thing Scott - believe me, I know first hand about this when it comes to the Mormon church. It is painful, it is devastating, it is life-changing; but it is the TRUTH. Scott, stop attacking the messengers of bad news and objectively evaluate the evidence. It is readily available for anyone interested in an honest study of the facts.

Dear Scott,

As I guess you know,
my reason for citing the 5 points
including
. All the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon is pretty shaky."

was MOT to assert the metaphysical certainty of their truth (though I and many others believe they ARE true)

but to illustrate the extent of freedom of thought in the Church.

Of course you and I and Harry Reid can THINK whatever we want.

When my brother, who is in Harry's ward, tells me that he and Harry had a back and forth discussion in testimony meeting about their doubts concerning the book of Abraham,

I will be more persueded by your Faith in Mormon Freedom of Expression.

Grant Palmer was dis-fellowshipped for telling what he believed was the true story of the book of Abraham in 2002, though Grant wanted to remain an active Mormon. He wrote "questions about such topics are discouraged because they create tension, are considered inappropriate or even heretical. This approach has isolated many of us from the rest of the world or from reality itself when we insist on things that are clearly untrue."

His "we" is "we mormons." (this is from Page 1 of his book).

Are you telling me I would NOT be discplined / dis fellowshipped/excommunicated if I made my five points, Luther like, in Testimony meeting. I will make them as respectfully as I can.

"Where is the Bigotry

It looks like Scott is accusing Heraclitus of "bigotry.""

Absolutely. Don’t you find in somewhat prejudicial and bigoted to claim that a group of 12 million people cannot think for itself? That they aren’t individuals? Don't tell Harry Reid and Mitt Romney.

And please forgive me for a few of the typos in my last post such as "propaganda" and "studies." I guess I was trying to think for myself and didn't realize how difficult it was.

"1. All the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon is pretty shaky."

Then I would say you were following the non-scholarly propoganda and not the scholarly studis that have been done in this area. You should check out the book "Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham." and ask yourself how Joseph Smith knew these things before modern scholars.

Joseph Fielding Smith and Homosexuality

i found a speculation on a pretty respectable web site that Joseph Fielding Smith may well have been gay.

Any of you have any more info on this.

I do not consider this a criticism of JFS, by the way. Or a slander. My best friend Socrates was gay.

the statement on the web site was made in the context of making the point that before 1960 the church was actually pretty tolerant of homosexuality, going back to Joseph Smith the first.

The church, as noted above, does say their position has never changed.

Mormons, Tolerance, Bigotry, and Homosexuality

the following is from the website of the
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

their goal: religious tolerance.
their survey group: all religions (not just Mormons)

and I quote:
The LDS church is currently very strongly opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. They maintain that their position has remained unchanged through their history.

They teach that a member cannot be excommunicated simply because they have a homosexual orientation, as long as they remain celibate. However, church policies are not always interpreted consistently; ex-members are occasionally seen on Usenets describing how they were excommunicated from the church because news of their sexual orientation became public, even though they have never been sexually active.

Mormons refer to homosexuals as being "same-sex attracted." Their current beliefs are similar to that of most other conservative Christian churches. They believe that:
bullet Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
bullet All homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, irrespective of the nature of any same-sex relationship.
bullet It is caused by dysfunctional parenting, typically by an overbearing mother and emotionally distant father
bullet It can be cured through reparative therapy, repentance, and prayer.

These beliefs are contradict statements of all but one professional mental health organizations, human sexuality researchers, gay and lesbian organizations and liberal religious faith groups. The quality of data on conversion rates for homosexuals is very poor. However, they seem to indicate that fewer than 1% of persons with a homosexual orientation can become heterosexual. However, a much larger percentage can decide to remain sexually inactive, while still retaining a homosexual orientation.

The church's teachings could conceivably be altered at any time, as the LDS church believes in continual revelation from God. In the past, they have been able to adapt to two major upheavals of their social policy. The first revelation occurred in 1890; it suspended, at least temporarily polygyny as the preferred lifestyle. They received a second revelation in 1978 which reversed their racist policies against African-Americans. However, Harold Brown, the church's official spokesman on homosexuality, said that no amount of press coverage or activism is going to influence God to change the rules about homosexuality. Brown said: "Being black is not a sin...Being immoral is." 7

horizontal rule

Where is the Bigotry

It looks like Scott is accusing Heraclitus of "bigotry."

The 5 points Heraclitus makes above don't look bigoted to me. They seem to relate to opinions on matters that have a large base of evidence.

They are also clearly critical of
**the church**
NOT
**church members** who are praised.

As far as bigotry, many in the US believe the Mormon Church is notably bigoted because of its historic and current treatment of
Blacks, Gays, and Women.

Leads me to think that, politically, I as a Mormon might avoid the use of the term "Bigoted."

TYPO in penultimate paragraph above, last sentence

Can any of you call the above "ignorant statements?" Does Truth have any relation to the behavior or the official church, and is the search for truth what the *Church* really encourages its members to engage in?

Scott
thanks for allowing me to think for myself as a mormon.

I am coming back to church for testimony meeting where i will tell my fellows of my free thoughts:

1. All the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon is pretty shaky.

2. If we can't trust Smith on these fundamental "revelations", I think we can't trust that "the Church is True." We are all good people, but so are buddhists and jews.

3. i think the expressed church attitude towards gays is very sad, and has resulted in much suffering and many suicides.

4. the fundamental "reward system" of the mormon church - if i follow the rules and get sealed in the temple, i will be with my family in the celestial kingdom, has significant problems.
It looks largely like a copy of Swedenborg's system rather than a revelation to Joseph Smith that I can stake my life on.
It is a system of moral reasoning and behavior based on extrinsic reward and punishment rather than internalized and personally achieved moral reasoning.

5. We skeptical of what the General Authorities tell you, just like you would be skeptical of the Pope. They often misrepresent, and they are dedicated to giving you only "faithful history" rather than actual history.

Can any of you call the above "ignorant statements?" Does Truth have any relation to the behavior or the official church, and is the search for truth what the truth really encourages its members to engage in?

How long do you think it would take me to be excommunicated if I said the 5 things above in testimony meeting and to my bishop?

Most of the posters here are fighting against a "straw man" version of Mormonism. Many unsupported allegations are made, when a little investigation shows evidence to the contrary.

It is quite disheartening to read the level of ignorance that is displayed here. It seems that the LDS Church can do nothing right with this group. First the Church is castigated because it does not follow science, then when it sends people to licensed counselors and psychologist for treatment, it is castigated again for the type of treatment those professionals gave.

And on a personal note to the most recent poster, Heraclitus, statements like "Mormonism forbids a person to think for herself," does reflect a level of bigotry that should give one pause for some serious self reflection.

All I can say is thank God the internment camps were closed in 1945.

Jayb

I fear, sadly, that the hate is more in you than it was in my "speech."

There are serious human questions of moral development, addressed by our greatest theologians like Tillich and Buber
and by very humane psychologists like
Maslow, and Kagan (see google listings on "moral development stages"_

Most mormons are very good and conscientious people, including many of my relatives, whom i have a love relationship with, no hate involved.

But, full moral development is more emotionally healthy than its opposite. Submitting to the authority of the church, or anything else, for belief and morals is not full moral development.

sadly.

I don't think I have ever seen so much bigotry and ignorance in one place. Hatespeech, the refuge of the ignorant, has found its home here.

Faith, Science, and Intrinsic Morality

There are a few high level human problems:

One of the foremost is how to be a good person.
A highly developed person in the moral sense.

The first principle of moral development is to reach the higher stages, the moral behavior must be
intrisically understood and motivated,
rather than extrinsically determined.

This entails the development of the following moral abilities.

1. The developed ability to do moral reasoning for oneself, rather than blindly following rules, rules that are always so general that they don't give guidance on the hard moral situations that real life people run into.

2. a healthy relationship to authority: first, trust no authority. their motivation is to preserve their power, not to empower you to be an autonomous human being.

Mormonism forbids a person to think for herself.
She must not question the church's version of its history, which is at odds with the evidence in hundreds of particulars.

She must side with church doctrine on questions of science and human nature, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the church.

The sad part is that this makes faithful mormons into intellectual and moral children throughout their lives, who are subject to the decisions of their leaders and forbidden to develop intellectual and moral autonomy and maturity.

No wonder the rate of depression in Utah is so high. I feel sad for all the good mormons who blindly adhere to the church's distortions of history and reality. It must induce, at least subconsciously, incredible cognitive dissonance: denying the contradictions, putting all the inevitable questions out of one's mind, comes at a large psychic cost.

John D.,

I respect your opinions regarding the LDS church. You talk of the great positive experiences you had. During the years I had my head buried in the sand, I convinced myself I was having a great experience myself. However, I can no longer be intellectually dishonest with myself and deny what is staring me in the face. The fact of the matter is Utah is a unique place in many ways. For example, Utah has the highest suicide rate in the nation. This is not by accident but can be traced back to the unattainable standards imposed on people and the corresponding guilt and shame when people fall short. In all my years in the Church, I have never witnessed so many unhappy, stressed out, and depressed people than I have see in the Mormon cult. It was not specific to location either. It was universal no matter were I lived. John, there is a reason for this. I have witnessed leaders do horrid things to people all in the name of Heavenly Father and "inspiration" they were receiving. Hinckley himself is not immune to this as I am sure you are aware that Hinckley's corruption and dishonesty resulted in the murders of 2 people in the 80s during the whole Salamander Letter debacle. Goosesteppers like Packer tell us the truth is dangerous and should be avoided. Gestapo shock troops like Oaks tells us that the means do justify the ends if it is to protect the church. Thus, I am sure you are familiar with the old mormon saying of "lying for the Lord." Pedophiles like JS can have sex with children because God told him too. He even had the nickname the "adulterous prophet" due to this insidious behavior. It is interesting that the modern Church holds up JS as an example for youth to follow but if the youth followed the example of JS, they would land themselves in a federal penitentiary for crimes such as statutory rape, bank fraud (issuing bogus money), kidnapping, bigamy, etc... If JS himself were alive today, he would have to register as a sex offender in many states. This is the man our youth should follow?

Follow the prophet....follow the prophet....don't go astray....I believe is how the primary song goes. Should we do this???? John, no sane, rationally thinking human being would follow such scoundrels.

How Can We Know if Anything is True?

You rang?

It's tough, isn't it.

So why don't we just give up human responsibility to make moral choices and see what Truth resonates with our own spirit.

That is a spiritually developed approach to truth, now isn't it?

(I am stealing a bit of Socratic Irony)

I, for one, will let God-on Hinckley tell me what is true. He is my prophet, seer and revelator.

I used to drink with Jim Jones.

To be honest I don`t really see why you are all arguing so much about the LDS church vs. science. Is it not obvious that there are areas of conflicts with science and there are areas without?
Of course the LDS church do not accept science that is in direct conflict with its basic spiritual teachings. ex that God exist, purpose of life, Jesus Christ, the scriptures etc. The question is very simple: at the end of the day if there are two options in absolute conflict- do you personally belive or value science more, or religion/faith more? It is a basic question for everyone.
The LDS church value spiritual teachings more because of its certainty that knowledge based on the wisdom of God is more sure than knowledge based on the wisdom of men. If all science in the world "proved" that Jesus was just an ordinary man, then the church and many others would reject that science. If science "proved" that Smith was a fraud, that the BoM is imagination or that practicing homosexuality is right, it would refuse that science. Because the church would believe it is a product of mans ever changing search for truth, not the truth.
The LDS church definately does value science in general, encourage education and encourage scientific research. And believe that God may enlighten people even in their professional scientific or everyday works. Science is not only benefitting mankind, true science (meaning truth) is a glimpse into the work of God. In that way true science (truth) and true religion (truth) will someday merge into one. Until that far distant day there will be some areas of conflict. Believers and non believers must accept and respect that.

Both critics and church members have almost always made up their mind before a discussion, and argue accordingly. It is easy to say that one belive and the other disbelieve. But it is wrong. They are both believers. One believes in what he understands as scientific or historical facts, the other one believes in what he understands as religious truth. The sceptic may argue that a fact is a fact, science is science, it`s got nothing to do with belief. Sorry, history has demonstrated the ever changing nature of science and history, and the interpretation of facts. When it all comes down to it we are all believers.

How can you know if anything is true? That my friends, that is the grand question of life. The essence of our debate.

P.S. Rough Stone Rolling may bring up a few "uncomfortable" facts about Joseph Smith, but it is firmly in the LDS apologist camp - it is not the least bit impartial. Read the intro and you'll see that the author acknowledges that it is a "faithful" history. I laughed in the first chapter, when Bushman's selective reading of Josiah Quincy's account is COMPLETEY counter to what the original account suggests.

See for yourself:

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880s-1890s/1883Quin.htm

Derrida, do you have a contract with the church that you have to respond to every single slightly negative comment here? Dude, give it a rest.

Has it ever occured to you that critics exress their opinions because the LDS church is just not true? Not every critic acts out of evil spite. Most do it as an attempt to correct the wrongs they see.

The purpose of the discussion has never been met, and perhaps the critics wanted it that way, namely, to say that religion can co-exist in harmony with science.

The critics instead chose to critisize the religion of the original speaker because of petty beefs they perceive regarding the veracity of statements about the religion. That sidetracked the entire discussion.

The critics the conduct of the man who helped found the faith in the nineteenth century, picking upon oddities of nineteenth century. If we examine the lives of our Founding Fathers, we find oddities, even we generally revere them as important leaders in our history. For those with a genuine interest in the man, Joseph Smith, I recommend Joseph Smith, A Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman, who compiles the most complete, to date, assessment of the man. It is done by a believer, but it is done academically, so it might be a bit tedious at times, but it does address even the criticisms without pulling punches.

As far the assessment of religion embracing science, it does not mean that a culture or religion bows down to every scientific whim or caprice, but it does mean that each respects each other. One should not expect religious cultures to fold to popular cultures as many of the criticism expect. Religions which do not lead, even in the face of criticism die, or have no meaning in the lives of adherents.

Scientific discovery is wonderful, enlightens the minds, as does all other academic discovery, but without edification of the spirit, our culture and indeed our humanity is impoverished. Great movements will always receive criticism, some out of collision of Hegelian dialectic, some out of jealousy, some out of ignorance, and some out a sense of turf battle. Yet the fact that something has moment and continues shows it has worth which outweighs its negatives. How many of us will be part of something, let alone be a founding part of something that will exist centuries after our death?

It is unfortunate that this discussion has ended with everyone in disagreement, and leaving the main topic aside: the greatness of God. I think God is great. I do think he is grander than most believers know. I do not believe that such a grand God would ever limit my progress, or anyone's progress for that matter, based on whether or not I had learned some silly temple rituals or chants. That is my personal belief. I attempted to demonstrate that although mainstream mormonism reveres Joseph Smith as second only to Jesus in the history of the earth, Joseph was only a man, with many frailties and weaknesses. Who the hell knows what he actually saw, or felt. There are so many contradictions in his theology, that I don't think he even knew what he believed at times. His teachings in astrophysics are comical to put it lightly. He tried to build a church that would consume the United States and the world. I'd say his narcissistic complex got the best of him, but he did build something. Was he second to Jesus in importance? Not in my opinion. Anyone who pawns himself off as THE prophet of the restoration then produces a mistranslation of ancient Egyptian writing, and calls it scripture, is more of a common man to me. Even Hugh B. Brown, one of the twelve, felt this way. While Joseph Smith redefined polygamy to include marrying other living men's wives, this defines him more as a carnal man than a spiritual one. I have to hand it to Joseph Smith though, his legacy lives on. There are still leaders just like him, trying to cover his tracks, trying to make excuses, attempting to buoy up faith in him, and trying to confuse the majority of the membership, and it seems to work now as it did then. But Joseph Smith's life and legacy is nothing when compared to God. Nothing. I hope all of the LDS church realizes that. Let me say it again: Joseph Smith is nothing when compared with God. God IS grander than even believers know. I agree.

the string is up

derrida is the last survivor

along with the cockroaches.

Mayan:

Thought you might appreciate my dark sense of humor.

"Lots of fiscal probity."

(ok, this really is it. i just had to tell you that this one found me laughing. that makes it all worth it. love it)

Mayan:

Lots of fiscal probity.

Nathan C:

Your point of view is coming more clear.

Let's examine for fun.

Derrida, you constantly dismiss the evidence cited by others, with nothing more than your own opinion as a reason. With that, you are the quintessential mormon who dismisses evidence (science) when it disagrees with your dogma, demonstrating very clearly that mormon doctrine/opinion/policies/whatever is not truly compatible with science. Science accepts new evidence even when it disagrees with preconceived notions.

What are you smoking?

Are you a scientist? It doesn't sound like so.

If new ideas and studies arise, peer review arises to determine of the study should be published with the accepted journals which prompts new studies to confirm, understand or reject the validity of the original, new study. If the results cannot be verified or repeated, then the original results are called into question. Part of it is related to turf war, part of it is related to funding and part of it is related to ego.

You do not know science well, if you take this naive approach, "Science embraces newfound concept, even controversial concepts and evidence with open arms." That sounds very naive and does not approximate reality.

Truth rules science.

Where did get that one? Ever heard of junk science? Courtroom science?

Cold Fusion?

Yes, truth rules the scientific world. Wherever humans exist there will be lots of error and truth is just an innocent bystander that gets run over now and then. Welcome to real world.

ya know, i sorta get that. i dont expect exxon to apologize for everything they do. however, if they claimed jesus christ was at the helm, i would expect few mistakes and lots of accountability.

i shall bid this one adieu as well.

derrida. well done. you represent well. i feel like we are all right back in general priesthood, high priests group, pec and the like when you speak.

for those outsiders reading this. they should know that at least i find derrida to be a great sample of what one gets in mormonism.

remember - it takes a helluva a source to disprove that people had their balls shocked on the byu campus. but it only takes a good feeling to prove that the celestial kingdom awaits the heterosexual mormons. the standard for believing real and living people, or accomodating all people, is significantly higher than the standard for accepting all the lunacy of joseph smiths life, and the selectivly lovely history mormons love. no wonder so many are leaving the church. no wonder.

let the pr spin begin anew.

isnt it about time for otterson to start another thread?

Boy, a bunch of testy people, who get personal when they don't like the results. At least the Mayan is trying.

Nathan C:

What's your point? Is that all you've ever taken away from Church?

There is so much more, especially intellectually and academically. To limit the field of knowledge to a few Sunday School lessons is very limiting.

Mayan:

One word: source? Another one as "credible" as your previous source?

It would not be surprising if any organization did not disclose every activity or that all millions are aware of everything.

And no, I don't expect any organization to apologize if it does something wrong. That's a little too touchy feely; so what good does it do? The best thing to do, if or when a mistake, is to learn from it and move on.

And what is this?

"all sorts of science going on here, electricity, burning, psychology, statistics. lots of it.

and from the church. no apology. nothing. just a claim to some cosmic embrace of cosmic science.

science experiments directed by the will of god, as interpreted by some uninspired men, thats what we have here"

Great manner of discourse.

Lots of sensationalistic, but little on verifiable, credible sources. Anybody can create a panic, just anybody can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but that doesn't make it right.

Hope for Mormonism

nathan

oh, don't worry. i have no hope for Mormonism in the institutional sense.

In the evolutionary cycle of belief systems, it is bound to die out like communism died out.

It's incredibly rigid system of thought control and truth denial can't possibly survive in a world that increasingly is dominated by and depends on information transfer, and where everything can be found out by anyone.

The prejudices and oppression that mormonism enforces, on gays and women and non-mormons, will inexorably come back to destroy them in the fulness of time, to quote a phrase.

i know that you and many like you are there for the family and the personal ties. i am sure it is tough in many ways. but for what it is worth, i applaud your clear vision and your difficult clinging to the truth.

Derrida said, "a Sunday School approach of just being nice to each is unusual to say the least."

I guess the Sermon on the Mount is no longer in the correlated church curriculum?

Derrida personifies the adage "Better the world think you a fool than to open you mouth and reveal all doubt." And with that, I bid adieu to this conversation.

James, don't get your hopes up. I am a very unusual mormon. There aren't many like me. Some Sundays I'm just as likely to go golfing, or ride my bike, as I am to be found warming a pew. I don't think the church leaders are particularly inspired, at least in the mormon sense. Maybe some of them were inspired in the same way that Motzart was, or Shakespeare, or Wordsworth, or Edison, or even Steve Jobs. But I don't think there is an open conduit from God to the Quorum of 12's weekly meetings, any more than any sincerely seeking person in world has access to that same kind of inspiration. I also don't think that inspiration has anything to do with the extremely narrow mormon definition of "worthiness". I am a member of the church mostly because all of my immediate and extended family are members. I don't think mormonism has an exclusive lock on anything except downtown SLC real estate. The irony is that even though you may see me as humane or tolerant, I find myself increasingly forced to the fringes of mormonism because I happen to think ALL of humanity deserves love and respect, and because I don't drink the spiked kool-aid of hagiographic mormon history. God help the church when (not if) members like myself and your brother are forced out because of our "radical" views.

here derrida, more stuff for you to ignore/deny.

all sorts of science going on here, electricity, burning, psychology, statistics. lots of it.

and from the church. no apology. nothing. just a claim to some cosmic embrace of cosmic science.

science experiments directed by the will of god, as interpreted by some uninspired men, thats what we have here.

===================
Ray: It was in my junior year at BYU. It [the class] was sort of like being an apprentice or learning how to treat patients. One of the things that we could do was to do the electro-shock therapy for those who wanted to change their sexuality. At the time of course, I knew that I was gay. I had experiences and everything. I had no desire myself to change my orientation but I thought it was interesting at the time that there were people that did. I was very closeted at the time even though I had a lover. We did the "therapy" as we called it in the basement of the Smith Family Living Center on the BYU campus.

Alot of times BYU security would catch people in compromising positions on campus. Those people would have the choice to either be kicked out of school and have their families notified about what they had done or they could go through this therapy. We had quite a few people who were going through it. There were others in the therapy who felt so much guilt for being the way they were or they had been promised that if they underwent the therapy they would be able to marry and have children and they would be turned. Of course they had to have the desire to change, and if the therapy failed which it always did, it was their fault for the failure since they didn't have enough desire.

Anyway, they would come in usually three times a week. I would be behind a glass one-way mirror, and they would be on the other side of it. They had their choice to look at pornographic magazines or watch porno videos. We would tape electrodes to their groin, thigh, chest and armpits. We had another machine that would monitor their breathing and heart rate. If there was a difference in their heart rate when looking at homosexual pornography, we would turn a dial which would send a current to shock them. If they were a new patient, we would use a very low current. From the reaction that I saw there were muscle spasms which looked very painful.

After that was over, we would switch the pornography over so that it was a man and a woman having sex, and we would play very soothing music in the background to try and get the mind to relate to that. For the people that had been doing the therapy longer we turned the voltage way up so that you could see burn marks on the skin and quite often they would also throw up during the therapy. This is speculation, but most of the students at BYU probably hadn't even seen pornography before [this experience].

After undergoing that kind of pain over a number of months, everyone said that they had completely changed. They kept records for as long as the people were at BYU. After they had graduated, there was no records kept to see what kind of success rate they had. The BYU statistics were wrong because the people were lying. They were desperate to get their degree and get out of the situation. They had been blackmailed into the situation in the first place.

We did have some people who became completely asexual after undergoing the therapy. But no, we never changed anyone from gay to straight.

I had experiences with Robert Card when he was the overseer at BYU. He was not my professor but he would come down to Provo, and I met him several times when he would oversee the results. I met him again in 1983 when he was doing electro-shock therapy on a lover of mine. At that time, I confronted him with what I knew and how it had not worked in the past. He had nothing to say. He simply denied the results and refused to show me any of his proof.

We had several people who committed suicide during the therapy. We had three different people who hung themselves in the Harris Fine Arts Center on BYU campus. In Mormon theology, you will be eternally punished for committing suicide. If you die as a homosexual, you will be punished all the worse. God will get you good if you don't follow his rules.

Source verification is important.

Mayan Elephant.

The "credible" publications in Las Vegas, to the extent any news source is credible in Las Vegas, are the Las Vegas Review Journal, the Las Vegas Sun, and Henderson Home News, and the Boulder City newspaper. The Bugle is not a credible source.

I am aware of the Ford McBride dissertation. That's the information that I had heard of.

I also know based on reading of literature, and "learned" easily through watching and reading A Clockwork Orange, that shock and aversive therapies have little if any useful applications. Anybody who experimented with those therapies later than the sixties or early seventies should have been fired.

The documentation about activity rates is inconsistent with most recognized data. Even the infamous Johnson and Masters study of 18-36 year old prisoners which created the "ten percent" mantra never recognized a incidence rate of the level reported. Studies within the German and Dutch armies indicate an incidence rate of one to two percent.

Nathan C:

Where the blazes do you imagine the "Church" has answers to all questions?

The Church has ordinances, and instruction that is useful. Within this world are a multitude of systems and complexities with which we must deal. But to adopt a Sunday School approach of just being nice to each is unusual to say the least. Theologians for many centuries and indeed millenia have been the repository of much of the world's learning, especially after the burning of the library at Alexandria. What knowledge of the antiquities would the world possess but for the Orthodox Churches and their ministry?

Your view of what religious traditions have conveyed to mankind throughout history ignores reality.

Nathan,

derrida is a good learner. perhaps he learned from bateman.

this quote suggests that the therapy MAY have stopped in the 80's.

" By 1980, the institute had spent almost $150,000 in church funds trying to produce an anti-Gay manuscript. According to Oaks, general authorities were getting "squeamish" over the project. Pressure on the institute became too great for Bergin, who resigned as chair. Soon the manuscript project was completely scrapped and the institute was disbanded.[38]

7th East Press homosexual cabal in 1982 - three part series.

1984 - Boy George albums banned on main BYU campus because he portrayed "transvestitism and homosexuality".[39]

1985-87 BYU experimented on rats - feminized/homosexualized them through prenatal stress. These findings were quashed by the church when it was discovered that homosexuality might have a biological component.[40]

Rebellious Gay students continued to be referred to off-campus doctors for sessions of electric shock therapy until as late as 1986.

A 1992 independent survey conducted on campus on sexuality at BYU found that some 15% of the male students and 12% of the female students had had a homosexual experience while at BYU.

That same year the BYU Counseling Center was up for reaccreditation by the American Psychological Association. All staff members at the Counseling Center were told during a staff meeting to destroy and/or falsify all records pertaining to homosexual clients, so that the Center could maintain its accreditation.

Merrill J. Bateman, current BYU President, e-mailed me the following:

"BYU provides counseling to students with same-sex attraction and does not use aversive therapies, torturous or otherwise. Shock therapy is not used at BYU. We have not been able to verify your assertion that electric shock therapy was being used as late as 1986, or that electric shock was ever used on gay and lesbian students at BYU."[41]

Even when confronted with the various documents from out of BYU's own archives, including Ford McBride's 1976 Phd dissertation at BYU, Merrill Bateman refused to recant his statement that electric shock therapy was never used at BYU on Queer students. "

Nathan C and Fresh Air

Nathan
Thanks for a wise and lovely post.

You may remember that I am an ex-mormon, but I love and respect my actively Mormon brother, and he is the same kind of humane person you are.

As an ex-mormon, I still realize that there are many many mormons like you, and that the church, like any entrenched institution, is an arena for struggle with the difficult issues of the day, like homosexuality, women's rights, etc.

In the spirit of the Post's site here, I think your attitude illustrates how dialog is *possible* between believers and non believers. We both believe in basic moral values. we both believe in the golden rule. we both want our children to grow up in a healthy world, a world that is relatively hospitable to them whether they are gay or straight, woman or man.

once again, my appreciation.

Derrida, you constantly dismiss the evidence cited by others, with nothing more than your own opinion as a reason. With that, you are the quintessential mormon who dismisses evidence (science) when it disagrees with your dogma, demonstrating very clearly that mormon doctrine/opinion/policies/whatever is not truly compatible with science. Science accepts new evidence even when it disagrees with preconceived notions. Truth rules science. Religious dogma accepts only that evidence that props up it's own fantastic claims, whether the so-called "evidence" is true or not. And it's rules for verifying evidence are based on a warm feeling in one's heart. Somehow I doubt that method is objective or rational.

Yes, I am a member of the church, but I wish the church administration and the general membership would stop trying to think that mormonism has the exclusive answers to life, the universe, and everything. Because we don't. I wish the church would spend more time and energy learning and living the teachings of a guy named Jesus, instead of following ridiculous political statements that are unscientific, and frankly, un-Christian, made by a bunch of out-of-touch octo- and nonagenarian white men who are mostly related to each other. The church spends too much time and energy venerating and practically deifying human beings like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Gordon Hinckley. True, JS did some amazing things in his short life, but he also had many collossal blunders. Same goes for Brigham Young, but double. Gordon Hinckley's claim to fame is that he got to spend billions of dollars building new temples, and now a $2 billion dollar shopping mall complex for downtown SLC. I wish the church would act more like a church and less like an authoritarian, elitist land trust.

Can't you accept that the role of religion should be to help teach us how to live the golden rule, and to stay out of all that other stuff? And the golden rule applies to everyone, not just those who look like us, act like us, have the same desires and orientations. EVERYONE deserves respect and love. If the LDS church has exclusive authority to speak for God, than I'm not sure I'd even want to go that kind of heaven.

I don't believe the 1995 episode, as the time period to which I refer was late sixties, maybe early seventies. Just because it's printed, doesn't make it so.

Are you stating relative to the discussion with Oaks that a parent should embrace a relationship that they do not like?

I recognize psychology is at play, and if a parent rejects a relationship, any relationship, that might drive the child away, but are you stating parents must accept everything a child does? I simply disagree.

Oaks would also describe a live-in girlfriend as a trap. I realize for most in our contemporary society that unmarried sexual relations are a given, but for somebody who reserves sex for matrimony it is a bigger deal than others can understand.

One might argue sociologically in light of prophylactic advances that the historical need for such reservations no longer exist, but culturally, the sex in marriage only may seem alien to most. Thus, I guess we agree to disagree.

James:

What is LDS "doctrine" on the subject pray tell?

There basically is none. There are policies regarding activity and sexual activity, but no "doctrine." Nice creating what doesn't exist.

Yes there practices concerning it, but doctrine no. Very little rises to the level of doctrine (i.e., baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances and sacrament), but perhaps you fail to make the semantical distinction for purposes of obfuscation.

The most recent observation on the issue is that cause is irrelevant but members' obligations in regards to sexual activity remain constant. There is no biological or social science on that issue. If you're waiting for the day when the bulk of Christin, Jewish and Muslim bodies encourage sexual relations outside the bonds of matrimony, then you will wait longer than tomorrow.

And yes we reside in this society, so we recognize a majority of society believes in sex without bonds or matrimony, but that's not a scientific issue, unless we involve sociology from an observational standpoint.

Again, you misstate the LDS position.

no worries james.

close your eyes james. here comes some filth.

derrida said, "This was not yesterday, or even ten years ago, but much further back."

i dont really know when it was, but this case much further back than 10 years, it was 11 or so. (derrida, watch spinal tap?)

This article was published on May 12,2000 by the Las Vegas Bugle. The author was Bill
Schafer, editor of the Las Vegas Bugle.

Author's note:
The full impact of my interview with Jayce Cox and Ron Lawrence really didn't hit me until I sat, alone in the newsroom in the wee small hours of the morning, transcribing the tape. Jayce underwent intense psychological torture in trying to be "cured" of his homosexuality. This torture was administered by people whom he trusted completely. The significance of going public with his story was summed up by Jayce:
The [Mormon] Church has power, and we're taught to be afraid of that. Maybe not told, but you don't ever want to speak out against the Church. You don't want to be labeled an Apostate, because our culture will condemn you and you will not be accepted. I know that for me even saying anything negative that has anything to do with the church, there will be serious repercussions for me.
But I'm not condemning the church, I'm not condemning the teachings, I'm condemning those people who, in the name of the church, did terrible things to me and to tons of other people. They deserve to be condemned. But it's not the church that I'm condemning. And you have to separate the church from the Mormon culture . People confuse that they're the same thing. They're not necessarily the same thing. There's the teachings. And then, over the hundred and fifty or sixty years that we've been in the west, there's this culture that's evolved that goes side by side with the church, but that's not the same thing. And I'm not condemning the church, but I have to condemn the cultural beliefs that homosexuality is a sin next to murder, and that it's ok to abandon your children if this is what they are."
Jayce still holds tightly to his Mormon beliefs and teachings. He says he still wants to be a good Mormon. "I'm still a Mormon, and I still believe, and they can't take that away from me. The faith is inside me, whether my name is on the roll -- it really doesn't matter anymore."

"I dreamed that I was in a fairly erotic situation with another man, and then midway through, I would just be electrocuted." Jayce Cox says he doesn't have the dream on a weekly basis any more, and he's relieved. Now it's just every couple of months that he bolts up, startled and shaking, in the middle of the night. He attributes this recurring dream to the aversion therapy administered at Brigham Young University.
Jayce tells his story:
It's 1995. He is sitting in an office on the campus of BYU, where his counselor has attached electrodes to his hands, arms, torso and genitals. His Mormon Bishop gave him a referral to the counselor. Jayce is shown pornographic images of men having sexual encounters. Then, ZAP! His body tingles, then aches from the electrical shock administered by his trusted counselor. He is scheduled for twice-weekly sessions for four months. "Toward the end of the program I could press a button and it would stop the shock and then a picture of a woman would come on."
But Jayce is 19 years old and he willingly goes back for more. He gives them his college savings -- $9,000 -- for the treatments which are promised to cure his homosexuality.

derrida,

the implication that all hetero couples are going to have sex in their parents home, indiscretely or otherwise, is just silly. and that was not the message from oaks. perhaps that was the question posed by otterson, but here is the reference from oaks.

from oaks"I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”"

more from oaks, this time calling the gay an adversary, and having sympathy for parents, because, after all, its the church way or the highway.

"PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is rejection of a child to some degree the natural reaction of some parents whenever their children fall short of expectations? Is it sometimes easier to ‘close the window’ on an issue than deal with it?

ELDER OAKS: We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all circumstances.

We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.
"

loving children is a trap. its pretty clear why, because they are gay, and you shouldnt be trapped into loving them.

again, derrida. you got it all messed up, and here i was starting to sorta enjoy your stuff.

in summary, byu shocked people long after others stopped, and even wise and knowledgable derrida didnt know that. no apology necessary by the church or byu on that one, it was science's fault. how convenient.

and, oaks thinks parents that love gay kids are being trapped, and that gay children shouldnt be dealt with in a public situation. what a nice guy.

Mayan Elephant

Let me gratefully thank you for your understanding, and for your advocacy of humane treatment for Gay people.

There are plenty of Unitarian and Episcopal and jewish parents I know who have gay children, who are proud of their children, who are as proud to be seen in public with them as with their straight children, and who do not prescribe shock therapy or other deprogramming practices,

who realize that the characterization of homosexuality as a *sin* is a medieval practice,

who realize that using the term "the homosexual lifestyle" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon,

and who believe that ostracising and humiliating persons because of their sexual orientation is...I can't limit it to one word, so I will say...unspeakable.

Once again, the Mormon Church isn't much worse than the Catholic Church in their practices on this issue. Not much praise however.

Also, back to Otterson, this is a case where the most advanced biological and social science on homosexuality conflicts with Mormon doctrine, and the Mormons would not change their doctrine to conform to new scientific findings even if the facts were crystal clear.

Truth vs. Doctrine. Doctrine wins.

Mayan Elephant:

Nice appellation.

I for one do not know the full details, only scant reports of what occurred. Unless you were one of those affected I doubt you know them either. Do you know how many were affected? I don't. Do you know the therapists involved didn't apologize? Were other therapists considering the same thing during that era? This was not yesterday, or even ten years ago, but much further back.

Where is the official statement when the LDS Church blamed it on the patients? I doubt there is such a thing. You're now becoming emotional in a discussion, or at least the semantics are emotive. What's that about?

Basically, neither of us know all of the facts because we weren't involved. So you're going off half-cocked, acting as if it was some grand episode, from what little I know, it occurred briefly and showed no results and was terminated. IIRC, and maybe not, I may have spoken once to a therapist who knew about it, but refrained because he considered it not worth the effort.

And there again you misstate. The Church has never told parents not to associate, but rather the only discussion arose out of whether to allow somebody with partner to stay in your home. That was the discussion,and no absolutes were spoken. And LDS have the same discussion whether to allow a son with his female lover to stay in the home who is not living the standards of the home. You're mischaracterizing the concerns of LDS. Does one allow persons not living a chaste life to practice the unchastity under one's domicile? Some persons take differing views, but that is a distortion from stating not to associate. I've seen down from Stake Presidents to all leaderships where people associate. So stops spewing nonsense. To knowledgeable outsiders it causes one to lose credibility.

And that's a question for any parent, at what point does behavior rise to the level that a parent doesn't allow it to occur within one's domicile? Are you stating that's an illegitimate inquiry? On the basis of positive law? On the basis of cultural expectations? On the basis of apriori knowledge? On what?

So, it's not an apologist argument but a truthful obersvation concerning distortions. It's easy to characterize any situation ridiculously if one leaves out pertinent details such time period, persons involved and resolution. Parameters matter.

derrida,

there is no distortion, here. the key difference here is very simple. byu did it in the name of god. and guess what, when it didnt work, it wasnt the fault of bad science, it was the fault of the poor shocked person that failed to "feel the spirit, or repent." gotta love that miracle of forgi... i mean, science.

and if it was nothing but a failed experiment, where is the church today? hiding behind a damn veil? where is the apology to the shocked folks? where is the pr director from the church to stand up for those people and seek some explanation for the victims? where? where derrida? tell me that? where the hell is he now?

and why is he compounding this problem by publishing direction from socalled prophets for parents to continue to seperate from these victims, not invite them into their homes, and not associate publicly?

derrida. the science experiment failed and the church blamed it on the victims. that is persecution.

you have added to the great excuses from mormons.

the most popular apologist excuse - "he was speaking as a man, not a prophet."

number two - "everyone knew that, and if you didnt, its your own fault."

number three, from derrida - "It's nice to take things out of context of time and place, but it's not accurate."

great. shocking someone back then was a godly service? if so derrida, go to god!

Mayan Elephant:

Why do you misstate or distort things?

Is shock therapy going on anywhere in the US? I don't think so. Was there a limited, very limited period, when a few psychologists/psychiatrists thought it might work? Yes. Did it? No.

Are you familiar with A Clockwork Orange? Many people had many experimental beliefs that were wrong in psychiatry and psychology. You can deride it now, because the results are known. Do you remember Harry Harlow and his maternal deprivation experiments?

It's nice to take things out of context of time and place, but it's not accurate.

Derrida:

nonsense. complete nonsense. as in BEE-ESS.

What about the shock therapy that took place in the wilkinson center on the campus of BYU? that is persecution. you know what i am talking about, show gay folks gay porn, and when they would get aroused, shock them.

what about oaks suggestions that parents not associate publicly with gays? you may call it inspiration, i call it something else.

what about the money spent at LDS social services to cure homosexuals so they could go to the celestial kingdom, and not be SEPERATED from their families?

your delirious d.

cut the semantics. sure, persecution and shock therapy can be different. whatever helps you derrida. best of luck with that one. if your base level standard for persecution is stalin and nazi efforts, god bless us, wherever she may be.

James:

You do not know my views, as I have not expressed them here. There are many views on the issue. You can go to ReligiousTolerance.org, a Canadian site that does a good job of summarizing differing viewpoints, many of which you may find acceptbable.

The origins, from scientists, generally focus upon genes, although two scientist theorize it could be bacterially related even though no studies have been conducted to confirm or to reject the thesis. Many others believe it is a combination of factors.

So for you to opine what my opinion may hold is assinine. I do believe how religions came to reject it historically may be tied to the "fitness factor", but that doesn't necessarily explain my position on its origin.

Whether your exercise above is true, I have no way of verifying it. And I don't really care. Why a person would get up in testimony meeting to make such a personal declaration is beyond me. Testimonials are abused and misused constantly. They should be less personal and more specific to external matters.

I'm not certain what you mean by "effect" of homosexuality. That's an odd concept and is not intellectually explanatory.

The LDS Church does not persecute gays, but does discourage gay sex, or any extramarital sex. "Persecution" is a very loaded terminology and brings to image, Nazis hunting down Jews and throwing them into concentration camps, or Stalin's dispossession of large ethnic groups. It is a semantic abuse to take something as differing church organizational decisions regarding sexual orientation and to cast it within the physical incarceration and ultimately extermination of ethnic groups. It also does a disservice for those persons so exterminated. "Persecution" is a term one might suppose that is easily thrown around but rarely evident.

I don't see any forseeable change in the near future on that issue. However, any time a change that allows orgies or whatever a person feels is right to occur, I'm certain there will be plenty of sympathizers within and without the ranks. And some would be appalled.

Mormons and Homosexuality

i got up in Testimony meeting and said
I am a Gay Person, and I believe the Church is true.

U was called in to the Bishop's office and told that I was committing a sin. I was strongly advised to go to the church therapy sessions to "cure me" of my possession by this sin.

I was told that if i did not disavow my gayness and open talk about it, I would be excommunicated.

We may call this persecution, or we may call it deprogramming, or make up our own word.

The church is not accepting of Homosexuality.
One can think that is fine.

Derrida: with all due respect, your views on the origins and effects of homosexuality, and whether it is scripturally prohibited or not, are strictly your own views. Many many people, who are experts in this area, have very different opinions than you hold.

Mayan Elephant:

I am not a government type, but rather a renegade, an entrepreneur, who doesn't respect PC efforts to force organizations do other's bidding.

As an observer, it is easy to note that organizations bend to the will of the general populace. On any given issue, one could favor or disfavor the result. It just bothers me as a general tendency.

It reminds me of the Japanese axiom, "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down."

That is what happens in societies, even though ours is the most individualistic of all socieities anthropologically speaking.

Nice use of loaded terminology. "Nice, polite or just the plain right thing to do." None of those concepts are inate, but rather culturally defined.

Derrida said, "I suppose the more interesting question is whether politics will cause religious organization to modify moral position to define for their organizations the activity as acceptable."

its a damn shame that a religious organization may bend or modify a declared/dictated moral position for political purposes, and i would suggest for capitalistic purposes as well, but they are slow to modify out of respect for individuals.

i think you might be right on this one derrida. the church may change if politics (and money) force the issue, but dont expect a change from the leaders because its nice, polite, moral or just the plain right thing to do.

"Persecution", wow James, talk about loaded terminology that intends to incite rather than to invite discussion.

Most religions, not modernistic, but those of ancient origins, those of the "book", eschew the activity, probably due to what Ewald/Cochran deem its higher than 1% "fitness cost". As you are aware, a fitness cost of higher than 1% means than a trait that discourages the production of children should be eliminated within one hundred generations, if it were genetic. http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v043/43.3cochran.html

These nomadic or agrarian religions may have instinctively rejected activities that reduced the probability of procreating due to the need of a constant influx of new labor and support for a labor based society. As a result, the religion which serves a basis to coalesce society would address these needs, including those affecting its economy.

Obviously, there will be strains of Christianity that will deviate from the norms of its theological base, but for the core of its theological foundations, homosexual activity is unacceptable. Those who favor changes simply rely upon the conclusion that it is entirely genetic, hence, anything which is genetic must be sociologically acceptable and religiously acceptable.

But that's besides the point, the general tenets of most sects of Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not accept the activity as permissible sexual activity. Will there be isolated acceptance?

I suppose the more interesting question is whether politics will cause religious organization to modify moral position to define for their organizations the activity as acceptable. It may be a question of time, or of region. There really is no evidence that politics is rendering any change relative to Islamic nations, or even Israel for that matter. However, as Christianity wanes in the US and Europe will the gradual acceptance of the activity represent the elimination of Christianity per se, or will some adapt.

Correction on Gay/Christian NOTE

sorry
the comment i was responding to was in a post signed by DV, not Derrida.

This was the comment:
"I could be proven wrong, but I don't ever see Christian based religions ever promoting gay lifestyles of any type, notwithstanding the cause. Cause doesn't dictate purpose."

Derrida did post a couple of times under the moniker of DV, so it MAY have actually been Derrida.

Gays and Christianity

Derrida says he can't imagine any Christian Church embracing homosexuality.

A combination of imagination and looking at the evidence will show a significant and growing number. The Episcopal Divinity School here in Cambridge is in the vanguard of Gay em bracement (not just "tolerance"). Unitarians, needless to say. Many other churches that I know in this area, and growing around the country.

In my opinion, the persecution of gays in the Mormon (and Catholic, and other..) church is unconsciounable, though Mormons are by no means alone in this.

Espen

Nice thoughts. I think i agree with virtually every word you have said. in every church there is a split between the wonderful members and the good/bad actions of the leaders - look at the Catholic Church and their cover up of child abuse.

any way, very humanely put.

Thank you John D for your thoughtful last words.

Just a thought. I am a lifelong member of the church in scandinavia. I know that none of us are perfect. It might be that sometimes we are too qiuck to defend church culture, not realizing that though the basic doctrine and authority is correct, ws sure have a long way to go. We sometimes feel that because of our belief that this is the Lord`s church, everything about it has to be perfect all the time. Every word uttered from its leaders must be pure revelation, all our meetings must be spiritual manifestations and all ist members must reach spiritual hights daily. Nothing wrong can be admitted. I am afraid this culture may sometimes increase antagonism. Let us admit our shortcomings.

Having said this, knowing it firsthand, this is a church of so much genuine love, of genuine faith, of spiritual power, of concern and service to others. It lifts, strengthens and catalyze our lives. We find great comfort in its teachings and in our personal testimonies. We feel enriched by serving in the temples, by trying to practice christian principles.

The church I have known my hole life is not what some others are trying to tell us. It is simply not. I feel privileged to know this.

Thank you.

For my final post I would like to add my experience to the myriad of experiences posted here.

My thinking has never been repressed during all my years in the church. I have not experienced this mind control that people keep insinuating occurs on a grand scale—quite the opposite.

I will give one example:

During a temple recommend interview I was asked by a member of the stake presidency the Temple recommend question regarding my views on the Prophets and Apostles of the church.

I answered that I do not take their words lightly. I ponder them, I pray about them. I follow those which I believe come from the Lord, but I don’t think these men are infallible. I actually dispute some things they have said past and present, and I will often express this disagreement in conversation with other church members. But I respect them and have great faith that they have the Keys of the Kingdom and will lead me to Eternal Salvation.

He said to me: “Keep questioning. The Gospel is much grander than is apparent by the simple scaffolding that is presented to a general audience. Keep questioning, that is my only counsel to you.” Then he signed my recommend...the temple is one of my favorite places to ask questions.

Your experience is different than mine, and I respect that. From my understanding of cognitive science, human beings are designed to generalize from their experience (an evolutionarily adaptive cognitive mechanism). That is why people are so prone to racism; we have a tendency to essentialize entire populations of people based on here say and our limited experience (I'm not comparing you to a racist, Wes). I think LDS often wrongly essentialize ex-Mormons also.

This essentialization biases our interpretation of facts, motives and behavior. I respect that your experience likely causes you to have a negative bias towards anything you hear about the LDS church.

My overwhelmingly positive experience in the church results primarily in positive biases. Therefore I interpret much of the same data you see in a more positive light.

I am sure reality is somewhere in the middle.

Wes, I think your posts are mischaracterizations, but I do not think they are intentionally dishonest (largely resulting from your cognitive biases rather than conscious volition).

If Otterson’s posts are mischaracterizations, I think that largely reflects his bias, not his intent to deceive (I may give the same excuse to myself; isn't discussion largely about the exchange of subjectivities anyways?).

He has presented a perspective that I, a practicing Latter Day Saint, recognize as representative of the Mormon worldview.

By the way, I am not a social or cultural Mormon.

I have great faith in the truth claims of the church. That does not make me a fundamentalist. The Mormon Doctrine I believe is very different than the doctrine in which you all disbelieve.

My Mormonism is expansive, flexible, wonderfully nuanced and profound--perfectly compatible and adaptable to any scientific finding (sticking, of course, to my former definition of "compatible with science").

In the LDS community I have learned to trust that God is there, that he answers the questions I pose to him in prayer, and that he loves me.

I can say with Nephi:

"I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17).

It is my hope in Christ that some day with His help I will know the meaning of all things!

Wes, you have attempted to engage me many times, so I think I owe an answer to your charge that Joseph was a pedophile.

I learned of Joseph's sealing to Helen Mar Kimball while reading Todd Compton's in-depth biographies of Joseph's plural wives.

A few corrections:

1st.

Joseph did not approach Helen Mar Kimball personally, he approached her parents and received permission from them for the sealing.

2nd.

There is no evidence sexual relations were involved in this marriage.

Bushman pointed out that forging kin relations was a large dimension of and motivation for Joseph's polygny. Creating an Eternal kin link to Heber C. Kimball was likely the motivation for Joseph's sealing to Heber's daughter.

Some have concluded from UCLA historian Todd Compton's work that Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was a sexual relationship. The Tanners in particular make this charge.

In response to them, Compton has said,

"The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html

Something else he says in this response is relevant to the discussion:

"Mormon history is filled with wonderful people who have performed authentically Christlike actions. There are many stories of heroism and sacrifice. While some church leaders have been authoritarian and controlling, others have been warm and inclusive. Anyone who continually hammers on only the negative is guilty of censorship and cover-up, just as is the person who censors out the negative. Both write unrealistic and unbelievable history. Furthermore, the person who includes only the negative can be guilty of sensationalism and the low moral atmosphere of yellow journalism."

Reyjo:

It depends upon how you define diversity. You see diversity solely in terms of opposition, or public opposition; I see it as something else. Diversity means: within the chambers of councils, persons express and explore differing viewpoints, but when voices are expressed, a sanitized, seemingly unified voice is expressed. In the councils and within the halls of academia, differing opinions are expressed, but once a voice is determined, rightly or wrongly, people support it until a change is made.

You seek diversity in a public fora. Given that I, in the business world, am accustomed to private discussions within leading councils which do not become public, I see how a diversity is tolerated and indeed encouraged within brainstorming. It's more a question of style than substance.

DV:

Are Holland and Oaks hardliners or simply doing their jobs?

Does one have to be progressive on all issues, to be progressive? In reality, aren't most persons eclectic, regressive on some issues, progressive on others and middle of the road on others, and we label them based on their most pronounced tendencies. For example, Packer is seen as a hardliner on many issues, such as his view of academia. However, in terms of certain administrative matters is known to be quite progressive.

Why are there litmus tests?

I could be proven wrong, but I don't ever see Christian based religions ever promoting gay lifestyles of any type, notwithstanding the cause. Cause doesn't dictate purpose.

The complexity of the human dilemma is indeed an intriguing one, but it is far from absolute. The only absolute scientific truth of which I am certain is that there are no absolute scientific truths. Everything is a partial differential which follow a pattern given certain purposes and parameters. It is usually the nonscientist that speaks of science in terms of absolutes.

Religion has very few absolutes as well.

Reyjo

What does "prophet, seer and revelator" mean.?

Does that mean that the President of the church is a prophet who reveals revelations from God when he or she makes official church policy statements?

I would hate to see this break down into a philosophical discussion advancing the merits of Hegelian philosophy, although arguably Marxism was influenced. For what its worth, I think the church could play the thesis-antithesis game forever without ever determining any absolutes. That is the troubling issue, that science seems to be able to determine absolutes through the scientific method, yet the church many times rejects the findings of scientists.

Monson, Oaks, and Holland appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing. Oaks has consistently taken a hardline stance on many issues, most recently homosexuality. Monson's turn at the helm should be interesting because his moderate approach could have a chilling effect on Bednar and Packer's hypersensitivity to form and outward appearance. I don't anticipate another September Six for quite a while.

Derrida,

that is an excellent point. i agree completely, without reservation at all, that byu is at liberty to dismiss nielson. that is not the question. he chose to work there on their terms, he then failed to abide by those terms, so he is a goner.

byu makes the money, pays the salary, and chooses who to pay and who to keep etc. and the consumers are free to choose to participate where that is the condition of employment for professors, or leave. no biggie. its not a democracy. they are completely in the right to let the guy go.

but, again, that is not the point here. not one damn bit. stop with the silliness.

the point is - diversity is not welcome in that institution. the church didnt leave reid alone because what he did was right, great or whatever. they did so because it would have been a pr disaster of the highest order to respond to reid.

i am not implying that there are not diverse opinions in existence (see DV), i am simply saying that diversity is not welcome by the institution, meaning the leaders. it is discouraged. to claim otherwise is a farce. perhaps you have a contemporary example of someone within the highest ranks sympathizing with the dismissed professor. i doubt it. how do you think DV would be received in his local congregation if he were to say, in response to a LETTER READ TO EVERY CONGREGATION IN THE USA to express support for the marriage amendment, that he, DV, thought it was irresponsible and wrong? sure, they would let him show up on sunday. but, it would not be without consequence, including, having a private interview with his bishop and having to respond to the question, "do you sustain gordon hinckley as a prophet, seer and revelator, etc."

James:

You not getting is the first truth posted by you.

Okay, okay, okay already. . .

I was wrong.

I take back everything I said.

Mormonism is a sham, and I admit it.

Leave me alone, all of you, just let me be...

Does ANYone here think derrida makes ANY sense?

I got an A in logic at a first class college.

I can't follow a single logical leap he makes.

Can any of you?

DV:

Okay so I've misread you.

However, I just don't agree with your interpretation of Packer, because to read Packer and Bednar as you do, you must ignore Monson, Oaks, Holland and others. I agree there is some concern about how intellectuals are viewed so skeptically by those of the last generation.

In this polemic, I will not play the authority card as you have done. It's not the approprate venue.

Needless to say, I believe organizations experience growing pains and we will see the Hegelian dialectic in full force amongst the Church. The dynamics will be forceful; we will see contraction and expansion, loosening of the reigns and tightening, due to variances in the traditions and inspirations of leaders. Remember the fears concerning Benson? I don't believe those fears were realized.

I disagree with your characterization of Nielson, as he simply spat in the eyes of his employer, a stupid trick no matter what. The policies concerning archives and dissemination of information will hopefully be resolved over time, but it won't change through public criticisms. If you understand as you claim to, that is not how it works within. The push must come from within, not from without.

Reyjo:

If you define diversity only by public attacks against the LDS Church, then no, that's NOT BYU's purpose. Fortunately, lexicographers are more generous in their definitions of the concept. It was not his desire for an alternative resolution, but his desire to critisize his employer that caused to leave. It's a big administrative difference. Senator Reid, the lead Democrat, took a position against the expressed viewpoint of the LDS Church and no biggie, but he (a) he wasn't a BYU employee trumpeting his BYU status, and (b) he didn't critisize his employer. You fail to make that distinction, but it IS the real distinction in this case.

Are you saying that Nielsen was a giant in the field? No, not midgley. You won't know me, as I'm but one of many. We are borg. Humor intended.

Thank God DV is DV

I really wondered if you had gone insane, DV, after some very smart and lucid posts, when I read those that Derrida posted under your name. I thought i had gone crazy. Whew!!!

As an ex mormon i want to sincerely and deeply compliment you on your sanity and open mindedness that you dispay, and as a continuing member of the church.

I know plenty of people here in Massachusetts who believe in Catholic christianity but are scandalized by what the church did to cover up their sexual abuse problems, etc.

You clearly hold to the best values of the church, and I know there are some wonderful values.

Distortion of history and covering up human failings are not among them, as you apparently agree.

So, reverting to my old mormon rhetoric, i truly do admire your spirit. It is great to see a humane and compassionate believer who is not a hater like some others.

It is people like you who make dialog between believers and non believers possible.

D:

eh voila. and the message is very clear - take your diversity elsewhere, as diversity undermines the institution. i knew we would find common ground on this.

ironically, the prophet asked all the members to campaign on behalf of this project. and many proudly did just that. nothing like squashing other people in the name of god, especially if the prophet says its a good idea.

hey, at least nielson didnt say humans had been around a long time or anything like that.

i am now wondering if you are midgley, given your skill at dismissing nielson as a zero. midgley is the best at that stuff.

Equality:

I missed this paragraph. I have a hint where you're headed but I'm not certain.

"after all, what kind of place is the home where a parent holds similar opinions of a child that may not choose to continue on this mormon path? or, what of the child that chooses to pursue a scientific endeavor inconsistent with the church? including social sciences?"

You make so many quantum leaps in logic, you lost me.

Are you saying that persons of a certain faith cannot love their children even if they leave the faith? Perhaps some cannot, but many have that experience and do love their children. Does it mean they will agree with the child's decisions? Of course, but what parent ever agrees with all of a child's life decisions? None that I know. Once again, you set up a strawman and knock it down all at once.

Ask an orthodox Jew if he hopes his children marry outside the faith, or even start attending a Reform Synagogue.

So lots of children pursue things their parents wish they do not. I don't see your point and it does not follow from your recitation. The horrible "dangers" feared by you do not exist in the real world. Maybe in Plato's cave, but not here.

Reyjo:

The reference to the September Six was in response to DV's reference to Quinn, a member of the SS, not in response to your link. I had a separate post responding to you.

BYU will always have a more restrictive approach to scholarship completely critical of its sponsoring institution. If I were king of the mojo, I'd make it less restrictive, but nobody asks me now. Some day, we'll see.

I remember the Nielsen case. He was a low level philosophy professor of no significant moment. Whether any at BYU in philosophy are of any particular moment is open for debate, but the ones who at least in the focus of Heidegger, Husserl, Derrida and Gadamer, they are at least articulate. He was nothing special.

However, what he did, was politically campaign against his sponsoring institution and publicly critisized his institution. I am aware of politics that might allow those events to transpire at other institutions (though I dare say an untenured professor any where might not receive tenure if he did so), and so be it. However, BYU, unlike most institutions does NOT have tenure. I have no problem with a guy who doesn't like the sponsoring institution not working its funded and sponsored institution. BYU, unlike many institution, is largely funded by its sponsoring institution. No sponsoring institution wants to see its subsidiaries used as platforms for undermining it. Simple organizational behavioral planning and objectives. I recognize the tendencies of academic politics on this matter, but I don't fully agree with PC approach necessarily.

Equality:

At least we're focusing upon issues rather other stuff.

On evolution: although neutral, the majority position as I have researched it favors evolution of the species. Yes there is some fundamentalist rhetoric, but to focus upon that rhetoric means one ignores comments from James Talmage and David O. McKay to the contrary.

On the issue of geneticists, if you believe the genetic studies are anywhere in the neighborhood of close to conclusive, then you're ignoring reality. Just one reference. Iceland had its entire, or at least most of its entire gene pooled identified, but then used the Cohen type gene pool testing and determined that about half of the living persons would not exist under that standard. Does the current status of gene marking should a preponderance of progenitors to be of Semitic origins? No. So? I agree the intro may be misleading based on current understanding. But then again, since the 70s I never conceived any concept other than a limited geography concept of the BoM peoples. Just extrapolating on the numbers of persons transported, no other determination made sense.

The problem arises when nonscientists read too much into ancient texts and try to extrapolate stuff that isn't there. The notion is, and has always been for me anyways, has science discovered the genetic ancestry of all peoples who have ever lived on the American continents? I doubt, even you, would make a preposterous statement like that. If so, you have even less understanding of current progress in genetyping than I do.

Derrida,

who said anything about the september six? that link was about a guy that was run out of byu only a few months ago. he had nothing to do with the six you reference.

his case stands as a real, deliberate, meaningful effort to rid the institution of diversity. and it was in an academic environment that his diversity was at issue.

derrida, you got all the buzz and it sounds real cute. but you are damn wrong about a key point here - those that have been in the trenches of your church, and have gotten out, still know and remember the details and recall the experience very well.

your blanket judgment of those that left is comical at best. to some degree, it reflects the danger of continuing in such an institution. after all, what kind of place is the home where a parent holds similar opinions of a child that may not choose to continue on this mormon path? or, what of the child that chooses to pursue a scientific endeavor inconsistent with the church? including social sciences?

keep it up derrida. i like you. you tell it like it is from the inside. its refreshing. you present very well the sort of twisting and turning it takes to stay in the church. good on ya.

Derrida said:

"The framework of the whole debate was well summed up by John D, namely, whether LDS doctrine embraces science, not whether it is an apt tool for scientific investigation."

Yes, Derrida, and it's the point you have never engaged straight on. Discourse with you reminds me of that Monty Python sketch where John Cleese goes into a pet shop to return his parrot. The shopkeeper keeps trying to tell Cleese that the parrot is dead. "No 't isn't" Cleese replies. Can you do silly walks, too, Derrida?

Proposition: LDS doctrine embraces science.

My position: Only to the extent that science does not dispute or refute LDS doctrine.

Your position: Not clear.

If LDS doctrine embraced science, the "official" church position on evolution would not be neutral but would be supportive of evolution (and none of this namby-pamby in between stuff--either man evolved or he didn't. Science says he did; Mormonism says he didn't.) If LDS doctrine embraced science, the church would not continue to insist that the "Lamanites" of the Book of Mormon are the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians. And so on. Now, I know the mopologist response is that LDS doctrine on these points is supported by some individual scientists. But I'm afraid that really doesnn't cut it. That you might find an LDS geneticist employed by the Church to say that the church's doctrinal stand is still tenable, the consensus of the scientific community not directly connected to the church (and no, I am no talking about "disaffected" scientists) is that the notion of Middle Eastern Semitic ancestry from 2600-4500 years ago is absolutely preposterous.

These are scientifically testable claims that can be proven or disproven with high degrees of certainty. We're not talking about science being applied to theological claims for which no proof can be obtained (such as the existence of God or the immortality of the soul). But where LDS doctrine makes specific testable claims about the natural observable world around us, science can and does and has spoken to these issues--and LDS doctrine has come up short.

Incidentally, there are religions that really DO embrace science as part of their doctrine. The Unitarian Universalists for one.

Derrida,

It seems that you are very proud of your position, but we must beware of pride, remember? You presume to speak for the Quorum of the Twelve. Maybe you are a general authority. Maybe you are an apologist. I don't know. Without presenting some credentials, you are just another computer hack to me.

I am not "on the outs" as you said. I am currently an instructor in the Priesthood, and I believe a very good one at that. Your assertion that I'm "not aware of current tendencies" once again only indicates your own viewpoints, which appear arrogant. Again, I really don't know if you speak from a position of authority or not. Its hard to judge on the internet.

I happen to read everything from Sunstone to the Ensign, the scriptures to RfM, NOM to MA&D, Daniel Peterson to Bednar. I'm dialed in to the latest LDS developments, are you? You don't appear to be. I've watched Grant Palmer flame out. I've listed to Jeffrey Nielsen give his piece. Have you? It sounds to me like you are an apologist with an axe to grind against apostates. Funny, I'm not an apostate though. I'm a rank-and-file member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which I believe to be in some stage of apostacy. I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of love and forgiveness, do you? I am not "on the outs" with God, my good friend, but a corrupt organization of deceivers and liars could be "on the outs" with God. Is the LDS church that organization? What do you think? I believe that it has become known for its deception and lies regarding its history. How is the current church organization much different than the churches Joseph Smith was warned against joining?

You said: "Packer is but one voice of many. It is your misrepresentation that his views express the many; his views do not." How would you know anything about that? I could come to a forum and express my opinion that an outspoken GA is not representative, because I say so. But "because I say so" is not a valid argument, unless I have been working in the leadership structure itself. You have presented no such credentials.

Packer's views, which have been the rudder for the church for so many years, along with Bednar's selection to the Quorum, represents the hardliners taking control of the church for many years to come. I don't think it is appropriate to speculate about Packer's views not representing the Quorum, without proof. His ultra-conservative approach to mormonism, and his outspoken criticism of honest intellectual inquiry, has stifled and honestly stripped most new intellectual growth from the current membership. There are only a few outspoken protectors of individual intellectual freedom within the power structure, but they are the ones whose views are squelched, not Packer.

I believe that you mischaracterize the voices with the LDS Church.

You said: "I do not hazard a full guess of what mainstream belief of growing Church of millions of members is. And a small part doesn't care, as what I believe matters to me and my clan." This is a very troublesome commment, and needs to be addressed. If you are a high leader in the church, which I doubt, then you would not be watching after the flock as Jesus commanded. Jesus felt that the protecting the one lost sheep was just as important as protecting the flock, yet you seem only concerned with your "clan." It is quite possible that your "clan" is out of touch with the reality of mormonism in the world. If that is the case, then your opinions really are derived from a myopic point of view, your own clan, and they don't really apply in the real world.

I know you believe that it is me who obfuscates that which you I believe, because perhaps I do not comprehend in spirit and that which I disdain. I would have to dispute your claim, since I received a strong spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the gospel while I was serving on my mission in Latin America many years ago. My witness was powerful and strong as many others have experienced, in and out of mormonism. I know what the spirit feels like, do you? I would challenge you to understand the true meaning of spiritual experiences, outside of the context of mormonism, to actually see that God loves all of his children, not just the mormon ones.

-DV

Reyjo:

So you fancy yourself a king, a king of what?

No, to avoid any pejoratives of Daniel Peterson, I am not he, and he is not Derrida, as I imagine his views are too orthodox for me. He is articulate but would be much more kind and diplomatic to former adherents.

Since I do this while telephoning others, I tend to be less kind, just because.

Again your post is so loaded with loaded terms and conclusions, why should anybody respond to that sort of drivel?

Former adherents never postulate any discussions in terms of academia. Now, I'm very aware of polemic scholarship, but at least some scholarship takes a wait see methodology, testing some new theory against known methodologies and contrasts. The problem with polemics is the tendency to assume too many facts and conclusions without testing the tester's conclusions.

For example, somebody posted, using the polemic device of "everybody know", "nobody would accept", whereas in academia, there would be a list of citations citing varying views on even the miniscule of points. Careful scholarship rarely makes any quantum leaps.

Nothing in discussion with former adherents ever approaches this level of discussions. You have reached your conclusions and can't fathom why everybody else doesn't reach your conclusion. You therefore fancy yourselves the cleverest of persons and that any dimwit who can't see the obvious is a dimwit who deserves hell.

With that mindset, some such as John D. or Dan P., are cautious and careful Some who don't mind calling BS caca do so.

The framework of the whole debate was well summed up by John D, namely, whether LDS doctrine embraces science, not whether it is an apt tool for scientific investigation. Many LDS claims will never be scientifically verifiable. That apparently bother some people.

Others find whether there will ever be found a Physics Grand Unification Theory bothersome and some do not.

I wondered when you would resort to the SLT's moniker of the September Six.

Avraham Gileadi is returned and several still remain interested and involved.

Quinn hasn't done much and indeed can barely feed himself.

As you are on the outs, you're not aware of current tendencies.

Packer is but one voice of many. It is your misrepresentation that his views express the many; his views do not. Administratively, he is important, but intellectuals do not look to him in certain matters as intellectuals disagree with the tenor of his approach.

Again you mischaracterize the voices with the LDS Church. So be it.

I do not hazard a full guess of what mainstream belief of growing Church of millions of members is. And a small part doesn't care, as what I believe matters to me and my clan.

Only in a prophet's administrative capacity is his authority prophetic, not necessarily infallible. So, no, I categorically disagree that most of the members with whom I associate believe anything but such; namely, they are fallible men with authority designed to promote salvation and exaltation amongst us on earth for the eternities. That is all.

It is you who obfuscates that which you don't believe, perhaps do not comprehend in spirit and that which you disdain. If I were to describe Islam, I would do so at a distance, knowing I could read the Surahs of the Qu'ran, read interpretation, become versed in Qu'ranic Arabic, but never be fully immersed spiritually as a Muslim, because I do NOT now live it.

Most apostates are wont to quote Packer for unlimited purposes when he spoke his mind to a limited group. A. Packer has his opinion, and I and others, our own. On matters of information dissemination, we do not fully agree. I appreciate the Arrington research and am glad the archives are open again, even to Quinn.

Although I would take a different approach, it is not my administrative decision. No matter which decision is made, some will critique it.

Most of the critics on such matters have little familiarity regarding organizational behavior, public relations, business structures and other management issues. Not all decisions will be met with happy faces, and some decisions will be erroneous. That doesn't prevent the organization from achieving its purposes.

Derdanielpetersonrida:

again, its great having you here. just great.

its great to have a few staunch defenders for otterson since he doesnt come on here to clarify his own words.

what a beautiful pattern of behavior we are seeing. church speaks, volunteers work and defend.

um, derrida, by diversity you were referring to what exactly? cuz, i aint seeing much diversity in the church. are you prophesying? sure there are a few stakes and wards that are exclusively brown or black, but i wouldnt call that a diverse institution by any means.

by diverse thought, do you mean there will be some that think that the living president goofed some stuff up, the old presidents of the church did some wacky stuff, but those members are still free to lead and influence the church, despite not supporting their leaders ideas? that kind of diversity?

i cant wait to see how the church reacts to some diverse thought, say, for example, speaking out against the recent suggestion to support a marriage amendment to the constitution.

oh wait.

nevermind.

you can read about that diversity right here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Nielsen

ah. such a lovely form of diversity in the lds church daniel. so nice.

speaking of strawman, the church sure knocked down that man and may have burned him too (metaphorically speaking) if it wasnt so inconvenient to deal with the public relations fallout. right mike?

Come on Derrida. Some members know that Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet. But honestly, is this the mainstream belief for the vast majority of the church membership? No, it isn't, and you know it. The current church leadership has rejected this teaching by implication, over and over again, and by their overt actions. Many voices in primaries worldwide are singing/ chanting "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way.." over and over every week, implicitly inculcating in their young minds that the prophet is indeed infallible. I can almost envision legions of Nazi Youth with hand outstretched, high stepping a march, as this song is sung. Its depresssing.

Most of the membership rely on the scripture "whether it be my voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same" from the D&C, indicating that a prophet's voice is the same as God's voice. If this is true, isn't the obvious message that since God is not fallible, neither are his leaders? Boyd K. Packer excommunicated the September Six for failing to follow his commandment regarding presenting the "faithful history" of the church, which Packer insisted only consists of "useful truths" and not ALL of the truth. Truths regarding the fallibility of leaders are to be avoided, according to Boyd K. Packer, in exchange for "faith-promoting" truths, which really only amounts to faulty reporting of historical data.

I grow weary of your games of obfuscation and deception. It is tedious talking with people like you online, who follow the church's lead in presenting a false view of contemporary mormonism. That may work with the majority of members, and quite a few gullible non-members, but it won't work with members such as myself who have been raised in the church for half a century at least, continue to attend church, and have seen these things firsthand.

Michael Quinn was correct when he pointed out that "a more serious problem of Mormon history is involved in the implications of Boyd K. Packer's demand that historians demonstrate that 'the hand of the Lord has been in every hour and every moment of the church from its beginning til now'...There are serious problems in the assertion or implication that this prophetic history of Mormonism requires 'the hand of the Lord' in every decision, statement, and action of the prophets..." I couldn't have said it better myself. You seem to agree with Quinn, a former mormon who was excommunicated for his beliefs. Apostle Packer obviously pretends to assert that historians omit any reference to human frailty in the studies of LDS leaders. Does this sound like Joseph's admonition about prophetic utterances? Hardly. Yet this is the contemporary leadership in the church.

You stated: "First, I do not believe, nor do most self-respecting LDS, a prophet is infallible. His personal opinions will arise out his personal training, conventional wisdom and contemporary thoughts. I can cite other examples of prophets making statements which are scientifically untrue." Apparently you are out of sync with Apostle Packer who has made it clear, by excommunicating six outspoken mormon intellectuals in the early 90s, that the church will punish those who question authority. Boyd Packer said "What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man." You had better be careful Derrida, in asserting that prophets make statements which are scientifically untrue, or you may share the same fate as the September Six and lose your membership in God's big club. You wouldn't want to do that, it may cost you your salvation, right?

-The real "DV"

Strawman alert:

Wes:

There's so much loaded terminology in that simple post. Wow.

John D,

How can there be any middle ground in the church? The attitude of the GAs is either your a fundamentalist or you're somehow not being faithful. John D, the church has many problems, if even half of them are true relating to fundamental doctrine, I submit to you it is not worth staying in an organization that has a pedophile as a founder. Imagine if you had a 14 year old daughter that a man took advantage of under the guise of being a prophet and told her an angel with a flaming sword was standing next to him ready to cut him down if he did not have sex with her. It is despicable. Staying in a vicious organization founded on a lie for cultural or social reasons is not a good reason to stay at all.

John D:

And that dear friend is exactly what the polemicists have endeavored to do. You set up a strawman and knock it down.

As the LDS faith matures it will grow into a more diverse thought, with diversity within its ranks as well as diversity of applications, so long as it does not splinter.

Fundamentalism is by definition inadequate to describe or explain anything. Asserting that true Mormonism is Fundamentalist Mormonism makes it an easy target. Not because of Mormonism itself, but because of the fundamentalist framework it is placed in. No ideology, no religion, no philosophy can withstand scrutiny if forced into a ridged, either/or fundamentalist framework.

The critics of Mormonism seem intent on making people choose between a fundamentalist posture towards Mormonism and complete rejection of Mormon truth claims. I think the faith offers more options than that. I like a nuanced view of Mormonism that requires prayer, personal revelation, and thoughtful searching to learn the truth about divine things.

Equality:

That's a joke and you know it.

None of the information "presented" by you is accurate, but you wish to pose it as such. True academic inquiry would require most space that it is worth here. You take the terroist approach, shouting slogans and snippets but nothing earnestly.

Why would anyone want to respond to matter sufficiently shot down by others decades ago? You probably even know the true responses.

The truth of organizations is that there will be adherents and detractors. And as for being a detractor, I've never understood the merit, or profit, in it. What a waste of time.

I will defend my own, set out positives, but detracting? I suppose that can't do, teach, those that can't teach, write about it, and those that can't write about it, detract from it. A detractor speaks for himself.

DV:

You assume a fact in evidence which I do not make.

First, I do not believe, nor do most self-respecting LDS, a prophet is infallible. His personal opinions will arise out his personal training, conventional wisdom and contemporary thoughts. I can cite other examples of prophets making statements which are scientifically untrue. That doesn't lessen their prophetic stance.

Second, tied to the first issue, you set false parameters. Because a prophet may not be up on the latest in astrophysics doesn't make him less of a prophet without authority. God chooses the man, not man to lecture God. However, JS taught many things, but before anybody is to discuss what he did and did not discuss, it would be important to examine the actual texts and the audiences to which he spoke. JS was an imaginative guy and some of his, non-prophetic imaginations were surely wrong. You seem to be imbuing a responsibility of papal infallibility when no respectable LDS person expects that.

Furthermore, I do not know what JS saw. If I were to be shown "exotic matter" said to exist within black holes, I'm not certain I would have any idea what I was seeing. If you were to be plopped down inside a star nebula, what would you know. Many of our modern illustrations have color enhancements that would not be seen inside the real thing, if I understood the explanations. If I were to attend a technical lecture, not the dummed down version for lay people, would I understand the lecture and be able to give a good report of it? You ask for a defense of something that is too uncertain.

Thirdly, for argument purposes only, you also suppose by virtue of the form of argumentation that a prophet could not be in error on some incidental issues but not correct on more practical essential matters, such as authority and incidents of salvation and exaltation.

In terms of any polemics, it is not my job to accept false parameters. That is why I haven't addressed specifics. If this were an academic debate, it would be very tedious, but precise, by both of us, without widesweeping generalizations and assertions of authority, i.e., (I could cite hundreds of articles)(never address "shotgun" allegations).

In short, the terms of debate have not even been set.

If a person is naive as to how organizations function, if your statement is truthful, then I can somewhat understand your cognitive dissonance relative to your awakening toward how organizations function. Now, you can couch the terminology of "truth" and all these nobel labels, versus falsehood, and you can quote Packer who is a favorite of some the exmos, but that is NOT the universe of what has occurred, is occurring or will occur.

The leadership, comprised of a significant number of businessmen, professionals, CES persons, and civil servants, attack issues of information dissemination in different ways. However, one also must examine what the history of the organization, the unlawful attacks and removal of organizational property, unlawful jailing of organizational personnel, to understand the various dynamics at stake.

In some ways, your statements sound like a young student who is starry eyed, believing in a utopia that never existed, and never will exist.

Information dissemination will always cause disagreement. However, in reality, outside of BYU, there is almost no true scholarship as to LDS history, and it is limited at best, save a few works by Bushman and the like. If anybody considers Brodie scholarly, then the discussion stops, as her work does not meet any traditional academic standards. Why would there be? Until recently, LDS were demographically insignificant.

Again, nobody can discern the truthfulness of your post, but it smacks of disillusionment, without a real world understanding of information dissemination dynamics. First mistake your post makes is its choice of terminology. LDS treatment of its history has not been uniform because it depends during which era and which group was more open than which other group. On one hand, Lenoard Arrrington was granted great access, oth, some former adherents were barred for some short periods of time. Is that reasonable? Advising organizations tells me in many respects that this is a reasonable perspective that you find ostensibly find objectionable. It's not as crass as you portray. Perhaps you know that and simply refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your song.

In many ways, it reminds of many statements made during the sixties when students chanted words of disillusionment, "Down with the Man." I remember chatting with some of my Berkeley mates, when I asked, "Why were you chanting?" To which I received the honest response, "I just wanted to get some from the babes."

Hello.

This is the "real" DV. Not Derrida posing as me, or offering a feeble apology about cumbersome posting methodology. Derrida, if you can't even figure out how to post a thought on this forum, do you really think that you are well suited to defend mormonism or Joseph Smith.

Your debating style has a definite apologetic slant to it. You will not argue points that you deem to be "ancient" or "old" and you accuse me of not offering a new thought to the discussion.

Here's a new thought. Why don't you try defending Joseph Smith on the merits? Have you apologist ever thought of that one? I mean, here is a guy who claims to have spoken to God face-to-face, with a literal conduit to heaven opening up before his eyes, who has offered his version of a planet being divided and subdivided. He even drew a picture of this occurence for Philo Dibble. My question is how does astrophysics explain this occurence? There are 5 or 6 corroborative testimonies that Joseph Smith taught this principle. And I have cited all of them. Why don't you want to defend Joseph Smith's version of astrophysics wherein a planet may divide in two, and move to a position in the galaxy that makes it invisible to the telescopes of astronomers and astrophysicists? Is this parallel planet even visible to the Hubble telescope? These are serious questions about a serious topic. Why are you so reluctant to talk about the actual issues?

I believe it is because you would rather play games than actually address the confusion generated by a man who claims to have spoken with God. If the mormon church cannot stand by the statements of Joseph Smith, then what does it have? Nothing but a self-perpetuating philosophy that changes slowly with the mandates of society. Please, the issue I raised was topical to Bro. Otterson's initial post, in that this is a cosmic religion, with many unique beliefs about the universe. If you refuse to discuss the claims made by the founding prophet, then you acknowledge the indefensability of his position. Please use your own pseudonym in the future, whichever apologist you happen to be.

-The real "DV"

Derrida said:

"You have identified nothing which I haven't heard before. It's all regurgitated, and it would be nice to actually read a new thought by somebody."

A classic line among the mopologists. Of course, the fact that you have heard an argument before does not mean you have adequately addressed or, FSM knows, actually refuted it. Perhaps the critics will present you with new thoughts as soon as you have demonstrated competency in dealing with the old ones.

Mormonism and the Pursuit of Truth, Chapter 14

This from a former bishop/missionary, a remarkably un-bitter and truly humane ex-mormon, on the Church's relationship to the pursuit of truth, scientific, historical, or otherwise:

First, a few months before leaving Mormonism I started reading Mormon history as the
professional historians write it for the first time. I quickly realized that my religious leaders had
misled me as to how Mormonism started, and hence what it was, and that this pattern of
Mormon leadership deception goes back to Mormonism's beginnings with Joseph Smith.

For many years the Mormon Church has suppressed as many of the troubling aspects of its
history as possible. This is done pursuant to a policy, unknown to most members, of only
teaching versions of its history that will be "faith promoting". This policy is called the "faithful
history" policy, and owes its existence to Mormon leaders' concern that if the reality of
Mormonism's foundations were widely understood, fewer people would accept their authority.

As I read statements from Mormonism's current leaders ordering the suppression of information
I felt physically ill. It took weeks of reading and thinking to come to grips with the reality that
men who I had trusted completely, and at whose request I had given literally years of my life in
volunteer service, had consciously mislead me and millions like me. I did not want to believe
this, and tried as hard as I could to find information that would justify rejecting it.

Perhaps the most difficult thing for me to understand was the gulf between the conduct of
Mormon leaders as just indicated, and the many statements of Mormon leaders, from Joseph
Smith forward, indicating the importance of the pursuit of truth, freedom of conscience, etc.
These teachings were the core of my belief system. It was crushing to discover that the
behavior of Mormon leaders was so far from what they taught. The effect of the statements
respecting honesty etc. as they are now taught by the Mormon church was to cause me, and I
am sure many others, to lower our guard and trust our religious leaders. This trust was then
horribly abused. It would not surprise me if this at some point becomes the basis for legal
action against the Mormon Church. Its ethical standards in terms of honesty and disclosure fall
far short of those to which even people like used car salesmen are held in our society.

Last two from me, as this cumbersome posting methodology slows me down. Apologies.

I am familiar with those trite characterizations you throw forward. You might even be aware of some of the explanations, as somebody who knows those discreet but ancient complaints of Mormonism.

You know as well as I, if either of us were inclined, we could also provide additional insights into the mischaracterizations provided by you that would paint those events in a different light. However, you are bent on one thing, you don't believe the claims of Joseph Smith. Fine, but don't pick and choose those and paint them in a weird light when you know the credibility of those allegations are not suspect. You have identified nothing which I haven't heard before. It's all regurgitated, and it would be nice to actually read a new thought by somebody.

If you desire this confession, then I'll make no religious faith is guided solely by the investigative tool of science. Well perhaps scientologists, but I'm not familiar enough with their beliefs to know one way or the other. Science is not religion, but a tool for investigation and religion can accommodate, but it doesn't mean it should be governed by it.

Your arguments, even if assuming arguendo they were completely valid which they are not, seem to imply that for somebody to claim any religion embraces science, that it must embrace all of scientific claims.

Why?

Is Science the sole arbiter of truth?

If so, how does science mediate the truth of love?

It is apparent you are not well-versed in the big tent of Mormonism, if you describe as fundamentalist.

Are there tensions between LDS academics and its more businesslike leadership? Of course. And as it should be. You can have one dynamic without the other.

LDS will remain a dynamic movement, complete with hiccups, tensions and innovation. It is not narrow as you seek to describe it. Just as there is not just one version of interpretation of religious texts, so is there not one version of LDS movements.

James:

Wherein have I stated anything concerning the abilities of Providence?

There philosophical quandries posed by philosophers, but such as the philosopher's God triangle, of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. LDS solve the dilemma differently than others, by stating that God is not omnipotent, in that God cannot violate certain universal laws. Now which laws are they? That's open for debate to some extent.

If you wish to deride me, please endeavor some small measure of accuracy.

James, if you're truly at Harvard, then God bless Harvard for it has truly fallen far.

You have engaged solely in an exercise of polemics, not truth.

It is easy to mischaracterize spot subjects from a nineteenth century innovative man, who was also a prophet. If one engages a polemicist, should one allow that person to define the battle ground? Of course not.

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit, you have simply lobbed dishonest grenades for popular discussion. The "critiques" you lobbed haven't changed for decades and the quality of scholarship on these "critiques" is very poor.

No honest member expects any ninteenth century thinker to be accurate in all that person's assessments. However, we judge a person by his successes and failures. And whether you like the movement or not, the LDS faith will not be stopped by its critics. Hopefully, we're not defined by some as lowly as you, but that will wait and see.

I don't expect a Joseph Smith to know the cosmos, but I am amazed at his ability to collaborate fok wisdom, with some science and to organize a movement, despite extreme poverty and a second grade education.

There are many faults with LDS, and we are better aware of what they are, than outsiders. You can misconstrue the words of religion into modern parlance and thereby ridicule, but if they are properly translated into the lingua franca, they would withstand academic scrutiny.

Harvard is a marvelous institution, thanks to its wonderful endowment. It has been benefitted by many LDS, including your former Dean of B School. I truly doubt that he and his religion is the object of derision by the respected authorities at that institution. As for me and my ilk, we prefer Palo Alto, South Holliston, Pasadena and 77 Mass Ave, Cambridge, but go ahead stay in Massachusetts Hall. BTW, can't you guys keep President?

These issues can be discussed civilly, but you have never endeavored, nor ever intended to do so. Asking me a series of loaded questions or anybody else for that matter, is not a path toward civil discussion. If you do not behave civilly, can you expect another to do so?

LDS do trust the scientific method, many LDS are great scientists and our faith does embrace science, but as does no faith let science define our faith. Otterson never implied or stated such.

If you desire to misconstrue statements, go right ahead, but that is not honest discourse. If you wish to pick at warts, go right ahead, but I am comfortable in the position that LDS are greatful for science, its principles and its discoveries. We are not afraid of it, but it is not the sole dictator of our paths, nor should it be. Science is but a tool, not an endpoint.

The Problem with Revelation

DV hits on the fundamental problem with believers relying on revealed truth,even believers with as subtle a mind as Derrida's.

If one believes Smith was wrong on that particular revelation (for which, we must presume, he at least got God's confirmation through the burning in his chest)

then how can one have confidence that the burning in his chest Smith got about the Celestial Kingdom and the Polygamous set-up I am counting on being there is not also wrong.

If I can pick and choose, don't we get into real organizational problems.

And if the revelations are infallible, why did some of the prophecies Smith made about things that should have happened by now not occur.

I guess it is due to my poverty of understanding compared to God's, whom Derrida tells me is actually NOT all-knowing like I always thought.

I tend to agree with James regarding Derrida's version of mormonism. It is comical to watch a fundamentalist religion being characterized as progressive by a person such as Derrida.

I have exposed Joseph Smith's astrophysics regarding the earth splitting in two. I have quoted from multiple sources that he taught this principle as part of mormon theology. The truly fascinating thing to me is that NOBODY and I mean NOBODY who is a member of the LDS church has defended Joseph Smith's view of the parallel earth theory. Why is it that the words of the founder can be so blatantly ignored by the membership? Is it because common sense tells them it is hogwash? If not, why aren't they here in droves to defend Joseph Smith's theory of a parallel earth that was subdivided off of our earth, specifically for the ten tribes to inhabit. (See my post above for specific references to Joseph Smith's parallel earth doctrine) I wonder if Brother Otterson cares to weigh in on whether Joseph Smith was inspired when he gave the parallel earth doctrine, or whether he was making it all up. I wonder.

Leaving the Saints/Martha Beck

The review below, from a reader at Amazon, seems to me a reasoned, non-hateful, "mature," ex-mormon Not anit-mormon view of Beck's Book.

She has the same observation that Sam Harris notes: the most hateful, vitriolic letters Beck got were from the believers. Here is the review (sorry for the length: skip it of course if it is too long). Among ex-mormons we can feel free to ignore the haters and the crazies. But many many of them are like this reviewer here.

By the top of page 4, I knew who Martha is and who her father was. I was raised in the church and served a mission to Japan in the late 1970s with one of Martha's brothers.

Martha's book is the most honest and even-handed account of the church and its doctrinal dilemmas I have ever come across. Most accounts are either for or against the church and seek only to destroy other viewpoints. I didn't get that feeling from Martha's account at all. It's clear that most of those condemning this book haven't read it. Ignore them and read it yourself.

I grew up reading every LDS Church book I could get my hands on. I pored over them, practically memorized some of them, and read the Book of Mormon and other scriptures daily and prayed with all my heart. I was the kid who always loved to go to church; no one had to drag me there. After a great deal of soul-searching over many years, I left the LDS church about 20 years ago, at the age of 27. I didn't experience the kind of sexual abuse Martha went through, and my heart goes out to all who have suffered so, but I could relate 100% to her descriptions of the Church, the doctrines, the good people who try so hard to be perfect, the yearning for God, the incredible mental efforts to try to make sense out of the nonsense, the secrecy and obsession with control of the leadership. I'll never forget how disappointed I felt when I first put on the temple garments and went through the endowment ceremony at the Oakland Temple.

I first became aware of certain issues about unsavory behavior by some of the leadership while on my mission, and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. I know we are all human and have weaknesses, but the problem is when religious institutions try to set up some people as infallible and not to be questioned (the Pope, the mullahs and ayatollahs, and the General Authorities all come to mind). I tried to make it all make sense, and I tried to forget that polygamy was the fate that awaits good Mormon women. I tried to forget the many little insults and debasements of Mormon women. Ultimately I could not ignore the evidence of my senses, my reasoning and my conscience. The greatest lessons that I learned from my years in the Church are ultimately what led me away: to listen to the still, small voice inside, to do what I knew was right no matter what others around me might say, and to open my heart and mind to unsuspected sources of joy and understanding. I can't say I've found as much certainty as Martha seems to have found, but I am certain that one of the smartest things I ever did was to leave the Church; I only wish I'd done it sooner. Much, much sooner. Martha's book has helped me to free myself from the last vestiges of regret. I miss the sense of community, yes, but I know that the Church is not the only place that can be found.

I've read some of the hate mail Martha has received on her site, www.leavingthesaints.com, and it doesn't reflect well on those people's personal religion. That is, spewing that kind of hate and intolerance is hardly a sign you are close to the divine. I know that most Mormons are very good, sincere people who try very hard to do what is right. I grew up among them, I was one of them, and many family members and extended family members are still very devout and no doubt think I'm beyond the pale because I left. I say, if it works for them, more power to them, but I could not continue in such a patriarchal, controlling, domineering environment where the truth must be whitewashed and carefully controlled. Thanks, Martha, for writing so eloquently and compassionately about your journey.

Derrida and Self-Contradiction
A postmodern view

Here in Harvard Square I am surrounded by world-class academics having world-class discussions every minute, and have been for 38 years.

I assure you:
Derrida's credibility and reputation as a discussant would last for about 2 seconds in this serious academic environment. He contradicts the principles that he extols in virtually every sentence. It is getting to be Marxist (Groucho, that is).

But you can tell that by reading his posts for yourself.

Mormonism and the Search for the Truth

Thank you Scott, for your information.

Thanks for these corrections.

Grant Palmer DID NOT teach at BYU.
He taught for 30+ years in the LDS Seminary system.

Palmer WAS NOT excommunicated.
He WAS ONLY dis-fellowshipped.

Regarding publications:
My original question to you was this:

Matha Berg states in her book that
The Head of the Sociology Dept announced a restrictive policy regarding publishing in non-mormon journals etc.

Do we have evidence pro or con for the truth of this claim.

I believe that BYU professors have published at U Illinois and other places, as you state.

I can't prove if Beck was telling the truth, just like I can't prove if God does or not exist. With time and resources however, we could likely prove whether or not she was lying.

Note: Beck did not say that BYU professors had never published outside the church since 1990. She reported on a faculty meeting that sited a directive from the general authorities.

Let's accept for a moment that Martha Beck is a complete fantasist. (I don't, nor do about 300 of the 400 reviewers of her book on Amazon, BTW)

How is the record of BYU on Academic Freedom?

Mormons probably think it is just fine.

The AAUP, the professional group that monitors this issue, has had many citings of BYU over the last 10 years. Someone who knows nothing pro or con about Mormons, on reading this info
(google AAUP academic freedom BYU)
would seriously question whether
BYU's first commitment was to the truth
scientific, historical or otherwise,

or to protecting the reputation of the Church.

Now the catholic church does the same thing.
(the Unitarians don't).

Harvard by and large doesn't. Truth, Veritas, comes first.

Once more: Otterson presents the church as quite compatible with science (and by implication, the search for truth).

All sorts of evidence indicates that the first commitment of the church is NOT to the Truth.

It is to maximazing membership in the church.

I have really enjoyed this blog but I wonder where a few of you find the time to enlighten the rest of us as you have. Your discussion has me looking up what “scientific method” is. I found the following:

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish results

So here is my scientific experiment:

Define the question – Will I make it to the CK and be like God if I do my best to follow the doctrines of Mormonism, as I understand them, throughout my life on earth?

Gather information and resources - I will study the canon and listen to authorities as often as I can. I will also study what others publish on the topic.

Form hypothesis – My hypothesis is: Living the Mormon standards and practices including the WoW, service, study, obedience, and prayer, I will make it to the CK and be like God.

Perform experiment and collect data – Ok this may take a while since a popular phrase in the Mormon tradition is ‘Endure to the End”. But in the name of science I will do this my whole life.

Analyze data – At the end of my life, and if I still exist, I will review the data and if I am all knowing it will be easier. If I do not exist, we will call it a faulty hypothesis.

Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses – Since I am in the middle of my experiment I don’t what to draw any pre-mature conclusions. But I do have to say I feel pretty good and from information from outside sources I am respected in the social circle I find myself.

Publish results – This is the hard part, because if all goes as the theory then I will be as God and have to rely on mere men to listen to my voice and record my words. But I am committed to try in the name of Science :-)

Discussing subjects with Exmos and Antis is merely an exercise in polemics.

Discussing it with academics is a pleasure.

Discussing witho neophytes is also fun.

For example, the canard of asking a missionary why they don't swim. That's neither a scientific inquiry nor an honest, especially seeing the would be trap laid down.

The honest answer is one based on organizational dynamics and behavior, because in regulating a group of youth representing an organization, it is necessary to have some order, and sometimes there are rules order. Any other answer is window dressing.

As for whether somebody is dimwitted enough to believe God can't work through folk wisdom, and reveal the wisdom of it to a prophet, where is the logic in that? If anybody is unable to identify the logical possiblity of that, then head right back to your intro to informal and formal logic, because it is a distinct possibility.

That's why this has been an exercise of polemics, not an evaluation of truth. Former adherents simply refuse to mature and move on.

The complexity of LDS theology will mature, as its populace matures. Hopefully, every person matures as they age, so do cultures. God works gradually, incrementally through persons and cultures, not by quantum leaps, as the mentality of man is not ready for quantum leaps in knowledge, but little microjumps.

I was just looking up some other BYU professors and ran accross this one:

David L. Paulsen has his J.D. from the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He is a Professor of Philosophy at BYU and has published widely on issues in the philosophy of religion in both international and national venues, including The International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Analysis, The Harvard Theological Review, Faith and Philosophy, and the Journal of Speculative Philosophy.

You might want to rethink your claim.

James,

If you are looking for books published by non BYU sources, go to the University of Illinois Press (Just google and you will find it) and type the word "Mormon" into the search feature. You will find lots of pages.

I personally know BYU professors who have published there and none of them were ever censured. Assistant Church Historian Davis Bitton published there, as have BYU Professors Kathryn Daynes and Grant Underwood. In fact, current Apostle Dallin Oaks has published there. Beck’s comments that the church, or BYU, doesn't allow publishing in other venues are completely false.

As for Grant Palmer, he never worked for BYU, and he was not excommunicated. His history of the Church is inaccurate as it ignores documents which contradict his thesis. You might want to read the statement from the Smith Institute which studies Mormon History. I especially like their quote where they say, “We and many other historians take issue with a substantial portion of Palmer's treatment of such details.”

I have read Martha Beck’s book, and there are many things in the book that even critics of the LDS church say are "unbelievable." Since you seem to like Grant Palmer, I would like to point out that Grant Palmer’s publisher put out a very negative review of her book . Just Google “Martha Beck Tom Kimball” and look at the first link. For example, he says “I'm sure that in years to come apologists will use Martha's exaggerations and fabrications as an excuse to discredit legitimate Mormon scholars who are critical of traditional or orthodox Mormon claims.” Another reviewer, Tania Rands Lyon wrote, “I hated most of the book, doubted many of the details, was disappointed in her relentlessly negative and ridiculous caricature of the LDS Church and culture, and questioned some internal inconsistencies…” (You can google that as well.)

Finally, it would be ridiculous to claim that LDS scholars are forbidden to write on the topic of evolution when the Church has NO DOCTRINE related to evolution.

My apologies if a second similar comment shows up from me as it appears I lost one to blog review. (I included a few links in that post which seems to have triggered a review process.)

Mormons, BYU, and Truth

Earlier I noted on this post that Martha Beck, author of Leaving the Saints and daughter of Hugh Nibley, reported in her book that when she was teaching in the Sociology Dpt at BYU in 1990, the General Authorities issued a directive that the faculty could no longer publish in "alternative publications', by which they meant journals etc that were not published by the church.
For example, the American Journal of Sociology was forbidden.

After I reported this on this site, "Scott" wrote berating me for my gullibility, and said in effect:
"that's ridiculous, Oxford University Press has published many books on Mormon history, and that shows your story is false."

Of course, Beck and I had said *BYU professsors* were banned from publishing outside official church channels.

and when I looked up the books published by Oxford they were by professors from Columbia, Hanover, Lydon State, and U of Richmond.

What's up Scott, I said. Were you deliberately obfuscating, otterson style, when you made the Oxford reference, knowing none of the authors were from BYU.

Guess what I heard? Silence from Scott.

Try to Google Academic Freedom BYU and see what you get.

makes sense the church would cover its behind, but don't represent yourself as dedicated to Truth, in science or anywhere else.

represent yourself as protecting yourself.

and believers in the church should realize that the church is not interested in telling them the church. the church is interested in the church.

Derrida, DV, and Nathancy

Dv/nathan
you two ARE patient, to try to talk sense to a man named Derrida who increasingly reveals himself as a wacko with every post he submits.

But that said, your reasoning and facts are illuminating to me and others.

Regarding Mormon doctrine *not* aligning with science, as pointed out by nathan above.

Once again, illustrating the misrepresentation of Otterson's PR snow job.

Mormons will accept science if it fits with their doctrine.

If the real nature of truth as indicated by scientific investigation, guess who wins.

And as you all have pointed out, it has happened all the time.

But Otterson says: oh, we are very comfortable with science. science plus revelation. revelation that was frequently plagiarized word for word from other sources. Maybe Joseph Smith should have had a revelation about the Internet.

Derrida, your idea that the WoW evolved as a folk doctrine is interesting. It seems natural that a group of people, such as a church, has their own health code, and that it would probably reflect the prevailing popular wisdom. What you don't address is that Joseph Smith claimed to receive the original WoW as a revelation from God. Doesn't God know what is really best for us? If so, why has the current mormon observation of the Wow slowly changed from the time Joseph Smith received it straight from God? I don't think the issue is that mormons have a code of health today. The issue is that Joseph Smith claims it came straight from God. Don't you think a health code coming from God would, you know, actually be correct? And correct in it's original incarnation? Instead, the Wow is full of popular (at the time) notions about health and nutrition that science has refuted. Yes, this is on topic, because the church claims that God gave us nutritional advice that has since been refuted. What does that say about mormon doctrine aligning (or not) with science?

Derrida,

I hate to say this but I think you might be from the parallel earth that Joseph Smith revealed to men. (See my previous post above, which outlines the truth about the cosmic nature of the mormon church, according to that uneducated farmboy Joseph Smith) By the way, for an uneducated farmboy, he sure tackled some doozies like ancient Egyptian and astrophysics. I'd give him poor grades in both of those categories, but again, he was just a poor uneducated day laborer, as you like to refer to him.

You said "Every time one of you crazies states, "Hey, that charlatan copied 'exactly' what somebody else did," one examines it to find only a superficial resemblance." Hmm, superficial? Why don't you study up on the similarities between free-masonry and the pre-1990 temple ceremony? You will see the similarities as well. There are not only similarities, there is exact duplication. Does God work through plagiarism Derrida? I would think that God would be much more sophisticated than that. Here's a website that talks about Captain Morgan's exposition of freemasonry: www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mormonkingdomvol1ch13masonicinfluence.htm. You should read it, and find out the true source of most of the temple ceremony. You may be pleasantly surprised to find out that your "farm boy" prophet acted in accordance with his low level education by lifting many parts word-for-word. But why would you want to examine the truth, after all, I am just some "crazy."

You also said: "The revelatory process is complex, not cartoonish as you would deceptively portray." Are you kidding me? One of the church's living twelve apostles himself (Russell Nelson) stated that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by placing a peepstone in a hat and placing the hat over his face, deciphered the code. Isn't this a bit cartoonish?? Especially when you consider that he used this precise method to "locate buried treasure," a crime he was tried for in 1826, and found guilty. Why would a true prophet of God dupe people for money using the hat and the rock trick, then use the same method to translate a holy writ? That sounds a bit cartoonish to me.

Get your facts straight Bucko, then come back and talk. You are dealing with a partial knowledge of your church. Study up a little and then come back, so that our discourse will be based on fact, and not fiction.

In terms of discussing matters with academics, I engage professionally.

In terms of engaging with outsiders I engage accordingly.

In terms of engaging with sophists, as a man of the street, I fight according to the rules.

You simply misstate the status of studies extant on the issues identified by you.

The main point is to understand the evidence. Health codes have existed for a length of time amongst religious persons and in religious groups. Is your argument that some of the substances are categorically unharmful given certain addictive qualities? If so, you are a sophist. That's not an ad hominem attack, but in reality an assessment related closely to the ancient Greek origin of the word.

You have an angle which is to distort what is in print and thereafter to ridicule. You fail to give the groundwork and fail to give it context; a typical form of argument known well to the Greek sophists.

I am afraid of no argument, no "evidence", no scientific principles or theories. I do not need the dogma of leaders, as I understand the Church will mature as its traditions are reformed, and understanding increased. Your knowledge of the WoW is superficial at best. It started as folks wisdom, transferred via affirmation, accepted as policy, then converted through general rule, becoming a hallmark of distinction during a period of twentieth century social unrest.

It is generally correct that tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse and caffeinated teas and coffee can be harmful. Science generally confirms that. If you deny that, then you simply misstate the evidence. Hence, the health code is consistent with science even though it also merged with traditions and sociological needs. You ignore this.

Is Derrida for Real?

Equality posts an impeccably logical, clear, reasonable presentation on the WoW.

Derrida responds with a statement that is seemingly sane in some aspects, but is obfuscatory, insulting to his disputant, and contains subtly insane logical leaps into a chasm of psychosis.

One thinks at first that this may be a rational, if postmodern, man.

I am beginning to doubt his underlying sanity. I have found very little value in his reasoning since I first ran into him.

He is not *clearly* nuts, but when one reads him next to Nathan, Was, Equality, and some personage called Mayan Elephant, Derrida begins to look like he is living in the warped universe next door.

But I love him.

Derrida,

Perhaps you should re-read Brother Otterson's first post about engaging in civil discourse. You might want to cut out the personal insults and stick to discussing ideas rationally and politely. It reflects poorly on the religion you are so passionately trying to defend here.

As a matter of fact, there is quite a substantial body of information on 19th-century temperance movements and dietary fads in New York, New England, and the Ohio River Valley. Joseph Smith was certainly aware of the founding of the Kirtland Temperance Society and of the celebration of National Temperance Day, which occurred, coincidentally, the very week that the Word of Wisdom was first received.

Your attempted refutation of my statement about science showing the health benefits of coffee, tea, and alcohol in moderation illustrates well the point I was making in my previous comment: that Mormons will accept and even tout scientific studies when they thing such studies support their religious principles, but when science conflicts with Mormon dogma, the believing Mormon makes an abrupt about-face and starts attacking the science. The fact is, I could point you to a hundred scientific studies, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, and it wouldn't matter. Since you have a slavish adherence to the dogma promulgated by your religious leaders, you can only sustain your leaders by junking the science and embracing the dogma. Again, that's perfectly fine--just don't claim to be a reason-loving supporter of science at the same time.

The rest of your comment consists of irrelevancies and non sequiturs.

Derrida,

Perhaps you should re-read Brother Otterson's first post about engaging in civil discourse. You might want to cut out the personal insults and stick to discussing ideas rationally and politely. It reflects poorly on the religion you are so passionately trying to defend here.

As a matter of fact, there is quite a substantial body of information on 19th-century temperance movements and dietary fads in New York, New England, and the Ohio River Valley. Joseph Smith was certainly aware of the founding of the Kirtland Temperance Society and of the celebration of National Temperance Day, which occurred, coincidentally, the very week that the Word of Wisdom was first received.

Your attempted refutation of my statement about science showing the health benefits of coffee, tea, and alcohol in moderation illustrates well the point I was making in my previous comment: that Mormons will accept and even tout scientific studies when they thing such studies support their religious principles, but when science conflicts with Mormon dogma, the believing Mormon makes an abrupt about-face and starts attacking the science. The fact is, I could point you to a hundred scientific studies, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, and it wouldn't matter. Since you have a slavish adherence to the dogma promulgated by your religious leaders, you can only sustain your leaders by junking the science and embracing the dogma. Again, that's perfectly fine--just don't claim to be a reason-loving supporter of science at the same time.

The rest of your comment consists of irrelevancies and non sequiturs.

i have a scientific study suggestion. its sorta scientific, but more along social sciences.

if you ever meet a mormon missionary, ask them why they cant swim for two years during their mission.

then come back here with your results and we can discuss the absurdity of my comments versus derridas argument.

Equality

This is devolving into something silly.

"Fad diets"? How much literature and testimony do we have of the time to make a conclusive statement as to what Smith did or didn't know? Not that much.

Coffee, tea, and alcohol benefits are still debatable. You see a study sponsored by an alcoholic company and find that as borne out by science? Come on, some of my work involves "studies" performed by medical device companies to justify the devices or medications proposed by these commercial enterprises. There are conflicting studies which make correlations, which then popular media thereafter misinterprets or overinterprets the data. A good example, is some of the recent coffee data. I have read what the popular interpretations are, but most of those results are very preliminary and generally, coffee drinking as a net result is not positive.

And once again you falsely characterize the natures and categories of revelation, mischaracterizing intentionally for your own ends. Or you don't understand it.

Do you believe the Hebraic health code delivered ostensibly by Moses not of relevance?

Health codes are traditional items of many religious traditions and they have uniformly been demonstrated to be of benefit. If items later prove that under other conditions all aspects of the dictates are not entirely true, i.e., it's okay to eat pork, properly cooked and cared for, that doesn't make the original conditions under which the information categorically incorrect.

In essence, merely misstates information, gives it a ridiculous and dishonest spin solely for the purposes of arriving at your own conclusion. There is no equality in your statement.

Derrida said:

"So, even if you disagree with application or not, the WoW has no scientific reality? Tobacco smoking is in fact good for you?"

No, the WoW has no scientific reality. You've made a very basic logical error here. For example, if I claim to have a vision of an invisible pink unicorn who tells me that cyanide is harmful so I should not ingest it, and it turns out that science demonstrates that yes, indeed, cyanide is poisonous, that fact does not mean that my original revelation is based in science.

Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom follows very closely the fad diets of the day promulgated by many in the temperance movement. Some of those ideas were borne out later by science (tobacco being harmful). Others have been debunked by science (coffee, tea, and alcohol in moderation are beneficial to health). Regardless, the Word of Wisdom has no basis in science as it is either a revelation from God (if you are a Mormon believer) or a cultural influence on Joseph Smith (if you are not).

The fact is, science has disproven many of the claims made by the LDS church. Where it has done so, the church has not abandoned its erroneous beliefs in order to harmonize with the truths discovered through reason and science but has, rather, simply ignored science where it conflicts with revealed dogma. The church's unwillingness to abandon ideas disproven by reason and science is evidence that the church is not, in fact, open to reason and science, but is instead a dogmatic, fundamentalist faith. It's fine to be a dogmatic fundamentalist faith, and some people would consider it an honor to be so described. What is not acceptable is to engage in PR spin, dressing up your church as forward-thinking, progressive, open, and respectful of reason and science when the truth is exactly the opposite.

Unless one is willing to examine philosophical foundations, understand it systemically, and take the effort to see it in action, then a mere perusal is meaningless.

It is interesting that you believe a barely literate, uneducated farm boy with no abilities, could have purloined as much as you antis say, purloining this idea from the Masons, that idea from Swedenborg, that idea from a myriad of libraries, all the while barely scraping by as a day laborer and persecuted as his belongings are taken from him time and time again.

Every time one of you crazies states, "Hey, that charlatan copied 'exactly' what somebody else did," one examines it to find only a superficial resemblance.

And you take a very superficial interpretation how the Almighty works through men, using the confluence of traditions, cultures, time, evolution, human intuition, education, training to influence the myriad of permutations necessary to arrive at acceptable results.

Do you think readers are as simplistic as to believe God spoonfed Joseph Smith, or anybody else for that matter? Once again, argumentum ad absurdum.

Common folk wisdom can be refined through revelatory processes to convey wisdom to its receivers.

The revelatory process is complex, not cartoonish as you would deceptively portray.

Derrida, you decry others "cherrypicking" quotes to support their ideas, yet you do the same thing about tobacco and the Word of Wisdom. Let's examine the whole word of wisdom, ok? Instead of chewing or smoking tobacco, we need to use it for our sick cattle. Huh? Also, we are supposed to be vegetarians except in times of wintery famine. I don't really see that among LDS. How come mormons can't drink "mild" barley drinks (beer, ale, etc.) anymore? In case you weren't aware, a guy named Graham (of cracker fame) published his ideas on good nutrition and health before Joseph Smith claims to have received the Word of Wisdom. Guess what? The WoW matches Graham's advice exactly. That would be like Hinckley claiming to have received today an updated version of the WoW that matches the Atkins diet. Not very original. Especially if you consider that Emma Smith (whose grumblings about having to clean the spitoons is the traditional origin of the WoW) was mighty keen on Graham's health advice. Looking at the details of Joseph Smith's "revelations" makes one wonder where the inspiration really came from.

Mayan Elephant.

If I can dig up the study, I'll cite it for you. This is called argumentum ad absurdum. It tweeks to a little extent what one said and then makes it look absurd.

The document, which was fairly thorough, shows that former adherents of any religious organization are inherently unreliable. There are other groups other than members, those who study the group but are not members, and scholarly persons who study the sociology of the organizaiton.

So, systemicly, former adherents are unreliable by virtue of having an axe to grind. In a court of law, the credibility of former adherents of any organization are routinely excoriated, and only when what the former adherent withstands scrutiny of a thorough cross, as well as the testimony of the organization's witnesses, can the evidence be deemed credible.

I cite merely one study by an organization that studied the issue worldwide, certainly not focusing upon LDS at all. I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that the purpose was to address the Bob Jones fiasco a while back.

Just reciting your credentials doens't make them so. In a court of law, one would have your statement based on deposition testimony, private investigators would have investigated your background and still your testimony might not be reliable.

You can mischaracterize the body of LDS thought as you wish. If you truly have the connections which you purport, you would have to acknowledge the diversity of thought versus the paucity of actual doctrine. Now, there is plenty of opinion and tradition passed off as doctrine, but doctrine is far and few.

Too often, persons mistake traditions for doctrines, and use their lay authority to act authoritative. Simply not true.

Your final paragraph is deceitful and another argumentum ad absurdum. Abby Hoffman, I believe, theorized, if one ridiculed the opposition and made it look ridiculous, even if untrue, then you can bring down the "Man."

Derrida:

"The exmos add nothing. Former members of sects traditionally are deemed unreliable as sources of information about the sect. The UN commission conducted a very good study on that in the 90s."

lets think about this. if you were part of the church and you left, then you must not know anything about the church and are therefore an unreliable source.

so, only the informed people are staying? nice. excuse me while i go laugh myself stupid. that is quite possibly, the funniest judgment i have seen.

its actually quite the opposite. i tell people all the time - if you saw what i saw as a member of the high council, pec, ward council and the like - you would have left too. but, because you never see the nonsense and you are left to believe there is no gossiping, judging and lobbying going on behind closed doors, i can understand sticking around.

and whoever said the church doesnt claim to know the source and the why and why-nots of homosexuality was smoking a new form of stupidweed. the church knows exactly what the source is - SATAN. well, they dont know that, they just say that.

we have already gone over this. otterson himself orchestrated a lengthy pr piece that is available on lds.org. he then had the other participants, oaks and some other lawyer, claim in the salt lake tribune that their comments were neither informed or inspired.

get with it D, we have already gone over this.

now, excuse me, i have a meeting scheduled with Satan. he and i are buds now ya know. best pals. we get together and go swimming, that guy loves the water, he controls it ya know. you should never swim if you are a Mormon, especially if you are a Mormon missionary. Satan tells me they look like mature seals to a great white shark when they get in the water. weird eh? well, not weird to a Mormon. but it may be weird to everyone else to learn that Satan controls the waters.

Perhaps a good analogy for LDS relationship to science is that of the partial differentials for heat or the La Place differential.

In short, partial differential equations require modifications of certain parameters over certain definitions but are not all encompassing.

IOW, to date, and perhaps never, there is no grand unification theory which can reconcile all. Although all is not reconcilable, that doesn't make it necessarily irreconcilable and noncorrelative.

James:

Derrida is merely a French postmodernist? Lol. Limited by such a marker. :)

Your representations of the breadth of LDS thought are fraudulent, and you know that.

A very simple representation: LDS back in the nineteenth century received revelation that smoking tobacco was a harmful, unhealthy activity.

You then cite artifacts out of context and present them in a vacuum, claiming scientists can't prove or accept these theories, hence it's unscientific. Wonderful logic. That's simply ad hoc ergo proctor hoc. Or a cousin thereof.

You've skipped the core representation that LDS theology embraces science, but its religion is not a worship of scientific principles, but based on faith. Even if some of the faith based issues are not currently or ever scientifically verifiable, that doesn't undermine the initial representation.

Rhetorically debating antis is almost useless, because unlike true worshipers of other faiths, or true academicians, antis have only one or two songs to sing, i.e., Brodie, Swedenborg, Kinderhook, and other bs. Frankly, you won't see me attacking any religion, except for perhaps certain politically radical Islamic elements intent on mocking their own religion, for any reason. The fabrics of our cultures are enriched through the exercise of faith and will lend itself to furthering our understandings of peoples and ourselves.

It is consistent to have faith couple with science and vice versa, the two are not mutually exclusive, but they can be concentric circles of knowledge.

John D,

You talk about relying on that "burning in the bosom." What if that “burning in the bosom” leads you to another conclusion? Surely you can see why it is not wise to make important decisions based on a warm fuzzy feeling?

”Latter Day Saints should look for truth everywhere they can…”

The problem with this John is that the Church discourages what you suggest. There is a reason they discourage this and I think you know what that reason is. I think a big part of the problem is that after all this time, the Church still does not get it when it comes to honesty and transparency. The posts by Mr. Otterson on this very blog are evidence of that. Each response Mr. Otterson has posted is full of inaccuracies if not outright lies. Until the Church can follow their own counsel about being "honest with their fellow man", they are going to suffer from a huge credibility problem. People are on to their game now and there is no going back to the past days of bliss when information could be concealed.

John, thanks for your well thought-out posts.

Derrida's MisUnderstanding

Dr D

I don't think you understand.

This is not a Mormon-only forum.

This is a forum sponsored by a public newspaper that serves both believers and non-believers, Christians and Muslims and Jains.

You are not allowed to tell us to go to the Anti-Mormon chat groups.

And Mormon PR people are not free to publish press releases on this site without being open to challenge, and without having their misrepresentations pointed out to the broader public that is here.

John D. finds your last post brilliant. I find it unworthy of French Postmodernism.

Remember, I am here in Cambridge. We have brilliant postmodernists coming out of our ears.

Cult Members and Objectivity, to John D

For these purposes:
Objective/neutral people are
100 people chosen at random off the street
who are nieither Mormons nor Anti-Mormons
but are as educated as you or I.
We show them the list of cult member characteristics.
We have them read Espen’s post. Try it out.

Perfection will only be attained in the Celestial Kingdom.

I was taught that Mormonism was THE ONLY true church.
Now the Church believes Non-Mormons receive revelations and confirmations from God? If I receive one, and say God confirmed it, will you and Joseph believe me?
Regardless, the test still holds:
Swedenborg described it in 1758
Smith echoes it around 1830.
God or Influence. It is TRULY blind faith to think it was God both times.
It multiplies the skepticism of someone who believes in evidence to state that god revealed to Smith AND Wesley AND Williams AND swedenborg AND…
But I will fight to the death to protect your right to believe it.

Bottom line: the set of beliefs the mormons hold could never be confirmed by a scientific method. Many are incompatible with Science.
That is fine. They don’t have to be. Religion IS a different realm. People are free to have blind faith.
But Otterson says Mormonism is quite compatible with Science because they believe in evolution. Misrepresentation

Ooopps!

And the Bible for that matter...

And the Bible for matter....

Great last post Derrida! With the complexity of human dynamics, we should expect God's interaction with a people here on earth to look much like the LDS church.

Nathan:

As LDS become more versed with science, as science discovers more, as our false traditions are weeded out, you will see a more consistent application.

However, as long as diverse cultures are blended together from fundamentalistic to atomicistic traditions, you will see inconsistencies.

Again, delineating between traditions, culture, doctrine, policy and bureacracy is difficult, and the imaginative minds of the ninteenth century don't make it any easier.

Religion is not just about science, it's about culture, it's about traditions, it's about contemporary events unrelated to science, and many other things. But our religion does not reject science when it appears inconsistent with our religious understandings. We often take, a well maybe, we'll wait and see.

Wherein did my post intimate that you are not a current member? You accuse me of reading incomprehension. My rant originally is against the exmos who deride a statement that LDS endeavor to embrace science.

Religion is more than you give it credit for.

And you go on a reach to state LDS or religion can't relate anything scientific or factual. Outside of religion but along those lines, one can remember the ancient metaphysicists who did a damn good job of imagining the atom. Think of materialists or atomicists, a la Epicureus and the like.

So, even if you disagree with application or not, the WoW has no scientific reality? Tobacco smoking is in fact good for you?

Derrida, next time read for comprehension. I'm not a "former" or "Ex" member of the LDS church. I am a current member, with a temple recommend. I am BIC, RM, MIT, etc. Like I said earlier, you can't handle the fact that someone disagrees with you and you need to call me names. Get over your elementary school rhetorical devices.

I know plenty of indivuals in the church who are very scientifically minded. My point is that *mormon doctrine* (exactly what is that, again?) is not scientifically based.

Let's let religion tell us the stories and lessons that help us treat each other nicely, but let's stop the charade that religion can relate anything factual or scientific to us. The track record of religion (even, or especially, the LDS religion) getting scientific claims correct is abysmal. As such, it is highly innacurate to claim that any religion is completely in sync with science. And don't give me that "eventually" or "in the end" line, because if a religion doesn't have the power or authority to get things right in the present, why should I trust my future to it?

nathan c:

It's irrelevant if you're a member or not. Your religion is basically how you construe it, based on your history, your intellect, the matters you inculcate into your being.

The exmos add nothing. Former members of sects traditionally are deemed unreliable as sources of information about the sect. The UN commission conducted a very good study on that in the 90s.

The point of the discussion is LDS policy and doctrine generally accepts scientific inquiry. It is not the explainor of conditions but religion answers the question about what to do with conditions.

There is nothing unscientific in the LDS policy on what to do with homosexuality. There still is little understanding as to causality. LDS don't opine on such a topic, as that would delve into the world with which religion is not equipped. It does express an opinion on what to do, and many don't like that answer. Fine, reject the religion and find one that suits your needs.

And your recitations of personal opinions of leaders of the Church only show that leaders are products of their era. Much policy is based on culture and not all policy, or perhaps a lot of it, is not based on revelation. There is revelation of affirmation, revelation of direction and revelation of correction.

Most LDS are poor historians, as are members of most any other creed. LDS do not know their history and do not understand textual or cultural underpinnings. So? Ask a Catholic about their Church's history.

Quote details of every pope and see how far you'd get.

Now, culturally, many leaders while tying themselves to certain resurrected gnostic traditions came out of certain fundamentalistic traditions. As a result, they spent their lives overcoming those traditions.

Leaders are just plain men, who receive a little bit of revelation and work most out of training, culture and traditions. Should it surprise you that some of the traditions are inconsistent with science?

I cannot convince you against your will.

You have made up your mind on those issues. So why should anybody discuss issues on which you've closed your mind.

An LDS man declares religion is big enough to include scientific ideas.

You then declare yourself to be a former "insider", which by the way, the UN in a very good study determined that ex-members are unreliable sources as to the culture of a religious sect.

You then attack the religion, holding some artifacts of the religion out of context, to illustrate your point. It is a tired manner of attack, but it misses the point of the debate and discussion.

The point was for fundamentalists and for nonfundamnetalists, what is the role of scientific inquiry in a religious atmosphere?

LDS argue the two can mutually coexist, because fundamentally, LDS argue the role of religion is NOT scientific study but to provide moral guidance in how we should live. We do not view religious texts as scientific resources, we do not even view them as histories, but rather as religious texts for religious purposes. We do not seek to prove scientifically our metaphysics, which will continue to change and to evolve as more information becomes available to us. The religious texts have some historical artifacts but are not histories.

Challenge them if you will, but you are hijacking the post and the thread from the core of the original post. There are plenty of anti-mormon sites, relish them to your heart's content.

But, other than to state, you believe LDS do not respect science, because in your belief, LDS do not embrace scientific points of view according to your world outlook on certain matters or inconsistencies appear (which almost all scientific study examines points of inconsistency), that LDS do not believe what they purport to believe. Thank you for getting into our collective psyche which is by no means a monolith, but rather a tossed salad.

It is possible for religious persons to believe God operates consistent with scientific principles and that those principles are greatly misunderstood. I agree with that proposition. I also do not apologize for what LDS theologies discover or purport, but do not accept your interpretation thereof as an outsider. I accept them for what they are, ideas designed to motivate me to be better. There are few core absolutes.

I remember the priest in Rudy, stating, "There is a God, and I am not him." Those two things I believe are true. Other than that, my discovery is continuing.

Derrida, I think it's funny that you have to resort to calling someone names when they don't agree with you. For the record, I am a member of the LDS church. I have a current temple recommend. If "exmos" or non-members are not allowed to critique the church, can a member like myself do it?

Thanks for reminding me about the original topic of religion and science on this thread. I talked about this very subject last night at dinner with my 8-year old daughter (who I baptised not long ago).

As a "card-carrying" member of the church, what I find interesting and vexing about mormon doctrine is that it is so difficult to nail down. Figuring out mormon doctrine is like trying to nail (green) jello to a wall. It's too slippery and morphic. How does this relate to science? Well, a hundred years ago the president of the church declared evolution false. Less than fifty years ago the president of the church said that nobody from the earth would ever walk on the moon. I can provide cites for those, if you'd like, but a minute or two with google could find them just as quickly as I could.

My point is that mormon doctrine is not really aligned with science. The fact that today, the church doesn't publicly release statements about accepted scientific claims like the moon or evolution is more the case that the church is starting to become more savvy about PR and image, and desperately wants to appeal to mainstream christianity, than the claimed-but-false opinion that the church's doctrine is actually based on, or is compatible with, real science. The fact that the church sends a PR man like Otterson to this forum instead of an ecclesiastical authority is evidence of that. If the church is truly in line with science, we wouldn't see it's incorrect and unscientific stance on homosexuality, as one example.

James….I thought I would make a quick response.

You write:

“How DO you smart mormons explain the Swedenborg thing: S came up with the Celestial Kingdom scheme in 1758.”

Then to your responder you said:

“If I showed your post to an objective person here in Cambridge, they would say you exhibit all the characteristics of a cult member.”

You keep saying neutral observer as if there are people out there raised in a vacuums with no biases, prejudices, no received assumptions, who conduct their judgments on pure induction. The notion of neutrality and objectivity, apart from precise description of raw data (if that), is either an object of faith or a delusion. Since you seem to take it as a self evident given, rather than a tentative proposition, it might in your case be a delusion (maybe you would do good to try and understand French Postmodernism).

What received assumption or bias might cause one to reject the idea of Joseph and Swedenborg both receiving authentic divine revelations? I think it is the assumption gleaned from our common protestant heritage (yes atheists have received many biases from Protestantism) that revelation is monolithic—pure and unfettered concepts (much like Platos ideal types) being absorbed by Prophets in a similar way data is downloaded into a computer. This is not the process of revelation revealed to Joseph Smith.

The revelatory process occurs in a more messy fashion than that implied by Plato’s metaphysics. It actually looks more like Hegel’s dialectic than any notion of revelation typical of historical Christianity. It is outlined as follows in D&C 9:8-9:

“behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong.”

Therefore Joseph was as dependant on concepts in his immediate proximity for divine inspiration as he was dependant on God. He had to ponder on the former to receive revelation from the latter.

God must follow this fashion because of limits on His power explained by Mormon ontology—intelligence (which statement surely has layers of meaning) cannot be created, nor can elements (not meant in scientific sense I’m sure, but also signaling the Eternal properties of matter). See D&C 93.

These ideas are very different from the unqualified power of Calvinist notions of God we have inherited.

Because of these ontological limitations God’s work for the Immortality and Eternal Life of His children looks less like the work of engineer and more like the work of a gardener. To me that explains so much, most of which I will not go into here, for my lack of time.

But in good gardener fashion, God must prepare the soil in order to reap a harvest. That is why so many people can be seen as preludes to the restoration— John Wesley (whose ideas also permeate Joseph’s thought), Roger Williams, and, yes, Emanuel Swedenborg. According to Mormon thought, they all received revelations and inspiration from God to prepare the society and culture of Joseph Smith for the Restoration of the Gospel of Christ.

This explanation is not Post-hock. It is found in Latter Day revelations. From what we know about the process of revelation we should expect Joseph’s revelations to mirror concepts in his social environment, as well as ancient concepts. So Espen is right when he/she says “This "swedenborg" thing is also absolutely irrelevant.”

Latter Day Saints should look for truth everywhere they can, but the revelations and the Holy Spirit ought to be included if it is to bare light on the truth status of Mormonism. Many objections proposed by critics of the church can be answered if one simply seeks to understand what God has revealed about His nature and the nature of reality.

I’m signing off again. I wish I had your time James. You can have the last word as always.

Derrida
So we agree.
You think I make no constructive contribution
and I think the same in regard to you.

Thanks for your evaluation of my maturity.
I hope it makes you feel better. It obviously contributes nothing to the truth value of your statements.

On this public forum
Otterson represents the Mormon Church is compatible with Science and the Scientific Method, "Science plus Revelation." And presumably, with a search for truth.

This is clearly untrue. Scientists would never accept 200-300 of basic mormon beliefs as "true."
Mormons do. They decide based on Faith, not the scientific method.

You have not dealt with the specific questions I postulated to illustrate the cleavage between a scientific approach to truth and a faith based approach.
that is:
the Celestial Kingdom/Swedenborg Connection.
the Polygamy revelation.

OF COURSE the Mormon church stops its employees from bashing the church.

We all know that. It is expectable.

The POINT is: the church's goal is not
THE SEARCH for Truth,
it is
the Preservation of the Church.

Yours in emotional maturity

James

James:

My religion is what it is for me. You need not define it, and I will allow others. If you are so unsophisticated as your childish, half-hearted swipes represent, then so be it.

You can selectively quote various speakers to your heart's content, that doesn't represent what my faith states to me.

I have extensively studied the histories, the texts and will continue to do so, until I learn all the languages of the ancient texts. To understand is to shelve.

Rely as you will. Dissuade yourself. That is your legal right, but your mode of argumentation is tired as the day it was first wrought.

I was once atheist, but I do not bother speaking how atheists are wrong or nonreconcilable.

I was agnostic, but I appreciate their internal honesty.

I appreciate the Catholic teachings, the preservation of knowledge and learning throughout the centuries, the incorporation of Hellenistic thought.

Eastern thought is also important.

As is phenomenology, in all its varieties.

It is categorically untrue that LDS are not allowed to think as they wish.

The LDS Church goes to great lengths to allow people to think as they wish.

The LDS Church will not sponsor derogatory literature designed to destroy it, with no search for the truth. That is not surprising. IBM does not employ its people to destroy it.

Is the LDS Church publication policy identical with that of the Catholic Church? No. Ain't diversity grand.

Yes, bitter apostates who throw bits and pieces have no role in meaningful dialogue, even though some actually believe there is no dialogue, only bits of intersecting monologues.

The bottom line: LDS Church does not hold itself out as a fundamentalist church. It greatly appreciates the roles of evolution and physics, chemistry, biology and other fascinating disciplines.

Science does not exclude the possibility of God, because science a method, as opposed to Gadamer's examination of truth, but not method. Modes of examination are important.

It has been written, "pride is caring who is right; humility is care what is right."

I wish more atheists and agnostics who had no ties to religion participated here as their role would be more constructive.

Thanks for your very thoughtful insights in mormon history. I have probably never heard any of this before.
In case you forgot, no religion and no christian faith is based on reason alone. It is based on faith.
How likely is a virgin birth? The resurrection? Miracles? An unseen power called God? I believe not because of reason or what is probable, I believe because I experience God and his power in my religious and general life. I call it the Holy Ghost. No person will ever come to a knowledge of God without faith.

That`s all. The best of luck to you all in your own personal search for God.

Derrida

I never understood you and your French Postmodernism. Very few others did either.

And you post here adds to the confusion. Couln't you have dropped a few more cultural references?

Your Ad Hominem attack ("bitter ex mormons') is odious. Are you imitating the Bush admin?

It clearly is a diversion from the substance of the argument.

It is also incredibly condescending: you are not smarter than I am, or more psychologically healthy.

Otterson's main point is clearly that
1. Mormonism is consistent with science, or will be in the fulness of time when the scientists get enlightened.
2. Mormonism is " reason with the added component of revelation."

Obfuscation.

The standard of accepting something as true
ARE totally different for scientists
than they are for Mormons.

When confronted with a conflict between a Scientific Conclusion and a Mormon Conclusion

the general authorities tell you to
Believe the Church.

the scientists say: don't believe the claim of "revelation" without evidence.

The mormon claim may be true. we can't prove that Zeus does not exist.

Further, the Church and its main "educational institution" are NOT dedicated to "finding truth."

too much truth and you get fired or excommunicated.

Your philosophical sophistry can not cover up this obvious fact.

Google "BYU academic freedom."
Read Boyd Packer or Gordon Hinckley's complete works.

The debate here misses Otterson's point and the point of the reasonable discussion.

There are some bitter ex-Mormons who wish to debunk LDS "doctrine", whatever that mutable subject is, by quoting piecemeal members of the LDS Church. Notice, these exMos don't place up for scrutiny their belief systems, but just lob grenades out of context without foundation to excite the masses. They have nothing to contribute to the science debate. ExMos should actually produce something, not be just anti something. Oh, well. I suppose a difference of ontological and ontic. ExMos are ontic. However, Derrida might eschew such a marker.

Lost in all the debate is the obvious comment, Otterson intended to convey, when all true religion and true science is finally revealed they will be reconciled. Until such time, man's limited reason and understanding will make a mess of it all. But that's the fun of it.

LDS obviously believe some things that science can't prove or disprove. So? That doesn't mean LDS beliefs don't embrace the scientific method. For many of the moral compasses, which is really the purpose of religion, whether we accurately understand the cosmos is irrelevant, except in terms of intellectual rigor. Intellectual rigor, like disciplining the body through consistent exercise is important.

As somebody pointed out here earlier, many people accept religion, because it makes them feel better. If it doesn't, do something else.

But the bottom line, LDS are NOT fundamentalist. They are closer to gnostic, Aristotlean, with phenomological bent. They are most definitely not Cartesian in universal outlook.

As for this lonely perspective, Derrida seeks not to convince atheists or or agnostics, for the only convincing comes from within, not from without. As the axiom goes, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

Mormon Doctrine on Polygamy

Let me stipulate that my Mormon Great Grandfather had seven (I think) wives. When I was growing up my relatives implied that it was three, but as we did more research...well, you know the routine.

Mormon Doctrine (Official Scott?) says that good Mormon MEN in the Celestial Kingdom
will practice Polygamy.

I believe that teaching comes from Joseph Smith.

Would a non-indoctrinated independent observer believe that this doctrine originated because:

1. God revealed it to the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith?

or

2. Joseph Smith had over 30 wives. On many levels, both overt and unconscious, he would be psychologically motivated to "reveal" that this was God's plan for him and the other men in Heaven.

Which choice would you make? Depends whether or not you have drunk the kool aid, yes?

Interesting correlation, BTW, with the belief of the 19 world trade center pilots that they would immediately have access to 72 virgins in heaven.

Nice work if you can get it.

Totally seriously, does it not make one ask the question of how any reasoning person could believe this doctrine? I think my brother still does.

What is Mormon Doctrine

Nathan presents an eloquent and wonderfully lucid picture of the difficulties and inconsistencies inherent in determining WHAT MORMON DOCTRINE IS.

Scott gives us the gnomic, and odiously threatening, explanation:
"It doesn't work that way."

Well Scott, you are not dealing with compliant believers here whom the church can excommunicate.

Your stance of dismissal, hauteur, and intellectual tap-dancing doesn't work out in the real world the way it would work if I were a BYU professor you could fire.

It does square perfectly with the Mormon tradition of Incredibly Polite but Ruthlessly Authoritarian stance towards Mormons who, as Grant Palmer did, actually TELL the TRUTH about, for instance, Joseph Smith's Sexual history.

Scott, where exactly can I find all of Mormon doctrine? Is it in the book, "Mormon Doctrine" published by Bruce McConkie, who was an apostle? Is it when the president of the church speaks in conference? What about apostles, or other General Authorities speaking in conference? What about things published in the Ensign, the offical magazine for the church? (If a General Authority can't speak authoritatively for the church, shouldn't that title be changed?)

I assume you will probably say that mormon doctrine is only found in the canonized scriptures, and that everything else is opinion or personal advice. If that's true, why doesn't the church either live the Word of Wisdon as found in the D&C, or change the D&C to reflect Heber Grant's changes? Same goes for polygamy and D&C 132. Even the very conservative "standard" of using only canonized scriptures is not a reliable indicator of what is mormon doctrine.

One of the problems with mormon doctrine is that members are supposed to believe and act on everything that comes from the leaders. Unless it turns out that their advice was wrong, or if it becomes embarassing. Or if it turns out that a later prophet decides it wasn't doctrine. I thought the point of having a living prophet was to continually give us more of the gospel, but it seems most of the prophets of the last 100 years have only been correcting the false doctrines of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Where's the new stuff? Oh, yeah, Gordon Hinckley said we don't need new revelation, that we have a large canon to draw from. Please tell me again why then do we need a prophet?

Smith, Celestial Kingdoms, and Cults

Espen

If I showed your post to an objective person here in Cambridge, they would say you exhibit all the characteristics of a cult member.

I am not talking about Cambridge atheists, mind you.

I am talking about good Episcopalians and Unitarians who are definitely Terrestial Kingdom Material.

Look up the characteristics of cult members, and see if you don't fit the profile. I have, so I am not talking off the seat of my pants.

Consider this:
We go to a smart and fair neutral observer and say

A foundational belief of the Mormon church is that there are three degrees of heaven.

Two possible explanations for the origin of this belief are

1. GOD the FATHER actually revealed this scheme to Joseph Smith around 1830, as Smith caims.

2. E Swedenborg wrote a book in 1758 that detailed a scheme that was substantially the same, including the name "Celestial Kingdom" which the Mormons use. Smith had access to the book in his local library, and it was somewhat well known in religious circles.

QUIZ:

Did God really reveal this to Smith
or
Did he copy the Swedenborg scheme and say that God had revealed it to him.

I guarantee you that 99 out of 100 UN-indoctrinated rational human beings would choose the second.

BYU's first commitment is Unquestionable
NOT to the truth. It is to propping up Mormon doctrine. They will cover up, intimidate, engage in character assassination, anything to cover up.

Harvard's first commitment is to the truth.
Every true university's first commitment is to the truth.

Otterson LIES
because he implies that Mormonism is
compatible with the search for the truth
including in science.

This is a deliberate, knowing, lie.

Otterson implies Mor

Just one final comment from me.
It is not impossible that "academic freedom" at BUY is somewhat limited, I dont know. I assume many other private institutions have some guidelines as well. Actually it is absolute irrelevant as far as religious truth or not in the LDS church.

This "swedenborg" thing is also absolutley irrelevant. Whether Smith knew about the book or not, no one knows for certain. But even if he and the whole world knew about swedenborg it makes no difference. The prophet came to restore. Things that were lost, and more important- things that were partially lost. It includes correct understanding of commonly known christian principles like Christ and the atonement, baptism, authority, grace and works, purpose of life and the plan of salvation. Some of those teachings were already well known in christianity, some not. Smith did not restore as many totally new principles, as he did restore a correct understanding of those already known. If swedenborg got his ideas from himself, God or the devil I don`t know. It does not matter. Joseph Smiths vision of the three degrees of glory restored the correct knowledge of the celestial kingdom, and its proper context, whether or not any basic knowledge about the three kingdoms existed before him.

One further piece of data, to show how academic freedom is valued at BYU. Given this kind of action (which the web site below noted is full of) it is hard to believe BYU professors were restricted and intimidated by the general authorities)

From the Web site of the BYU chapter of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors, a mainstream group that represents professors' interests)

**In 1995 Professors Karen E. Gerdes and Martha N. Beck were forbidden from publishing the results of their study of the experiences of Mormon women survivors of childhood sexual abuse who asked for help from their Mormon ecclesiastical leaders. In the majority of cases, the advice these victims received was damaging rather than helpful. Both professors have since left the university; the study appeared in the Spring 1996 issue of Affilia, Journal of Women and Social Work (Vol. 11, No. 1).

Yes,
Palmer's book WAS originally distributed by mormon owned Deseret Books.
He was a professor at *BYU*.

found two more oxford mormon books.
one prof from *LYdon State*
one from * Hanover College*

How DO you smart mormons explain the Swedenborg thing: S came up with the Celestial Kingdom scheme in 1758.

BTW,my ancestors and relatives were Mormon Royalty, and I know the doctrine inside out.
My great grandfather was in the jail when Joseph smith was killed. too bad they didn't get me.

Scott says Oxford press has published plenty of books on mormon history.

sO i go to Oxford press to see
and the first two books i find on mormon history
are written by
Terry Givens of the *University of Richmond***
and
Claudio Bushman of *Columbia University*.

Beck said *BYU* professors.

the General authorities can't fire Columbia professors.

Still waiting for disproof.

How about the recent by professor who was excommunicated by the church for writing (sympathetically but truthfully) about Mormon history. Palmer i think his name is.

and his book was published by Deseret Press i am pretty sure.

Scott

Let's limit this to a "find-outable" question.

Did the General Authorities communicate to faculty at BYU in the Sociology department

IN 1990

that they could not publish in "alternative publications", ie not church sponsored?

The authorities DID NOT say professors could not write about evolution or feminism.

A number of the professors in the meeting said that it was understood,not written down, that one didn't publish about those topics.

But back to the limited issue: did that edict come down in 1990 that academics at BYU sociology could not publish in secular journals (eg the American Journal of Sociology) or not.

As to why the sociology department mentioned evolution: it was not because those professors wrote about evolution: they cited evolution as one of the topics that professors should be wary of writing about.

Believers are always asking atheists to prove that God didn't exist.

Beck says that in a faculty meeting, with witnessses, the chair of the sociology dept anounced the publishing policy.

Please therefore prove that it did not happen.

Of course you probably can't, unless you have access to eyewitness testimony of the meeting. Just like I can't "prove* that God exists.

This quote was made in a comment above:

"... it was taught by Joseph Smith, the revered Prophet of mormonism, so it is therefore doctrine"

My answer is....ummmmm....no. That isn't how it works.

I'm suprised by the amount of completely uninformed, even bigoted comments made here. Just for an example, the last comment claims that Martha Beck's Sociology department said they couldn't publish in non-official publications, nor could they publish on the topics of:

Evolution
Mormon History
American Archeology
Feminism

The writer of this comment would then have to explain the large number of books on Mormon history published through Oxford Press and the University of Illinois Press as well as through other publishers.

The writer would also have to explain why the Sociology department was even talking about evolution, history, or archeology when those topics aren't even covered by the Sociology Department. I should hope the Sociology Department doesn't publish in these areas. I also hope they don't publish in the areas of engineering, chemistry, or physics.

The LDS church has no position on evolution, and BYU has a very good archeology department. They have a fabulous library which is open to all and it includes sections on Mormon history and on feminism.

I would hope that in the future people would have some idea what they are talking about before they comment.

Otterson's PR Lies

as what may be the capper to this post,
let me speak plainly.

Otterson's column is a bunch of lies.

I quote from Martha Beck's recounting of a faculty meeting of the sociology department at Brigham Young University in 1990,
where the chairman announced that the faculty could
no longer
1. Publish in "alternative" publications (anything but official Mormon publications)
2. by implication and general understanding, publish about forbidden topics.

What topics? Martha Asked.

Evolution
Mormon History (like Jospeph Smith's fantasises i presume)
American Archeology
FEMINISM!

So, Yes, Mormons are perfectly comfortable with evolution, as long as its scholars don't write about it, and nothing about it that is not church sanctioned is published by Mormon academics.

Lies? Hypocrasy? Mind control? Fascism?
All of those would be too extreme, wouldn't they.
Would not acknowledge what good people Mormons are, would they?

A religion, like many/most religions, built on lies, distortions, and cover ups.

Is that Good or Evil?

Espen

I am sure it makes you feel better to think of yourself as emotionally healthy, intellectually balanced, and spiritually enlightened, much more so than ex mormons such as myself.

The data doesn't show that you are correct. It is getting pretty extensive.

Mormons are usually very nice people (Body Packer IS a son of a B)

but shake yourself up a little: Richard Dawkins is CLEARLY much more intelligent than you or 99% of the people at BYU

He is pretty emotionally healthy. He is far from a conspiracy theorists.

The fact that mormons and other believers are good people does not show that God exists.

All the theological bases of the Mormon church established by Smith are riddled with questions (start with the fact that the Celestial Kingdom was invented by Swedenborg in 1758).

The God Hypothesis, for an intelligent, un-indoctrinated human, is incredibly shaky whether youu are a mormon, a catholic, or a Jain.

The religious world is unfortunately not only full of intolerance, bitterness and prejudice, it is also full of pseudo-scolars and self-proclaimed experts and historians. Some presenting the most fantastic conspiration theories. Some mixing freely any quotation from any person from any time in the last 200 years to develope their own special little theory. And it sells. A lot. It continuously feeds a religious market hungry for church scandales and good stories. But more importantly, it feeds a large group of spiritually imature christians and "ex-mormons" that need to belittle others in order to keep their own faith secure and alive.

I am sure individuals in the LDS church, including Joseph Smith, prophets and members writing their private journals, have said some questionable things. Incorrect things. Speculated. Given suboptimal talks. Sinned a million times. It does not matter. What matters is that you treat other denominations with the same level of preofessionslism, seriousness and respect that you would like others to treat your.

And yes, I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Reyjo,

Sounds like you are looking for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who possesses a multitude of noodly appendages with which to reach out and touch his subjects. The FSM is a God among gods, always willing to bless those who contribute money to his cause and curse those who lack faith in his reality.

Wes,

i was born a mormon. lived as a mormon. but i will likely die an atheist. which means, from what i have been told, that i wont be dying in a foxhole.

my son thinks all gods should have more than two arms. perhaps if i find one i really like with the right number of arms, ill believe. in the meantime, i cant trust a god that would allow me to risk as much as i did by passing my life as a mormon for so long.

as for jesus. great guy, maybe. virgin mother? nope. that didnt happen. i recommend "the gospel according to jesus christ", that is a great book. it is a bit edgy, but it makes on think a bit about what is really being said and attributed to jesus.

Thanks Wes.

appreciate your giving us that personal history

best

james

James,

Fortunately for me I was a convert to the cult as a young adult. I had a traditional protestant upbringing. I still hold to my traditional christian views I had as a child. I still believe in God and Christ as the bible teaches. I would not classify myself as an evangelical fundamentalist. Mormonism has taught me the evils of fanaticism.

Brother Otterson stated:

"My religion not only allows for but encourages a cosmic view. Its scriptures teach that there are worlds without number, that many of those worlds are inhabited, and that as worlds pass away, others come into being as part of God’s grand design for the immortality and eternal life of man."

I want to expand on this thought for a moment, for the full benefit of those out there who do not know anything about my religion. I was born mormon, served a mormon mission for two years, and am fully active in the church today. I thank Brother Otterson for bringing up the cosmic view of our religion, and for giving me this opportunity to share one of Joseph Smith's teachings. That of a parallel planet that houses the Ten Tribes of Israel. The parallel or twin planet concept is not a theory, it was taught by Joseph Smith, the revered Prophet of mormonism, so it is therefore doctrine.

The following quotes establish a parallel planet exists, belonging to the Ten Tribes, as taught by Joseph Smith:

Samuel Holister Rogers, Journal, p. 8 in original, p. 17 of typescript, original in Brigham Young University library.

The winter following (1840) I attended a public meeting held in Vincent Knight's house at which the Prophet Joseph Smith gave the following instruction:

'When the world was first made it was a tremendous big thing. The Lord concluded it was too big. We read in the Scriptures that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided so the Lord divided the earth. When the ten tribes of the children of Israel went into the north country he divided it again, so the earth has been divided and subdivided.

-----

Bathsheba W. Smith, "Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith." The Juvenile Instructor, June 1, 1892, Vol. 27. p. 34. Some things she recollects of him are here given:

"I heard Joseph Smith preach baptism for the dead; saw him baptizing for the dead in the Mississippi River. I heard him say, "Preadventure, the Ten Tribes were not on this globe, but a portion of this earth had cleaved off with them and went flying into space, and when the time comes when the 'earth reels to and fro like a drunken man and the stars from heaven fall,' it would join on again.

-----

Wilford Woodruff, Journal, Sep 25, 1859. Printed in Waiting for World's End, The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Susan Staker, ed., Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1993, p. 238.

25 Sunday I met with the Twelve in the evening ... The evening was spent in conversing upon the subject of the Ten tribes in the North Country, the Higher law of god in oposition to the law of gravitation in the assention of Christ Elijah & Enoch & the City of Zion to heaven upon the Same principle a portion of the North Country Containing the ten tribes may be separated from the Earth. O Hyde & others believed they would soon return.

-----

Wilford Woodruff, Journal, Sep 8, 1867, Printed in Waiting for World's End, The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Susan Staker, ed., Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1993, p. 291.

8 Sunday We had social Conversation in the Evening President Young said he herd Joseph Smith say that the Ten Tribes of Israel were on a Portion of Land separated from this Earth.

-----

Matthias F. Cowley, "Wilford Woodruff, History of His Life and Labors, as Recorded in His Daily Journals. Salt Lake City, 1909, reprinted by Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1964, p. 448. [1867]

The leaders on their return from Provo made a visit to Logan. Here, President Young is quoted as saying that the ten tribes of Israel are on a portion of the earth - a portion separated from the main land. This view is also expressed in one of the sacrificial [sacramental?] hymns written by Eliza R. Snow:

"And when the Lord saw fit to hide
The ten lost tribes away,
Thou, earth, was severed to provide
The orb on which they stay."

-----

Orson Pratt, Letter Box of Orson Pratt, Church Historian's Office, Letter to John C. Hall, December 13, 1875. [Quoted in R. Clayton Brough, "The Lost Tribes", Horizon Publishers, 1979, p. 50.]

The Prophet Joseph [Smith] once in my hearing advanced his opinion that the Ten Tribes were separated from the Earth; or a portion of the Earth was by a miracle broken off, and that the Ten Tribes were taken away with it, and that in the latter days it would be restored to the Earth or be let down in the Polar regions. Whether the Prophet founded his opinion upon revelation or whether it was a matter of mere speculation with him, I am not able to say.

-----

Philo Dibble, as quoted in Norman C. Pierce, ``3½ Years,' n.d., n.p., p. 129; which paraphrases Matthew W. Dalton, "A Key to This Earth," 1906, [p.?].

The Hon. Philo Dibble of Springville, Utah, onetime bodyguard and intimate friend of the Prophet Joseph, is said to have received a diagram from the Prophet in 1842, which indicated the arrangement of this earth as a triple planet at the time when the Ten Tribes were directed to the northern sphere.

The diagram appears much as would one large and two small balls spaced close together; the larger ball in the center representing the earth. It is pointed out that the Ten Tribes attained this northern planet by means of the axis that joined them together, and the triple arrangement of these planets gives a literal significance to the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, 88:45, "The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars giveth their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God." Here it is pointed out that many of the stars are in double and triple arrangement, although they may not be touching each other.

This author also points out that the northern planet also provided the place from which the water came and receded during the great baptismal flood of Noah's day. And it is there that the great surplus of water will go when the continents are made into one land mass again as they were before the days of Peleg. Some believe that the seeming nearness of such a planet is what inspired construction of the Great Tower of Babel in a vain attempt to reach another world of higher order, - to reach heaven as it were.

-----

Charles L. Walker, Journal, original in Brigham Young University library, edited version printed in Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Utah State University Press, Logan, 1980. Page numbers are from the Utah State University version.

Vol. II, p. 532 [Feb. 1881]

Friday 11th ... Some remarks were made by Sister Green stating that she heard Elisa Snow speak of the 9 and 1/2 lost tribes being on an orb and would eventually come back to the[i]r former place and we should know when they came by certain signs &c &c.

... Vol. II, p. 539 [Mar. 1881] Sunday 6th ... At night went to meeting. Bro Jacob Gates spoke in a very pleasing manner on a variety of subjects ... Said he heard Joseph Smith say when he was head bishop at Partridge's House in Far West, Missouri, concerning the ten lost tribes, They are hid from us by land and air. Said Bishop Partridge, I guess they are by land and water, in a doubting manner as if Joseph did not know what he was talking about. Yes, said Joseph, by land and air; they are hid from us in such a manner and at such an angle that the Astronomers cannot get their telescopes to bear on them from this earth. [AA comment insert -- Exactly how thin is this piece of ground that it disappears when turned sideways in relation to us?!?]

...Vol. II, p. 540 [Mar. 1881] Thurs 10th Cold. At the Temple all day. At night paid Sister Eliza R Snow a short Visit and had some conversations with her on the Dividing of the Earth. She told me that she heard the prophet Joseph say that when the 10 tribes were taken away, the Lord cut the Earth in two, Joseph striking his left hand in the center with the edge of his right to illustrate the idea, and that they (the ten tribes) were on an orb or planet by themself, and when they returned with the portion of this Earth that was taken away with them, the Coming together of these 2 bodies or orbs would cause a shock and make the "Earth reel to and fro like a druken Man." She also state that he said the earth was now ninety times smaller or smaller now than when first created or organized.

-----

Mormonism is a cosmic religion indeed. Yes, we are not another Protestant religion. It appears, from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith above, that we are more akin to the Raelians and Scientologists.

Ex Mormons and the Concept of God

Wes,

You mentioned I think that you believe in God still, though you are no longer a practicing Mormon.

I am truly and totally respectfully interested in what your conception of God (and Jesus) is at this point.

Many of my dear and respected friends believe in God so this is not at all a critical question.

I am just interested in a little more specifics on your Concept of God.

Creator of the world?
Reason, intelligence and motivation?
etc

thanks for anything you are willing to share.

James

(Reyjo: i am also interested in yours)

Mormonism and Nice-ness

I am reading Martha Beck's book, Leaving the Saints, and she describes returning to Provo after being in Cambridge, which I confess is now my Babylon-like residence (you should see how many hours a day people *study* here - evil!)

and how struck she was by

HOW INCREDIBLY NICE everyone was.

We all know who grew up in it that there is
A Veneer of Niceness in Mormon Culture
that is iron-clad.
to violate it is worse than child molestation (as JS showed).

It is truly a Stepford Wives type of phenomenon.

I sense that Espen's reaction to us bad boys is that we are not playing nice.

Espen: we are no longer under the thumb of Mormon patriarchy.

May I say, with love my brother, that your empty manners lectures are not the manners of the intellectual circles here in Cambridge.

Here we frankly name and criticize and cite evidence, even at the risk of hurting someone's delicate feelings. Hate truly is rare, both with me and with my colleagues here.

But anger is sometimes called for, and is a legitimate emotion.

its hard to hate packer, donchya think, james? i mean, he is just so cute when he talks about homosexuals, intellectuals and feminists being the antichrists. but at least he didnt say all that in conference, he said it on the campus of byu.

Reyjo,

You are right about my tactics. I am working on not letting my disgust come through in my posts. I know it is not helpful. Thanks for pointing it out. What I was referring to as far as being threatened with hell was a post by James earlier where he mentions he was threatened with "hell" if he did not conform as a kid. You are absolutely right about fear of separation from family. This is an effective method the Mormon church uses to control people.

Espen,

This has nothing to do with "religious hatred." This has to do with me coming to a realization of what the Mormon church is and the horrendous spiritual and psychological damage this church does to people. As far as JS, he was murdered for several reasons, one of them being that he destroyed a printing press run by William Law who was threatening to print stories about JS sexual exploits. JS was marrying and having sex with other mens' wives (the men were still alive). Some of the girls he was having relations with were as young as 14. In those days, deviant behavior such as this was not tolerated like it is now.

espen. niiiiiiiiiiiiice one.

there was some quality substance in that post. well done. by good christian men, do you mean men that didnt like having their printing press smashed, their fourteen year old daughters married into polygamy, their wives taken for brides, bank frauds, kings of the world, militia-men, etc?

narrow-minded evangelicals and exmormons are making it worse? thanks for the exclamation to my previous post. an exmormon is one that lacks love, was once a good christian and is now full of hatred, by your standard. lovely. just lovely.

joseph smith can be admired for many things. see bushman. he did a lot in his short life. he was certainly an overachiever. he impressed and led many, including many from my family. that said, he was also more than just a bit of a scoundrel. thats ok i suppose, lots of people were scoundrels in the day. and there are many around now.

i certainly dont endorse the murder of anyone, including smith's. but for crying out loud, this was not a lamb going to the slaughter. this was an outlaw getting his comings-up. he even managed to kill a few on his final stand. lamb? hardly.

now, what do you have to add to the topic at hand? anything scientific? or, are you just here to identify the haters and those that make things worse?

Hate and Mormonism, per Mr Amundsen

Mr A

Call it Hate if it makes you feel better.

And regarding the assassination, my great grandfather was in the jail with the prophet, so my vantage point is as generationally informed as yours. I come from Mormon royalty too.

To note that Joseph Smith and the Church said many fantastical things, and did many things that are ethically dubious, let alone extremely suspicious relating to the foundations of Mormon Doctrine that I was indoctrinated into for 19 years,

is not necessarily Hate.

It is largely: "I can't believe that I actually believed that for all those years."

The reason many of us did is that Mormon thought control is very good at encouraging us to say

"well that doesn't make any sense, but I will just put it out of my mind."

By the way, it would be incredible, wouldn't it, if an ex mormon who was indoctrinatied and intimidated with threats of eternal darkness to be mad (angry) at the Church that was the agent for this abuse?

I love many good Mormons i grew up with. A few of them are sadistic patriarchal bastards. But what the church as an institution does is worthy of severe and frank criticism. Hate IS an unhealthy emotion, and many of us ex mormons need to work through it.

I hate what the Catholic Church did in covering up the abuse of children for decades.

I hate what the Mormon Church does to Gay men, and to the women who end up marrying them after they are "cured and repentant."

I don't hate the individuals. Boyd Packer comes close, but even him I don't hate.

I guess at the age of 59 and a successful career i should take maturity lessons from you. What is your web site?

You exhibit a trait I find worse than anger, if the anger is properly channeled.

That trait is sanctimoniousness. Martha Beck's father Hugh Nibley is a classic model for you.

After having read most of the discussions I suddenly understand what deep religious hatered must have turned good christian men into the murderers of Joseph Smith.

It is so little love in the world, unfortunately many narrow-minded evangelicals and "ex-mormons" are making it worse.

Time to raise the bar after 180 years?

Reyjo

Heartfelt and impassioned post.

And good try at returning to the topic.

BUT...didn't Joseph Smith tell us that God and Adam are the same personage?

I think if we really thought this out logically, we would find some contradiction between the Mormon friendliness to science and the theories of the big bang and of evolution. Though I suppose God could have, Superman=like, sped the Evolution process up so it looked like millions of years to us but was really 6 days in his time.

Wes,

i cant say i endorse your style but i certainly respect your sentiment. for those not in the know, "morg" and "morgbots" are derogatory terms to describe the robotic, conformist institution and its followers. the terms even made it to prime time on an hbo series last spring. that said, i am not sure this is the place for the terms. there are other venues for that. but again wes, i respect the sentiment.

i want to disagree with your description of the mormon standard threats and tactics. i wouldnt describe it as a threat of hell. that is much too fantastical to really get the traction that the mormon church has. what is common, endorsed, standard, whatever you want to call it, is a significantly more tangible threat - separation from family.

mormons dont tell their children they will go to hell for not being mormon. they repeatedly tell them they will not see their families after death if they are not mormon. they tell parents and siblings and friends that only full tithe paying mormons can attend a wedding of a loved one in a temple. i have exited those temples and seen the outsiders waiting, including fathers that were unable to see their own children wed. in fact, i saw my own fathers face on the outside. not so cool.

its very simple in mormon logic - if you love your parents, you will stay on the path. if you get off the path, you must not want to be part of the family forever. it seems so silly to the nonmormon. it destroys individuals and families that try and work around it. it benefits and binds a few. but for the most part, this threat is the core of what is harmful about the mormon church and it explains why getting out is so treacherous, painful, scary and lonely.

mormons explain that loneliness and pain as the consequence of having lost the spirit. it wouldn't cross the leaderships minds or the minds of mainstream members that the pain is the result of having a fulfilled a prophecy here on earth - separation from family - for separating from a small church.

wes. while i disagree with some of your tactics. know again. i agree with you on many levels. especially wes, i know the grief of having been a leader in that church, and having been on the side of hurting, judging, dismissing and harming other people as a leader in the mormon church. i hear you brother. been there. done that. and i may never forgive myself for sitting in harsh judgment of others as a priesthood leader in the lords one true church. yeah right.

now, where were we? something about science, right? yes. science. the mormon church likes science, but cant abandon that whole adam was the first man thing. was that a good enough effort to return to the topic? probably not.

James,

The Morg has covered up and protected their share pedophiles and abusers. I am personally aware of one such case which is a big reason why my eyes were opened to the viciousness of this organization and caused me to start thinking outside of the Morg box and investigating. The Morg has a tendency to blame the victim and try to shut them up so as not to generate any negative publicity. It is despicable and I believe the men that engage in these coverups will one day stand accountable before their maker. The morg leadership in SLC is well aware of the vile behavior and coverups that go on. As far as killing to the protect the church, I have seen stats that estimate between 600 to 1,000 people were murdered in 19th century Utah as a direct result of the barbaric doctrine of Blood Atonement sanctioned by the Morg. The blood of these victims is on the hands of the Morg leadership. In some cases, Bloody Brigham himself ordered the killings. I have no doubt current Morg leadership still feels it is "better that one man should perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief."

James, don't underestimate these people in the Morg leadership. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I caution you and others not to think they will not go to extraordinary lengths to protect their organization.

As far as Gays, I agree with you. The way they are treated by the Mormon church is despicable. I don't agree with the lifestyle but I also know these people deserve lives of dignity and respect - free from discrimination. Some of the most wonderful people I ever met were gay. It is interesting that Utah has the highest suicide rate in the country. A direct result of the guilt and shame the Morg uses as levers of control on their robotic adherents. You have mentioned in a previous post of being threatened with hell if you did not conform. When I was in leadership, I used this tactic frequently. It is horrendous and I am sorry I did it.

Wes and anyone else who is still out there
(the Liberal Mormons have left the discussion: plain speaking by people like you, Wes, is too impolite and unrespectful of authority).

The Mormon Church is like the Catholic Church, which here in Boston covered up rampant sexual abuse of minors for decades so as not to hurt the reputation of the church.

Every intrenched power base with billions of dollars, like the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, or the US government, does have to kill a few people to preserve their investment and their power base.

The way the Mormons treat Gay people is morally despicable. I am sure there are many many suicides due to the Mormon policy and practice in this area. And think how much fun it must be to be a Mormon woman who gets married to a "cured and repentant" gay man.

James,

I used to worship the ground Hinckley walked on. But now I realize what a scoundrel he is. A real eye opener for me was a book I read called The Mormon Murders. It was about the whole Salamander Letter fiasco and coverup in the 80s. I didn't know much about it before reading this book. 2 good men were murdered because of Hinckley's dishonesty and corruption. James, I am convinced this is a dangerous organization. With the Morg, the ends do justify the means and they will do anything, and I mean anything to protect the "good name" of their church. It is mind boggling to think of the number of lives that have been ruined by this vicious organization.

Is the Mormon Church Built on Deliberate Deception?

Much as I can not imagine that such a thing could be true - a religious or political organization building its empire on lies and half-truths, such as Iraq's nucleur program.

Since I left the church at age 19, I realized that of course Joseph Smith had to have plagiarized and vividly imagined to come up with the Book of Mormon and the D of C.

But this little PR job by Otterson has caused me to look more closely at official Mormon Church deception throughout its history. I didn't realize how thoroughgoingly Barnum esque Joseph Smith was (remember, my great grandfather was with JS when JS was "assassinated").

I didn't realize the extent that Mormon General authorities cover up, as any political organization does of course.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." I have more appreciation for that phrase now than ever.

Wes, thanks for your illuminations.

I still kind of have a soft spot in my heart for Hugh B Brown though, and my intuition tells me David O McKay was a good guy.

Kimball and Hinckley - another story.

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

Sorry, the above post should be named "Wes" not James.

James,

I completely understand your anger and feel it myself for similar reasons. I won't rehash all that now. A good book I just recently read is by Grant Palmer called An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. He documents where Joseph Smith obtained most of his material for the BOM. I was stunned at the level of plagarism, especially out of the Bible. Palmer lines up verses from both that had minor variations. Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life is directly out of JS mother's journal. It is almost identical to a dream his father had. He also took much from a work called A View of the Hebrews. Why didn't I know this for all these years? Answer, the morg wants to conceal the truth so it can continue to collect its billions of $ each year and increase its power. Look at Romney, the LDS Church's candidate for president. I am a conservative, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton before I vote for Romney. Romney's allegiance lies in SLC, not with the country. Anyway, I am getting a little off track. The morg is a deceptive organization that does not want its good little morgbots to question anything. I have seen the light now and know the truth. The truth will set you free......

Otterson, Evidence, and Dawkins

Otterson says:
"religious faith is not the opposite of reason – it is reason with the added component of revelation"

The Mormon Church makes many many extraordinary claims in its doctrines, and a majority are based on Joseph Smith's "revelations".
Like the Celestial Kingdom revelation of 1832, indicated above.

Reasonable people, let alone scientists, when confronted with unbelievable claims, ask what the evidence is, and how good it is. It is the first rule of being an educated person (I am restraining myself here).

As I noted in my post above, if the average Mormon did even the most basic research about the Celestial Kingdom, she would note that Swedenborg had the scheme 60 years before Smith.

But Smith claims God revealed it to him.

To believe Smith, one has to *willfully* deny the evidence, or be determined NOT to ask questions. And teach your children to do the same (which is why Dawkins calls such indoctrination child abuse).

This is one of the most fundamental, and pernicious, results of a religious world view that relys in faith in humans like Joseph Smith, or in one's own messages from God.

You don't evfen think of asking for the evidence, and examining it yourself, and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on it.

Any court of law, andy scientific historical inquiry, any moderately intelligent person, would have to believe, based on the evidence, that Joseph Smith's scheme was
=plagiarized from swedenborg
=NOT revealed by God.

This is not trivial to Mormons. All the most important things Mormons do, like getting sealed in the temple, are so they can go to the Celestial Kingdom, and be like God themselves.

Doesn't God have something to do with Truth?

Sorry I am angry - but I deserve to be. I was indoctrinated with this stuff for 18 years and threatened with Hell if I questioned the doctrine. This IS child abuse.

I should be polite and respectful of the people who indoctrinated me, yes?

Blasphemy about the Celestial Kingdom

Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Heaven, and the highest, the celestial kingdom, is available only to Mormons who are sealed in temple.

This scheme was announced by Joseph Smith in 1832 and was very controversial.

Smith's scheme was taken almost word for word from a book by Swedenborg in 1784. What a coincidence!

The reason I bring this up is that this forum, On Faith, is examining Faith, its basis and effects.

The Mormons have great faith in this "revelation" (see otterson, fact PLUS revelation).

The scheme is patently fantastical on its face, but given its provenence, one has to ask
How Gullible does one have to be to believe this.

Here is the more detailed data from a website critical of Mormonism: if you don't believe it,look up Swedenborg's book yourself.

For example, in 1784 a man by the name of Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."

By Joseph Smith's own statements, he was familiar with Swedenborg's writings. Smith told a convert by the name of Edward Hunter that "Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished."

I was so fascinated by the connection that Quinn documented, that I bought a copy of Swedenborg's book myself from Amazon.com. It's called "Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders and was written way before Joseph Smith. Yet it describes the three Mormon degrees of glory to the tee.

Not only does Quinn make a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg's ideas, but he also shows that his book "Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders" was a book in Smith's hometown library since 1817. Quinn also writes that "Nine miles from Smith's farm, in 1826 the Canandaigua newspaper also advertised Swedenborg's book for sale. The bookstore offered Swedenborg's publications for as little as 37 cents."

If you ever want to know details about the Mormon afterlife, read Swedenborg's book. Smith liberally plagarized from it to come up with his D&C "visions" of the celestial, telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. But Swedenborg's works are definitely the originals.

as a mormon, it is acceptable to dismiss the scientific claims of the church and embrace some science. the 6k year earth is one example. you can believe hinckley is a prophet, and not believe that humans began 6 thousand years ago. that is ok. you can still go to the temple. in fact, you could even be the pr director for the church and have such a "cosmic view." all the while thinking that hinckley is a prophet and you are sustaining him with your right arm to the square. [any opposed?]

but, but, but, but. its NOT ok to take a "cosmic view" on homosexuality and still go to the temple. it was not ok to have a cosmic view on race before 1978, and still be a faithful mormon. its NOT ok to take that "cosmic view" of wine and still go to the temple. its NOT ok to take a cosmic view of spending less time in church on sunday and still go to the celestial kingdom.

so, for those bashing otterson here, something he truly deserves in my opinion, it is close to true that the church does technically allow the cosmic view as it relates to some science. not the science of human sexuality, but for some sciences it is allowed. otterson is right. doesnt make him praiseworthy or of good report, but he is technically right. i seek after his response, but i dont think we will ever see it.

its the same thing over and over and over with this crowd. if you had faith you would understand, says the follower. if you dont understand, or profess to understand, you are slothful and without faith.

can someone help me with something? an atheist doesnt believe in god, right? what is a person that doesnt believe in the devil called? just wonderin.

ONEOFMANY

Let me restate what I understand you to be saying, with a couple of responses.

First, let me reiterate that this is a *public* forum run by a public newspaper on Faith.

It is NOT a private Mormon forum where Mormons can exchange views.

So if Mormons post columns or comments here, they are open to comment by others, even athiests.

BTW, first, do you ask Black People if you can call them a particular thing? I'd advise against it. It would be offensive to them, just like your suggestion of labeling atheists is offensive. Do you really not realize that?

A good many secularists are happy to have Mormons or anyone else believe whatever they would like to.

The issue in this thread regarding Mr Otterson is when he states a misleading proposition, that Mormonism is quite compatible with science, when that is manifestly untrue.

I won't go over those points again.

You are certainly correct that Mormon doctrine is not more unbelievable than many other religious doctrine. Small praise, but true.

Here is a quote from Darth Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting it destroys. . . . Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting"

Boyd K. Packer
Apostle, Mormon Church

Does anymore need to be said?

All,

Reading these posts, I am struck that there are roughly 3 groups posting on this thread. One is a small group of beleiving latter-day Saints. The second is primarily former or disaffected mormons and secularists who seem to criticize all things Mormon. The third is made up of religious non-Mormons.

For the secularists, it seems to me that your beef should be with all things religious, not specifically Mormon per se, although I understand that the astounding claims of the origins of our sacred scriptures even compared to other religions of more modern origins makes us a lightning rod for your criticism. I suppose that it would be difficult to have an "intelligent" conversation with such secularists as faith can play no part in a discussion. Unfortunately, faith is an integral component to the Latter-day Saint belief system, so by eliminating it as a component we would be left to discuss the matter on terms that negate the largest component of relevant information. It would be like asking you to discuss theories of nuclear dynamics without using math. It cannot be done. In like manner, unless secularists are willing to at least seek to understand the role of faith, the conversation will be fruitless for all parties.

As to the other religionists on this thread that criticize Mormonism, I find most arguments are double edged. The claims of the origins of Mormonism are no more difficult to believe than are the claims of any other religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism, or other forms of Christianity. If such seek to discredit the origens of Mormonism, they cannot do so without threatening to discredit the origins of their own belief system.

In the end, it seems that many are unwilling to have civil dialogue whereby labels are removed and the perspective of the other party is sought. Rather, too many seem bent on labeling and laughing (ridiculing), but they only do so at the risk of pointing the finger back onto themselves.

As for secularists on this thread, I wonder if you would object to describing you as adherents to the Religion of Disbelief?

Dan,

I agree with everything James said. A common TBM tactic is to attack the messenger instead of addressing the issues raised. I know that facing the truth is a frightening prospect, especially when your whole world view comes into question. Dan, I have been there so I understand the fear quite well. I would encourage you to leave the mental gymnastics behind, and OBJECTIVELY evaluate the outlandish claims of the mormon cult and I am confident that you, and any other intellectually honest person, will draw the obvious conclusions.

Dan
Are we to assume from your comment that because this public forum attracts people with criciques of Mormonism, by "zealots" no less, that those criticisms of Mormonish are invalid.

Thanks for referring to me as a Zealot, by the way.

A couple of points:

1. When a Mormon PR person (or anyone else) publishes an opinion on this PUBLIC forum, that opinion is then open for criticism.

You may not like the criticisms.

But the impression Mr Otterson gives that
Mormonism and Science are completely compatible because Mormons believe in evolution is a misrepresentation of the truth, IMHO.

The intricate belief system that Mormons have regarding the afterlife, which *may* in fact be accurate, would never be considered as TRUTH by any scientist. Ok for you to believe it, but no scientifc basis for believing it.

In fact, many of these beliefs run completely counter to what science believes about *natural* processes.

I have stated a few times that my smart sensitive brother is an active mormon. I know he is not an ignorant fool, just like he knows i am not a zealot.

In the opinion of many, one of the most important ways that religion gets our world in trouble is when a group believes they are going to Heaven (or the Celestial Kingdom) and everyone else is not.

Unlike religious terrorists who fly into buildings, Mormons are quite tolerant of us non-Mormons, they just want to convert us.

But this view of the world and of eternity is very important to have a public discussion about, mostly with regards to Fundamentalist Christians and militant Muslims. But when a Mormon on a public forum gives only a partial picture of the Mormon relation to science, for instance, the public has a duty to challenge that. That is what I for one am doing.

As such threads typically do, this thread has attracted a lot of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon zealots.

There's probably no point in getting into the details of the various arguments here, but it's worth noting the unsurprising fact that there's a MORMON side to many of the objections raised here by the usual suspects -- and that believing Mormons are by no means all unthinking, ignorant fools. Latter-day Saint scholars have published a great deal on all of these topics.

James:

Curteous critiques...and points well taken. If we only knew each other better you would know insulation does not really describe my condition. It is a tempting one to pick up, but I must return to things which I have been neglecting since I began Blogging.

Best of Luck my freind!!!!

John D

Thanks for your post. It makes me sad. My sadness is my problem, not yours: your Mormonism seems easy and firm. For me iand my family it was not.

I am not sure there IS common ground for discussion on certain un negotiable beliefs. Maybe one good thing about this discussion is that it helped both of us understand what ours are.

You write

“I think it is indicative of the precarious situation of any Latter Day Saint that tries to post on this site. Especially since religious debate is not a major part of the Mormon tradition.”

That is exactly what I think: the beliefs of the church have a very difficult time withstanding interaction with the wider world and its 3000 religiions/philosophies, so the church needs to discourage questioning and try to insulate its members from outside influences. Sure did with me.

I am not trying to be nasty, but those are the two main characteristics of cults. Of course, the Mormons are nowhere near Jim Jones, but the insulation process is similar.
Again, my smart brother is a cult member too and I love and respect him, but it is a deliberately insulated world. That makes me sad.

The world is a hostile place for most human beings. I would guess that you understand that atheists, as a minority, face the same kind of hostility as the mormon minority. Not to be condescending, but if we want to interact with the world, we have to learn to deal with hostility. Brigham Young dealt with it by going to Utah, with my Great grandfather as his second counselor.

You say “common sense” is a fallacy. Of course it is. That is why intelligent people like you and me insist on evidence and cogent reason to the best of our ability.

I think I clearly said, common sense AND… evidence and rationality. Never rely on common sense alone.

You write "Nuetral observer." Never met one...These arguments are quite tiring.

Bring a smart Buddhist from India who doesn’t know Christianity, and run it by him. As Einstein told us, “everything is relative.” Some are more neutral than others.

You write: Complexity makes it hard to believe. Okay...so does that mean complexity makes something less likely to be true. Occum's razor I guess. The world's complex...that must be unlikely too. Human interactions are complex...another unlikely scenario.

You really do Ignore a fundamental difference.

The eye (and nature) is incredibly complex AND it is observable and its processes are verifiable.

Mormon theology is very complex and impossible to verify. BIG difference. I am sure you realize this if you think about it.

You write, “Perhaps you prefer the simpler dichotomous heaven/hell where all atheists burn for ever. Is that easier to believe?”

You know that my mind is not simpler than yours.
"Scientists would not believe it" "Its fantastic" "Un-indoctrinated people wouldn't believe it" "Common sense people wouldn't believe it."
I don't see why these have any logical validity.

A scientist would not accept the truth of the Mormon afterworld without evidence.
An unindoctrinated Hindu would see no reason to believe the Mormon system rather than the 3000 others available to him.

Common sense can’t be relied on by itself, but when something does defy common sense, its good to ask additional questions.

Where is the logical flaw here? We do both believe in logic at least, yes?

“James, I have enjoyed our discussion. The last post of our one-to-one made me think we were making progress and could move onto other things, but I am reading the same points over and over again.

Makes sense: there is only so much to say. Thanks for your forebearance: you are brave to engage with the nether world out here.

John,

No problem, we all get sassy once in a while. As far as the "common sense card", are you implying we should accept that Quakers live on the moon? You did not respond to my assertion concerning the fraudlent book of Abraham. As far as your interpretation of Kolob, most Mormon scholars would disagree with your analysis. The concept of Kolob is quite literal. Thanks for having the courage to respond but I must point out that your defensiveness is typical of most TBMs when faced with cold hard facts. Open your mind John, you will be amazed where God will take you.

Sorry if that post was a bit sassy, I'm tired and I don't feel terribly well. Not that that's a great excuse.

I think it is interesting how the Christian and the Atheist has found some common ground in their criticism of Mormonism.

I think it is indicative of the precarious situation of any Latter Day Saint that tries to post on this site. Especially since religious debate is not a major part of the Mormon tradition.

I laud and highly respect any Latter Day Saint willing to express their views in a place that is so hostile to them.

Our beliefs are not mainstream, so its easy for people to pull out the 'common sense' card.

Isn't the common sense argument a fallacy? Wasn't racism common sense 100 years ago? Hasn't common sense been evoked for hundreds of years for things that we think ridiculous today? Is it not unlike an appeal to tradition?

"Nuetral observer." Never met one...These arguments are quite tiring.

Complexity makes it hard to believe. Okay...so does that mean complexity makes something less likely to be true. Occum's razor I guess. The world's complex...that must be unlikely too. Human interactions are complex...another unlikely scenario.

Perhaps you prefer the simpler dichotomous heaven/hell where all atheists burn for ever. Is that easier to believe?

James, I have enjoyed our discussion. The last post of our one-to-one made me think we were making progress and could move onto other things, but I am reading the same points over and over again.

"Scientists would not believe it" "Its fantastic" "Un-indoctrinated people wouldn't believe it" "Common sense people wouldn't believe it."

I don't see why these have any logical validity.

You can replace for Mormonism any idea that people have ever been prejudiced against.

And Wes, just to correct a few specifics, just like Genesis is a symbolic description of creation, so is that chapter you reference a symbolic description of the Universe. Read in context, it is apparent the stars are symbols of people or Spirits, and Kolob a symbol of Christ (Abraham 3:-18-19) And Kolob is not ever called the Planet on which God lives, it is the star closest to the thrown of God, hence it's symbolism of Christ.

As for the ideas of JS BY... I am grateful for the open-minded spirit that accompanied Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. And I am proud that they made such speculations. Given the revelations on inhabited worlds, they at least attempted to figure out specifics.

It is that great spirit of expansiveness and discovery that drives Mormon thought, and inspires me to continue to seek light and truth.

I must attempt now to resist responding, as my interest in this Blog is taking me away from other important things. But James, Wes...thanks for your points, its given me much to think about. I must now remove myself. You can have the last word.

James:

certainly there are many qualified scientists that are members of the mormon faith. no doubt. my favorite class at byu was about plate tectonics. it was a blast. the professor was a great and inspiring person.

much of science does not jive with mormon theology. just as it doesnt jive with peter pan or stories about vishnu or zuess. i mean really, can someone have a couch with a thousand serpent heads? can someone live on the sun?

i am not saying that these scientists that believe in plate tectonics or evolution or the greater than 6,000 year existence of humans are not mormons - i am only saying that they have subtly dismissed the theology and inspired words of their prophets. and, as has been suggested in previous posts, are really not following their prophet.

though, the mormon defenders love their favorite trump card in that regard - "oh, he was speaking as a man, not as a prophet." i love that one. where would the apologists be without that line?

Reyjo

I am not sure you are reading Wes right.

Let's let Wes tell us that.

In the meantime, Mormons deserve credit for producing lots of scientist, like my father and uncle.

At the same time, the "complex theology" of the Mormons is worthy of admiration, as is Tolkien's complex world of the Lords of the Rings.

The complexity is, it seems to me, a problem for any neutral observer thinking it has any truth value. I can see lots of psychological reasons for humans, who have an appetite for definite answers even if they are outlandish, to want to believe a detailed afterlife description such as that described in the imaginative Mormon complex theology.

I think for most rational, logical, common-sensical human beings, the complexity of this "story" makes it well-nigh impossible to take seriously.

And my "thinking" is based on empirical evidence: i.e. the way such neutral observors have reacted to Mormon theology.

Wow Wes.

good stuff there. i sorta like this quote as an explanation to the mormon/science debate. for those not in the know, gordon hinckley is the current president/prophet of the mormon church.

Few American theologies are more complex than that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but its flagship Brigham Young University teaches off-the-shelf, industry-standard evolution. That has been the case since 1931, when the church officially said: “Leave biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research.” ... What the church requires is only belief “that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race,” says Gordon Hinckley, the church’s living prophet. Scientists can speculate on the rest, he says, recalling his own study of anthropology and geology: “Studied all about it. Didn’t worry me then. Doesn’t worry me now.”
[Gordon B. Hinckley, from Larry A. Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, Oxford University Press, 2002, pg. 176-177].

Wes
very sanely and humanely put.

As an ex-mormon myself, and you sound like you are, I marvel more and more each year at the intricate edifice of the Supernatural that Joseph Smith and the church have put together.

I think my very very intelligent Mormon father thought most of the after life doctrine was bunk, though he never explicitly said so to us.

As District Head in New England I heard him speak in church 100 times. I never heard him quote the Bible, let alone the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenents.

Instead his texts were Shakespeare and Gibran and Robert Louis Stevenson.

It is impossible to imagine that a reasonably intelligent, non-indoctrinated person could learn all the details of the Mormon afterlife and not think it was as believable as the Lord of the Rings, which of course is a much better written book than the Book of Mormon.

The only explanation for a rational person believing is indoctrination. We all know the statistics that show how people's religious beliefs are very highly correlated with their parents' beliefs.

Dear Wes,

Do tell! What are the right conclusions? Of which Christian flavor do you partake?

Lug

Hi John,

I don't mean to jump in, but I want to comment on your question about only believing in things that can be proven by the scientific method. Most people know that there are items we have to just take on faith or as the Mormons like to say "put that one on the shelf." God created or "organized" for you Mormon folk) us with a wonderful thing - our intellect. Just because we are people of faith does not mean we have to throw common sense out the window. When Joseph Smith tells us there are people living on the surface of the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be a thousand years old or when Brigham Young tells us there are people living on the surface of the sun, we should be able to apply some common sense and use our God-given intellect. If you have been to grad school, then chances are you a bright guy. Use the God-given intellect you have and evaluate the deceptions of the Mormon church and I am confident you will come to the right conclusions.

J to amplify a bit. Here are what I see as the..

Elements of Spirituality

• A sense of the meaning of life (and death)

• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, maybe God, gods)

• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature

• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).

• A reverence for creation, both natural and human, and a nurturing of the creative imagination

• Comprehensive self-knowledge and understanding.

• A developed, cultivated and broad-based
appreciation of beauty (an understanding beyond your own prejudices and experience)

• Rich experiences outside the realm of the senses
(e.g. dreams, imagination)

• A sense of the “One-ness” of all things

I "believe" in all these things, and try to practice them in my life.

I do not believe a person has to believe in God in order to be highly elevated in these qualities. I don't think belief in God *necessarily* hurts, but many people I know who don't believe rate very high on these qualities.

Thanks John

What you say makes sense. It is true that Mormons do not, in general, dispute scientific findings because they conflict with Mormon doctrine, in the same way 6,000 year old earth people dispute astronomy, for instance.

Do I believe anything that is not verifiable by scientific methods? I believe Beethoven was a great composer. I believe in having compassion for the suffering of other creatures. So in the realm of ethics and aesthetics there are many many things I believe.

Do I believe in the existence of anything whose existence has not been verified by evidence? I can't think of an example. Do you? Besides your religious beliefs?

I don't believe in Unicorns, or the Abominable Snowman, for instance.

So I guess as far as existence goes, no. Do you? Outside of your religious beliefs?

The elements that make someone a spiritual, moral, and ethical person have nothing necessarily to do with religion, and certainly do not have to go along with a belief in God.

Dear James,

Yes I am still here. It seems like that our difference can be reduced to a disagreement on semantics. By compatible I do not mean scientific or able to be verified by science, but rather that it is not contradictory, impeding or unfreindly to science. I also mean that it is not difficult to integrate the postulates of science into a Mormon worldview; largely because in places where precise Mormon theological claims do lend themselves to verification, i.e. properties of matter, vastness of the universe, human agency limited by social conditions etc, the findings of science are in agreement with LDS theological postulates.

It seems to me that you mean something else. That's okay.

If I adopt your definition of "compatible with science", then I find myself in agreement with you.

So do you only believe in things that are verifiable via the scientific method? If so that's pretty extrordinary. I've never met anyone, even in graduate school, who would make such a claim. It seems like the best we all can do is *not* believe things that have *contradicted* by the scientific method.

Hi John. Are you still there?

I must confess I don't know what "scientism" is. Is it like racism?

My Mormon father was a PHD in Chemistry from Wisconsin. He and i understand what it is to "do science," using the scientific method.

Mr Otterson implies that Mormon beliefs are consistent with science and the scientific method because, among other things, Mormons believe in evolution.

My point is:
Yes, Mormons believe in Evolution.

BUT
they believe countless other things that Science would never accept as true because they are unfalsifiable.

And they aren't trivial things: they are the core of Mormonism.
Jesus was the son of God and was resurrected.
God has a body and no blood.
the celestial kingdom exists.
etc

So, Otterson is either lying or (i don't know what) when he represents that Mormon beliefs are compatible with Science.

Doesn't mean you can't believe them if you want to. Just means that any scientist who was not indoctrinated into Mormonism would never accept them as truths. Objects of Faith, yes.
Truth, in a scientific sense, no.

Dear Mr. Otterson,

Once again, I have to ask you to be honest about the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I understand you are a PR man but it is still possible for you to be honest. You talk about the Mormon Church's grand cosmic view of the universe but what you fail to mention is that much of this comes from the discredited book of Abraham which is part of your canon. Informed individuals know what I am talking about so I am not going to rehash all of the indisputable evidence demonstrating the fraud of the Book of Abraham. This book teaches that Elohim (the god of this world) lives on the planet Kolob and that Kolob lends its light to our sun. I always thought that the sun was powered by internal nuclear fusion, not by light borrowed from Kolob. I can go on and on but I know that you are aware of the fraud in the Book of Abraham so it is fruitless for me to point it out to you. Mr. Otterson, people are no longer going to be fooled by deception. Come clean with your beliefs and stop trying to pass the Mormon Church off as just another Christian religion. We all know it is not.

Mr. Otterson, how would you answer the temple recommend question "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" Based on your comments on this blog, the answer would be no. Maybe you should surrender your temple recommend to your Bishop.

I agree that Mormonism by definition is not compatible with a scientistic-atheist ideology that insists on a nil hypothesis concerning virtually *any* religious belief that is outside its realm (scientism might also be characterized by aspirations to hegemonically define reality and meaning by certain interpretations of data, even in areas where there is still multi-potentiality of interpretation).

But scientistic ideology is not equal to science. I understand that science is meant to be more of a method and an enterprise than an ideology. Ideologies are too confining and too political to be inseparably enmeshed with a discipline that touts its friendly conditions for free inquiry.

If you insist on making scientism equivalent to the scientific discipline, you risk depriving science of its many religious allies.

Don't know why that double posted. Computers can be so illogical...

James, in reality I feel honored that you called something I said logical...if only in a limited sense : )

James, in reality I feel quite honored that you have called something I said logical, if only in a limited sense :)

Ashley..sorry for the length of time to respond....holidays and all you know.
I understand theory concept. Capitalized to call attention to evolution as a theory and not a scientific fact as so many perpetuate it to be.
As for gravity and evolution...I can recreate theory of gravity....have never heard of someone doing this with evolution.
Regarding phyla...I stated that there are 'completely different phyla' appearing. If evolution theory is true, there would be 'intermediate' data to confirm theory. This has never been found.
As for who my professors, teachers, or 'websites' are,,,,,,this line amounts to little more than name calling which I prefer to not partake in.
peace to you....

anonymous..please see above and....
curious....which species do you have substantiated evidence for evolving? I've never heard of anyone who has 'seen' a species evolve so would like to know.
As for the studies of biogenesis and evolution, I believe the two to be related. In the study of how, you need to have a starting point, and since one is the study of the other really, they are thus inter-related. Also, since it has not been reproduced, (ie, creating life from nothing), isn't starting with nothing therefore equate to your opinion and not fact?
As for new phyla appearing, can vs. have to argument is just one of the many parts of Darwin's theory that doesn't hold water. His argument doesn't add up. I am of the genre that disagree with him. Thanks though! Peace.

John D

Your thinking is *fairly* logical if one stays within the Mormon paradigm.

Once again, virtually no Jew would be concerned with the Mormon belief system regarding the hereafter. If told about it, they would think it was utterly fantastical, on the level of the mythology of the Greek and Roman Gods, which was also equally logically consistent within its own paradigm.

These Mormon beliefs don't hurt non-mormons, as long as crazed mormons don't fly planes into buildings or oppose stem cell research or Gay Marriage. (oops).

They do however give Mormons themselves, including myself for the first 18 years of their lives, a subtly bizarre conception of Mormons' relation to Non-Mormons, i.e. everyone else.

Mormons are not mean enough to say or feel "Nyah Nyah, i am going to the best heaven and you are not." But there is a sense that I as a mormon am different from everyone else, I don't really share fully in the same kind of humanity (unless they are smart enough to convert in either this life or the next).

Going back to Otterson's point, that Mormonism is compatible with a Scientific Worldview: that is true if one doesn't take into account any of the doctrines that Mormons actually *believe*, like this one about the Celestial Kingdom, which is extremely Supernatural, Fantastical, and unsusceptible to any verification, hence dependent on Blind Faith.

The Mormon way out, rationality wise, of the problem that all but 10 million of the world's six billion people are non-mormons, is to say, well those Buddhists and Jains are just not fully enlightened yet. We 10 million will populate the Celestial Kingdom. We will tell non mormons it isn't really any better than what they get. And you will be fudging the truth of what the doctrine plainly implies. More polite that way.

Baptism works like most rituals in cultures around the world. The Cultural Anthropologist Roy Rappaport noted that rituals have the social consequence of unambiguously indicating the participant's commitment to the norms and values of the community. Mormon exaltation is done on the community level. All people have to do if they want to be part of it is demonstrate their desire to be part; first making a commitment (by the medium of designated ritual) to keep it’s norms, then keeping that commitment. It's not magic, it’s just indicative of our belief concerning the Eternal nature of sociality and community. So Hershy is right on!

I also see however that it can be offensive to people. I hope all who are offended can look past this and understand how highly individual Mormons actually regard them and are convicted of their infinite worth and potential. We are sorry if we offend, it is not our intention.

In the end all will receive according the inner contents of their soul and what they are actually capable and desirous of. I believe a great number people who are currently Atheists and agnositics will be there! (This last statement is not PR, that is what I think, and how I have interpreted this doctrine for as long as I can remember.)

Moses and Dispensations, Jews and the CK

Thanks Nathan for reminding us of that fine point about Joseph judging this dispensation. When is Jesus returning, according to Mormon doctrine? Is this the last dispensaation?

TO HERShey's Mama:

I forgot to mention, in my note to you betting that my Jewish friend would not be impressed with your argument, polite as it was, as in, Mr Black Man, would you *please* sit in the back of the bus:

Jewish people in general think the Christian story of Jesus and the resurrection are unbelievably mythological, and can't believe that Christians really believe it.

So she, my Jewish friend, would not be sad to be barred from a part of Heaven that she doesn't believe exists in the first place.

She would, however, be offended to know that Mormons think she is not good enough to get in if there is one, and that any baptized Mormon, un-god-like as she might be, is eligible by virtue of her baptism.

Hershey's Mama,

To say that the Mormon degrees of heaven are all like 5-star hotels is a little disingenuous. Joseph Smith compared them to the relative degrees of glory of the stars, the moon, and the noon-day sun. You try to soft-pedal that by essentially saying they all give light to the earth, which is technically correct, but is a sleight of hand so as to not offend those people who you say aren't going to make it to the highest degree of glory/heaven.

You also forgot to say that according to mormon doctrine, to get into the highest degree of heaven, all people living in "this dispensation" (this 1,000 years, or this "establishment" of God's church) must first be judged by Joseph Smith. Joseph is in good company, however, since Adam gets to judge the first 1,000 year's worth of souls, then Abraham, then Moses, etc. I wonder if Moses will judge the Canaanites justly, or if Joseph Smith will judge Missourians justly, for that matter.

God/Science Co-Existence

JF: nice humane conciliatory thoughts.

But I fear they gloss over the Central Issue of this debate.

Can a person who takes a scientific worldview and method reasonably believe in a Supernatural God (a god who created the earth, who will usher us into the Celestial Kingdom, hears our prayers).

Dawkins, a brilliant scientist but not the only scientist of course, believes that it is totally incompatible for a scientist who works from evidence, reason, and logic, to believe.

I am sure he has very cordial relations with the believing scientists that he works with.

Recognizing that 90% of the elite scientists in the American Academy do NOT believe in a personal god.

So his position, and mine as you might have guessed, is that it is imcompatible to believe in a personal God and have a scientific and logical orientation to the world.

He and I stipulate that there is *some* chance that a personal God exists, just as we can not disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus.

And my brother whom i love and respect and who is just as smart as i am believes in the *Mormon God*!! Oy vey.

Dear Hershey's Mama,

Thanks for describing your lovely vision.

I would ask you to do one of the first things an educated person should do when encountering a proposition:

Look at your statement from another point of view.
Pretend you are a pretty smart Jewish person and read over what you wrote.

From your perspective your position makes perfect sense. They clearly show you are a very good peron. From my Jewish friend's perspective, and mine, it will seem very polite, but still have the ultimate outcome that all of us who are not in the CK are, as you imply, less like God, and have less chance to be like him as we eternally progress. In other words, it is still second class citizenship, even if we forget about 5 star hotels.

BTW, I was a very good Mormon for 18 years. I know the doctrine inside out. April 6 1830 and all that. My great great grandfather was in the jail with Joseph Smith for the assassination. So I am not coming from an uniformed-about-mormon-doctrine position.

It is refreshing to read up on people who are not so narrow minded to believe that Science and Religion can not co-exist.

Many of our greatest scientists believe in, or accept the possibility of, a higher-power or divinity, be it God or otherwise. I am often encouraged by people like this, and learning of ever more people that think the same, as there is something calming about realising the two, Science and Religion, share many of the (important) quests mankind have. Why, how, when and where.

To argue against, or disagee with this fact, is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your voice so you don't hear.

I think heaven most often is thought of as a paradisical rest home. So when LDS people talk about the 3 degrees of glory, it's probably natural for someone unfamiliar with the faith to initially assume that these kingdoms are like the differnces between a 3, 4 and 5 star hotel and thus by saying a "good jew, muslim, agnostic, etc." will not obtain the celestial kingdom (highest Kingdom)its upsetting and seems unfair. If this were the case, I'd be upset too. But, this 3,4,5 star way of thinking doesn't reflect LDS theology at all. In actuality, all 3 kingdoms are 5 star hotels. Joseph Smith upon seeing each of them in vision stated that a man would crawl on his hands and knees to get to the least of the kingdoms so beautiful it was.

Q. So what then is the big deal with the celestial kingdom? Why so "exclusive"?

I think the best answer lies in understanding that the would be citizens of this kingdom must be committed to adhere to certain requirements, obligations, roles and responsibilities for eternity. With that description, some may have already forgotten that I'm talking about a "heaven". But those who would go to the CK have absolute requirements because they are to be the essential building blocks of the CK's purpose and goal which is to build the ultimate in "utopian" societies - Zion. Perhaps similar to myself not wanting to go to med school, not everyone will want to go to the CK because it requires complete commitment and work work work. It is a lifestyle choice as much as it is a matter of being a "good" person.

Included in the LDS theology is that every jew, muslim, agnostic, etc. who ever lived or will live, will at some point have a chance to see this opportunity for what it is and chose to "sign up" by making a covenant (accepting Christ, and the laws/requirements of His Celestial Kingdom via baptism and similar ordinances) before the resurrection - so it's really not as "exclusive" as I know it initially sounds. Anyone truly willing to adhere to all laws and obligations can enter, while those who are not for whatever reason, won't be forced to. I think that's about as fair as it gets.

On a personal note, the thing that really gets me excited about the afterlife is not the 5 star hotel. It is the hope that if I live the covenants I've made to follow Christ, I'll finally become like him. A great reward indeed...

I'm always somewhat puzzled by the reaction that people give--myself included--in blog responses to people whom we don't really know. But as James and John have found, once we get to some kind of common understanding, we can have a warm, agree-to-disagree conversation and share our views comfortable with respect to each other's position.

I've been following your volleys...a lot of it is deep dissection of issues by two obviously intelligent and thoughtful men. If we go back to Mr. Otterson's original argument, it was, in part, that we all need to do better.

As an active LDS person, my values teach me that I should have respect for the views of others, and that however I may disagree, I do not have the right to belittle or castigate another.

There are, indeed, things about my church that I'd change if I could...the attitude toward homosexuality is one of them. I know that most Christian belief teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, but I agree that Mormons, to a seemingly greater degree, reserve their strongest disapproval for those whose behavior is outside the church's "acceptable" morality.

But, like the original issue--can "believers" and "non-believers" have a conversation--it may all boil down to our willingness to see some "grayness" in the science vs. religion debate. Did God create it, or did it just happen? Did God create homosexuals? If not, how do we apply the concept of "working with natural laws" in this case?

So many of these basic questions hearken back to the original issues of the science vs. religion paradox.

But if we cease to engage in meaningful dialogue on any of these issues, then we lose an important element of what I think makes the world go around: human interaction and its role in finding harmony in a rather inharmonious world.

Dear James:

Apology accepted and very much appreciated. I've been there too! It's easy to fall into it while in this condition of faceless anonymity. The topic of religion is a sensitive one, and I understand that as one in the uncomfortable position of an ex-Mormon with an active Latter Day Saint family, a need to vent likely accompanies your interest in debate.

I'm back at work now and don't have much time to respond, but with the kind and respectful tone of this last post, I'd be happy to clarify my former comments (which I am actually anxious to do) within the week; comments of which I admit, fail to achieve the beacon of clarity.

JNR and John D

Your expressed attitudes are common among the active Mormons I know (including my brother).

It would be hard for an intelligent and sensitive Mormon, which describes most, to go up to a practicing Jew and say, "there are three degrees of heaven, and the highest/best one is reserved for those who accept Jesus and are baptized in the Mormon Church." But that is clearly what the Church teaches.

Now we can fuzz this up and say to Jews, don't worry, you will get very nice accommodations in the second level of heaven, and some bad mormons will be below you in the third.

But that does not change the fundamental fact of church belief that I stated above.

And it - and all the other mormon doctrines that I stated in my earlier post - are clearly supernatural beliefs that any scientist would have great doubts about.

I know many Mormons are scientists. My father from Fielding Utah as a chemistry PHD, as is his brother. It is also demonstrably too that mormons value education highly and achieve highly in the field.

The point I am making is: mormon doctrine is in its preponderance incompatible with a ratiional and scientific worldview, notwithstanding the tolerance for evolution.

And we still have that problem of my Jewish friends joining me in the Celestial Kingdom.

Final stipulation: in general mormons are good tolerant people (BIG qualification is their abominable attitude towards homosexuality, which they are far from alone in - CF the Catholics).

John: my apologies for the stridency of my arguments.

Mormonism tends towards universalism in its ideas about salvation and a theology that does not rely on an inerrant Bible is not fundamentalist by any definition I'm aware of. My concern with a reliance on science (which tends to look more like scientism)is that science has to be one of the most unstable and politically driven arenas there is. I think there is room for religion and science and I like the way Mormon theology allows for both.

At this point James, I feel like I am wasting my time responding. Once an exchange resorts to insulting language, I loose my enthusiasm for dialogue.

I think a primary problem with this communication is that you assume I am arguing that God exists, when I am only arguing that Mormonism is compatible with science.

Just for the record, I don't believe that God favors or loves me over anyone by virtue of my religion, and Mormon theology asserts that moral atheists, Jews, Muslims etc. will have a glorious salvation in Eternity, some even greater than a mediocre Mormon.

If anyone more interested in dialogue and mutual understanding has similar objections to my post, please say so, I would like to clarify things or recognize my error. I would love to have a civil atheist or agnostic, or theist for that matter, to discuss these things with, I'm sure I'd learn something.

JD, since we are the only ones left on this scintallating topic:

Houston, we have a problem. It is, indeed, an epistomolgical problem. And as far as I can see, also a logical problem. You and I operate on different systems of logic.

A few specific responses to your post:

In regards to "deference." You say "we trust what other people know what they are talking about." You're kidding, right? Bush and Cheney KNEW that there were WmDs in Iraq. Hitler knew the Jews were a threat to society. Doctors always give the right diagnosis (ever heard of second opinions?).

My motto: don't defer to anyone. Least of all those who are REALLY sure they are right, for instance those who know they are right because it was revealed to them. First point in Epistomology.

Religious folks are Orders of Magnitude more deferential than atheist who demand evidence (and logic, and common sense).

Re "Supernatural": did you go to the dictionary and look it up? rather than relying on your own opinion?

Then you make an incredibly silly logical leap: "anything that exists is by necessity natural." Hello: we are arguing about whether God exists. You can't prove that God exists by saying God exists. That is like a four year old stamping his foot. a lot of children i know insist that Santa exists.

Have you READ Dawkins' book? Much philosophy. I have, and your reasoning is often, frankly, bizarre.

Religious Folks "defer to sacred writings." Patients defer to doctors. Disregarding the skepticism I noted above, don't you see the profound epistomological difference between those two situations? As Dr Dawkins would suggest, if you don't, read a few books.

Once again, you say a resurrected body can be natural because it exists. That is the point of the argument here!!! How do you KNOW it exists? Because you hold your breath? We are pretty sure that Cancer exists, and Mt Everest. How about Thor? The tooth fairy? God?

Your logic is hopelessly flawed he
re. Read a logic book.

Re Blind Faith: that means accepting things with no evidence, even if the things you believe are unbelievable from a common sense/empirical standpoint. I really shouldn't have to tell you this.

"I find..compelling reasons to believe." Do you know what solipsism means? Look it up. You are embarrassing yourself again. You DO sound like an idiot, I regret to say.

Do you know how many religions there are in the world? Do you know anything about those others? They all contradict yours, and they are all equally founded on Blind Faith. Their adherants have compelling reasons to believe.

there is much else to say, but the storage space on my computer is limited.

For my final point: why are you going to the Celestial Kingdom when Bishop Tutu is not? What kind of God favors you over him?

James said: “How did you know? I actually have a statue of Dawkins above my fireplace.”

Ha ha…clever reply. I would like to clarify that when I said “defer to…” I didn’t mean a kind of mindless worship. I was referring to deference as something all human beings engage in; it is the result of our ecological niche consisting of both information and social cooperation. We trust that other people know what their talking about, even if we don’t. Religious folks defer to sacred writings, patients defer to doctors, and the public often defers to scientists. They do not do it because they understand the specifics of methodology and content, but they trust that the authorities do. I claim that people who rely primarily on popular science for understanding the world engage in an act of deference because these sources often include interpretations of data indiscernibly enmeshed with raw data, gloss over ambiguities, and provide only the limited perspectives of a fraction of scientists, yet is written to appear, and is often accepted by the reader, as ‘objective scientific discovery’ plain and simple.

When you said ‘independent intellectual investigation’ I imagined an investigation that did depended on minimal deference; something that is probably limited to professional scientists. I don’t know anything about you, so I admit any assumption I make about you is an unfounded one. I just wanted to make the point that religious folks are not the only ones that engage in acts of deference.

Anyways, I am not quite sure what you meant by ‘independent intellectual investigation’, but it appears I passed.

James also said: "All these are of course supernatural beliefs."

I take issue with the term supernatural. I believe anything that exists is by necessity natural. God is as natural as you or I. We may understand quite a bit more about how a mortal human being operates, but just because we do not understand how God functions, what material spirits are made of, or how a perfect, immortal resurrected body is able to sustain itself, does not make these phenomena any less natural.

But wait….

James also said "There is of course no evidence for them: they have to be taken on faith."
Furthermore "You would not believe these things unless you accepted your church's teachings with "Blind Faith.""

If needing to take things on faith wasn’t damning enough, ‘blind faith’ puts me in inescapable intellectual purgatory! In the minds of many, I am sure, the concepts I accept are enough to retain for myself the status of idiot, regardless of why I accept them. That’s fine with me. It is the lot of one who believes the revelations of God to be thought a fool.

I would dispute, however, that my faith is blind, but would instead argue that it is based on what I find to be compelling reasons to believe.

One critique James’s and other posts contained was that certain LDS revelations sound foolish, fairy tale-ish and/or violate common sense. In evaluating their truth status, however, the fact that they sound foolish to many or violate common sense is irrelevant. ‘Common sense‘, which also defines the foolish, does not reflect what is actually sensible, but merely reflects cultural and historically relative sensibilities.

(Just a side note: many 'un-indoctrinated people' find the concepts found in LDS revelations sensible. To provide one example among many, I was told by an agnostic scholar of Christianity that Mormonism provided the best theodicy {defense of God’s mercy and love in the face of suffering} that she had ever encountered.)

You assert that LDS revelations are incompatible with science, but my claim is that they are compatible with a scientific world view but not suitable for scientific investigation. We do not have a sufficiently precise definition of what God or a spirit is, thus the question of their existence cannot be tested. They belong to a vastly large number of phenomena that exist outside the realm of science.

Do things exist outside of the realm of science? Of course they do. This acknowledgement is perfectly compatible with science. Speculations about what exists outside of Plato’s cave need not impede the a proper understanding of minerals found therein, nor must we assume that there exists nothing outside the cave that does not exist inside. It’s not that things like Spirits and Gods cannot exist within the Universe currently constituted by our scientific community , but that, from a scientific perspective, they are an unlikely shot in the dark.

So how do we know such things exists? It becomes a question of whether alternative epistemologies to the scientific method are valid. Is there a way to learn of phenomena inaccessible to science? It is my answer to that question where we will inevitably disagree.

Deferring to a revelatory source is similar in logic to deferring to a scientific source in one way: you trust that the source from which data is being communicated has had first hand experience with the phenomena under question. You can read a scientific study concerning DNA written by one who has observed it under a microscope; you can learn about your pre-mortal life from one who knew you personally before you were born (God).

As we have discussed, most aspects of the Mormon universe (or multi-verse :) do not lend themselves to empirical verification, but that’s not too different from scientific theories. The philosopher of science Thomas Khun noted that most scientific theories have relatively few overlaps with the empirical world which sufficiently enable falsification. A theory can be maintained however if it elegantly, coherently describes relevant data and is not falsified in the few areas where it actually lends itself to falsification. What I believe from Mormon epistemological sources, more or less fit similar criteria (treating all revelations as components of a singular theory that the mutual presence of both revelation to Prophets-note it must be *revelation*, as in canonical- and a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit is a reliable medium for learning spiritually relevant truth), though I recognize the limitations to the analogy (the absence of controlled experients and/or math for example). Therefore, I think have good reason to have faith in the propositions of Mormon theology, as I also have good reason to have faith in Darwinism.

My claim is not that LDS revelations are scientific, but that they are compatible with science. Many of its individual claims fall outside of its realm, but those areas where it overlaps, it poses few problems and is entirely adaptal.

The Mormon cosmology of truth asserts the never ending nature of knowledge acquisition, it is forever incomplete. There is always more to understand, more to discover and more to be revealed by God. It is post-modern in its assertion that in our modern paradigms, we are not close to arriving. But it also affirms that truth actually exists out there and can be discovered; it exists in such abundance that the human race has barely touched the tip of the ice berg.

What better ideology to fuel scientific achievement? No wonder the Latter Day Saint community produces disproportionately high number of American Scientists.

Johm D

i am still waiting for your explication of Mormon revelation. My salvation may depend on it, so don't wait too long.

You say I "oversimpify matters."

All the citations of offical Mormon belief are from the official church website.

Therefore, it must be they who are "oversimplifying".

Do you deny that these beliefs are supernatural? Do you think any reasonable scientist would accept them because Mr Otterson says that they are true?

Isn't Otterson's claim that Mormonism is compatible with Science a sham, therefore?

Do you deny that only baptized Mormons can reach the highest level of Mormon heaven? Can't you see how absurd that is? Is that an oversimplification?

To James:

How fun! I think we have a lot to talk about. I will give a thorough response soon, but for now I just want to say that I think you are oversimplifying matters. Have a happy new year!!

Re John D's Post

How did you know? I actually have a statue of Dawkins above my fireplace.

Glad to hear you don't just take the Mormon Revelations as Gospel without thinking about them.

I assume that you also believe these other mormon revelations, that also entail no contradiction with evidence, experience, and common sense:
-God has a perfect physical body but no blood.
'We lived with God as spirits before we were born.
'Our bodies are created in his image.
He knows all things, past present and future.
He created our world.
Of course, He is a He.

All these are of course supernatural beliefs. There is of course no evidence for them: they have to be taken on faith. If we described a God this way to a moderately intellligent scientist who was not indoctrinated, she would say, "you're kidding, right."

So Mr Otterson's claim that Mormonism is compatible with Science is true in A Very Limited Way.

You would not believe these things unless you accepted your church's teachings with "Blind Faith."

The reprehensible part of Mormon Faith, the above being relatively benign superstitions, is that only Mormons who are baptized can achieve full salvation.
Those who don't accept the Mormon faith won't go to the best heaven. Therefore a mediocre Mormon is a better soul than a good Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or, certainly, atheist. This flies so much in the face of evidence that you have to willfully ignore the evidence to believe it.

It is also the kind of belief that impels the misguided among the Muslims to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidels.

To James:

The purpose of my post was to illustrate that the church does indeed teach what Mr. Otterson claims it teaches. That is why so little of myself is put into it, as to make me seem so passive in my engagement with the church's teachings.

As for your 'curiosity', I am not going to claim to have meticulously investigated every available datum in order to come to my conclusions about the nature of matter. The physical sciences are not my field. I do understand however that Mormon materialism is more compatible with contemporary science than Ex-nihilio notions of creation. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I do not believe these things because the church teaches it, rather, my faith in LDS revelations increase because they contain these principles. If Mormonism insisted on an ex-nihilio creation, I would have less confidence that its postulates represent reality.

As for you my friend, did you conduct independent investigations to reach all your conclusions, or are you just deferring to Atheist-scientistic sages such as Dawkins?

If you have actually read peer-reviewed scientific journals to come to your conclusions, congratulations: you have transcended a great majority, (including, perhaps in many cases, myself) who give up their brains to pop-science.

To John D

as an (ex)-mormon myself, I am curious:

you say "this is certainly what I have always been taught in church."

have you ever made your own independent intellectual investigation of these important scientific questions and, God forbid (literally), come to *your own conclusions.*

If you have, congratulations.

If you haven't, what a shame, and you join an all-to-great majority of those who give up their brains to their churches.

The rebuttals to the following statements are taken from Latter Day Saint scriptures:

Burton H. Wolfe stated:

“No matter what "religion" Michael Otterson refers to when he asserts "my religion", it most certainly does not teach what he says it teaches. It has no reference whatsoever to other "worlds" that are "inhabited".”

The Book of Moses chapter 1 verse 33 states:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten."

Doctrine and Covenents section 76 verse 24 states:

"That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God".

Burton H. Wolfe also said:

“There is nothing in any version of Judaeo-Christian religion which "teaches" that "God works with natural laws."

Doctrine and Covenants section 93 verse 33 states:

“The elements are Eternal.” (Implicitly, their properties are independent of God).

Also Joseph Smith the first Prophet of the LDS church stated:

“The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.”

This is certainly what I have always been taught in church.

Mr. Otterson writes: "Unfortunately, since atheism commonly allies itself with science, situational ethics and relativism, many atheists have a tendency to ridicule or be dismissive of religious faith (just read the comments on this site, for example)."

What I ridicule is the idea that my life on earth is a Cosmic Test in which I am invited to believe a bunch of exceedingly implausible fairy tales (virgin births, talking snakes, man who is son of God, angels, demons, etc.); and if I don't buy into these tales hook line and sinker I am going to Hell for eternity. This is I think an accurate summary of a major portion of Christian and Mormon doctrine. As somebody already noted, the LDS states that one's soul "will be rewarded or punished based on whether one believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind and lives a life of devotion to his laws."

By the way, you may have found one Dawkins quote that tends to lean in a certain direction, but it was a rhetorical slip. The vast preponderance of his speeches and writings are very much at odds with that idea.

You may have been indoctrinated with these stories at a particularly susceptible time in your childhood, so you have trouble letting go. It's the only reason I can think of for a grown man to believe in such a Santa-like deity. (He knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake...).

Yes, Mr. Otterson, we all have to do better. Let's start by making equal criticism of Atheist and believer alike, instead of leaning on the Atheist and soft-pedaling comment on the believer. As a member of a minority denomination (which some believers would call a cult) I would expect you to be more sensitive to religion-based criticism. Seeing as how Atheists are fair game for attack in our society, you can certainly expect them to become vocally more than just ridiculing or dismissive until they get treated with the same respect believers demand for themselves.

He is quoted precisely. The link is in the original post so everyone can see it in context. Read to the end of the interview - it's his last comment in the Time magazine transcript.

Hey Mike, would it have killed you to quote Dawkins accurately?

Transcript:

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

As an ex-Mormon, I have a particular view on Mr. O's column.

As some have pointed out here, O's statement that the Mormon faith is just "Evolution combined with Revelation." That revelation, in the Mormon case, includes a God who has a body but no blood (see official Mormon web site), a Joseph Smith who talked to God and angels, 3 degrees of heaven, the highest of which can only be reached if you are a baptized Mormon.

What we atheists are most troubled by is the superstition that is dogmatically believed by some believers, and - the REAL problem - those believers' actions to make sure the public policy of the US conforms to their beliefs, on Gay Marriage, going to war, teaching evolution in the schools, etc.

Mr. O wants us to think he is very reasonable, "except he just adds Revelation." But the belief system of the Mormon church has the practically the same Supernatural profile as the other fundamentalist Christian groups in the US. Jews and Hindus and Jains need not apply to the highest level of heaven.

BTW, his "crack" about Dawkins "admission" concerning God is a typical solipsistic misunderstanding. Dawkins point, made clearly in his book, is that fundamentalists try to explain an incredibly complex universe by invoking a God who must be EVEN more *incredibly complex* to have created it, compounding their own problem. Read the original if this is too complicated for you.

It's weird when Christians present blatantly secular arguments as if those arguments were part of Christianity.

Unfortunately, most Christians do not accept that Christianity is a religion where you can just add to and change the rules whenever you like.

There is no respect for 'natural law'; the Bible is quite explicit that you are expected to believe in supernatural, not material, forces, as the explanation of things - from creation onward.

If you do not, then the Bible does not make any sense, and isn't necessary anyway: if God did not create Eden in exactly the way the Bible describes, then there is no reason to suppose humanity requires redemption from original sin.

Somebody wrote that YHWH is the God of love. In the Old Testament there may or may not be much love detectable. However, he is certainly a god of ethnic cleansing, and he gets very upset with at least one Israelite leader who disobeys his command to kill every last man, woman, child, and animal of one of the Canaanite cities they were taking. Of course, he behaves like a petulant child with his creation, what with his jealousy and his repeated destruction of the fruits of his labors. This from the canonical sacred texts of Jews and Christians.

You want me to worship that thing? For the sake of my immortal soul? To be a fully moral human being?

Thank you but no thank you.

Jerry Averett:

How dumb can you get. More life after this life has nothing to do with whether or not there is or is not a God. People have always assumed this life is not the end. God is a Johnny come lately.

God is an office held by a man that assumes the title of the office, like presidents hold the office of president. God, a man claimed to have the path from this life to the next blocked, oh about 5,000 years ago and about the same time God created the world.

God claimed to have the road to the next life blocked so his soldiers could kill people and prevent them from getting there, the next life. The expectation was that the killed would lay in wait in the next world and revenge themselves.

Yes, this life is short but no people have ever said it was the end of it all. Maybe you should check out http://www.hoax-buster.org where the inner thoughts concerning life after death from the ancient world and modern one even are discussed. I understand that's done in pictures so illiterates can read it to some extent.

Victoria,

Thanks for your message. I'll try to link up with the site you described. I'm glad you think I try to be rational and keep an open mind most of the time. I should have you speak to my family about that!

Best wishes to you.

ATTENTION EVERYONE: ***** WARNING-WARNING-WARNING

The just-posted comment from "O. Wellington Archibald is a hoax!!! OWA is my grandfather who died in 1905. If there's consciousness after death I'm sure he could tell us many interesting things if only he could communicate them. I'd be surprised, though, if he is able to use the internet.

I have every reason to believe that the practical joker / hoaxer who perpetrated this fraud is my son, Mike. He loves to twit me about the amount of time I spend on these threads. His real sentiments are the opposite of what he just attributed to O. Wellington.

Can you believe that Mike is a recent graduate of Vanderbilt Law School who has just passed the Vermont bar exam? How'd they let him in - whatever happened to educational standards?

Mike: Why aren't you out striving to get obscenely rich like all of your law classmates, instead of fooling around with this pre-teen silliness? Seriously, the people here are trying to have a serious religious discussion and it's not fair to them to interrupt it. This is not a personal message board for bad-joke messages.

Please remember what I told you in first grade: If you don't behave, the Ignorant Demiurge (Yahweh) will get you. Take Heed! Love you. Bye.

Norrie:
Yahweh was above all else the God of love. That he tests and makes demands of those who believe in him does not make him an irrational monster. All who keep their faith in him are rewarded despite the trials he may put them through.

Is there a mod who can wipe out all this hoaxbuster spam? It's really annoying.

Michael Otterson writes: "God is much grander than even many Christians allow. The universe is vaster, more intricate, more mind-boggling and complex and a more exciting place than is found in the confining strictures of biblical literalism..."

I agree completely. But to me, this is an argument in favor of Deism. It is only natural, perhaps even reasonable, to look out upon the universe and conclude that is too extraordinary to be an accident. Yet from the dawn of history, human religions have claimed to possess privileged and sacred information about a god or gods who exercise arbitrary power over human lives. And consistently, steadily, science has chopped away at the explanatory power of religion by providing a physical explanation for natural phenomena that does not require, or even allow for, the actions of supernatural deities.

It's all well and good to turn to religion to help you with the questions that science can't answer, such as the ones that ask why we are here, or the best way to live our lives (although it is hardly the only way to address those questions.) But it would seem to me that some skepticism is warranted when you're looking for explanations from theologies based upon texts and rituals that have been thoroughly discredited when it comes to questions about how we got here.

The LDS Church, according to materials handed to me by several bored and detached young missionaries, believes that one's soul will be rewarded or punished based on whether one believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind and lives a life of devotion to his laws. After death, people who have not been offered the chance to learn about Jesus Christ during life on Earth will have the chance to do so... though presumably this chance will not be offered to those of us who did hear the story and didn't buy it... then all of humanity will be resurrected and judged, with the wrongful among us sentenced to suffer in a metaphysical realm called The Telestial Kingdom.

Is this the all-important answer that your faith gives you? This answer strikes me as really quite silly, yet completely nonfalsifiable. Unlike those trivial details about HOW the world was created that science has proven to be false, this vitally important stuff that determines the fate of my soul for eternity CAN'T be proven false. How convenient for a religion that expects us to tithe heavily.

I believe that the universe was created by something far greater and more mysterious than any human can possibly understand. But I don't believe that anyone's faith (or lack thereof) in such a god or gods should be counted against them. Religion is a way to help adults come to peace with mortality and teach children right from wrong, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But when people elevate faith in scriptures of dubious origin to the role of a litmus test for the quality of someone's character or the value of a life, then you have turned religion into an instrument of evil. And you can count me out.

http://www.hoax-buster.org

NORRIE- you always try to be rational and that is good- you keep an open mind mostly-

perhaps you will appreciate that muslims not only draws on the Qur'an as a source for scientific inspiration many sciences have flourished under
its' instruction.

there is a site called HARUN YAHYA that is scientifically based and most interesting

i dont know how to make links here ill ask my husband later
its a good thing though id be flooding these posts with links then
peace

SIMPLEWORDS you never cease to amaze me

Jerry Averett,

"To the person who believes there is no god, when he dies, termination takes place. He will cease to be or exist..."

You forgot about Buddhists: they don't believe in god but they do believe in reincarnation, though what is reincarnated is not the personal consciousness of the person who died.

"To a person that believes in God, life continues on..."

Whether there is survival or not, it's not likely to depend on whether a person believed in a god or not. I hadn't heard your take on this before.

"I choose to believe that I am a child of God."

A child of whose god? What sort of a god? Not, I hope, the god of the Old Testament, who was pretty much an irrational monster.

Good luck to you!

One person responded to this article by attacking the idea of evolution because it is a "theory." It is a theory that has been tested for 150 years and proved right in the vast majority of cases. Intelligent Design and Creationism have been proved right in no sense - ever.

People have a desperate need for that Bearded White Man in the Sky. It would be nice if everything were planned and if people were rewarded or punished according to our ideas of right and wrong. Wishing just doesn't make it so.

It is sad that faith is such a feeble foundation for many people. Their only option is to try to attack science and rational thought in any small way they can.

If there is a God, these folks should hope he has a soft spot for the gullible.

I subscribe to the view that science and religion will be in harmony when all is understood.

I can't wait until that day comes. We all operate on the knowledge we each have, which is often limited, incomplete, and misinformed. I look forward to being able to learn and understand things "as they really are".

"As part of the THEORY of evolution"

Yes, evolution is a theory -- or theories really, since there are several -- just like quantum theory, the general and special theories of relativity, and the germ theory of disease. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess". The best you ever get in science is a theory which hasn't been disproved yet.

Besides, we *know* species evolve because we've seen it happen. The theories of evolution just attempt to explain how and how fast it happens.

"During the Cambrian Explosion, you have completely different phyla. Where ist he intermediate data?"

They're still working on it. There weren't many body parts back in those days that fossilize well, plus many that did fossilize were probably destroyed in the subsequent 488 million years

"one of the basics of science is that life comes only from life."

This is obviously not true, since at some point there was no life and then later there was. The field of study of the origin of life is abiogenesis, which is unrelated to evolution. Evolution takes over once you have something that can evolve.

"Also, after the explosion, no new phyla appear for 500 million years. Exact opposite of Darwin's theory."

Also not true. Evolution doesn't say that new phyla *have* to evolve, only that they *can*. It would likely be very difficult for new phyla to evolve from scratch these days simply because they would be in immediate competition with other organisms that have already had hundreds of millions of years to adapt to their environments. Early on it would've been easier because the field was wide open.

Jerry Averett,

You can choose to believe that you are a child of magical pop-tarts if you wish. I really don't care. What does bother me is your bigoted characterization of the morality of atheists. I am an atheist and have been for over 25 years. I will put my personal morality against yours any day of the week. Unlike you, I don't need to be bribed with the promise of eternal smugness or threatened with eternal torment to treat my fellow man with honesty and compassion.

MATT: This raises problems for a loving and caring god (big buddy in the sky) in that the speed of light is the fastest speed that can transmit information, so either god is not itself in causal contact with itself, or it is so far outside our universe and the physical laws that govern it as to make a mockery of the simplistic concept that the majority of proclaimed believers attest to as 'the truth'.

Gods used to live in the forest just outside the range of the campfires, then God lived in the clouds and the Devil underground. Then we went to those places and gods habitat continued to shift as our science and technology has progressed.

Hi, Matt,

You're assuming that God is material, that He is a physical thing among physical things. As far back as the ancient Greeks, Plato argued that the Good is not any such thing, and his followers and Aristotle's have never had such a naive concept of God/the Good. Neither have the typical Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians had such a primitive notion of God.

Does this mean they thought He is not present within the universe? No. But His presence is not a dimensional presence because He, unlike physical things does not have parts outside of parts of the same kind, as do material things. (Think of a ruler -- each part is the same kind of stuff, and each part is outside of the other parts. One part cannot exist in two places.) Those philosophers and theologians think that He is not dimensional, and He can be present in all places/spaces at once. Something like the points that some physicists are now talking about that can be present in more than one place simultaneously. God according to these theologies is present in *all* places simultaneously.

Not that God is present *only* in this universe. He is present in all of His creations, including the level of man's spirit and the levels of all of His angelic creations -- in those other spiritual worlds.

My main point: the concept of God of the most sophistocated theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not at all concepts of "an old man with the grey beard" or "something beyond the stars" which if we looked hard enough we would find with our telescopes.

Ann O.

And yet you stand by the idea that your scriptures are the "word" of the God who created the universe. That is to say, the stories about talking snakes, virgin births, and angels of the Lord are the revelation that we need to make sense of this creator and our place in it. A part of the dogma of which is that the Creator wants us to believe in this dogma or we are in Big Trouble, like it is some kind of Cosmic Game.

Sorry, that doesn't fly for me, even if you do have the good sense to try to back off of the more radical claims of your sect.

NGorden:

Your description of the THEORY of evolution is complete caricature. Your capitalization of THEORY indicates you don't even understand how the word theory is used in science. Here's a hint: the THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of relativity, and the THEORY of evolution are three of the most well-understood, well-supported scientific ideas in history.

Your description of the Cambrian Explosion is complete creationist crapola. You should learn to distinguish between good sources and pathological liars. Many phyla appear before, during and after the Cambrian period. And the Cambrian is hardly unique in terms of displaying massive new diversity. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html is a good starting point for those who have consumed too many religiously-based lies on evolution.

Mr. Otterson,

If you were more familiar with Dawkins' writings and other comments, I don't think you would consider that quote an "unusual admission". Dawkins considers the existence of any gods to be incredibly unlikely.

Rather, I think his comment was tended to insult religious people by calling their beliefs puny and inconsequential compared to the true majesty and complexity of their universe.

Concerning the "moral compass" provided by your religion, you should have it recalibrated. LDS hatred towards homosexuals is nearly unrivaled in this country. Gays aren't even allowed in your schools. Only Fred Phelps outshines the bigotry of the Mormon church.

Design...regarding evolution questions posed..I put this to you for thought...
As part of the THEORY of evolution, one of the basic proofs is the 'supposed' intermediate data.
During the Cambrian Explosion, you have completely different phyla. Where ist he intermediate data? And please do not try to convince me that we all suddenly appeared from nothing as one of the basics of science is that life comes only from life. Also, after the explosion, no new phyla appear for 500 million years. Exact opposite of Darwin's theory. As for evidence of Christ living, we have more that he existed than Julius Cesear and no one disputes that he existed. It comes down to do you believe God's Word or not......peace.

One thing is absolutely certain - death. To a person that believes in God, life continues on and we are held accountable for the earth life we have lived. To the person that believes there is no god, when he dies, termination takes place. He will ceases to be or to exist in and of himself. It does not matter if he lived as a "Hitler" or a saint, the end result is the same - termination! For an athiest anything goes because we are all headed for oblivion. If it feels good, do it because ultimately, there is no consequence but to cease to exist. If the athiest is right, he won't even have the satifaction of knowing he was right when he dies and I won't relize that I was misguided and wrong. I choose to belive that I am a child of God.

I wonder if this blog has accompolished what it's owners anticipated when they started it? Maybe they could give us a clue???

If god is so vast and unimaginable, why bother with all of the books that attempt to contain the concept? why bother with it all?

I do not claim to have knowledge of the existence of God or the lack thereof. Put me down as agnostic. I am, however, frequently reminded of children who wait for Santa Claus.

I never again felt the same about Christmas after I knew that Santa Claus was a myth. The magic had gone out of a special time of year. It was not simply the idea of the mysterious delivery of gifts; it was the loss of a belief in something beyond understanding.

We all want to believe in Santa when we are young, and most want to believe in a different kind of magical presence when we get older. The argument that life is made more positive by a belief in God is really meaningless.

We should be discussing the possible existence of God, not whether or not a belief in a deity gives us purpose or makes us more hopeful. No doubt ancient cultures believed that their gods gave meaning to their lives, but few of us would put forth the belief that worshipping the sun or moon makes sense in 2006.

One has to offer some proof of one's position in any argument. Saying it is based on faith carries no more weight than "because I said so" does.

"The great fissure that divides believers and atheists is “Hope”."

That is indeed the great fissure. The true believer identified the crux.

Two pithy sayings from my youth had lasting effects on me.

When I was very young, and I began a sentence with, "I wish...," my mother (a devout Christian) would reply, "Wish into one hand and spit into the other. See which one gets full quicker."

When I was taking a college course in mathematics, my instructor asked me if a certain mathematical proposition were true. I said I didn't know, but that I hoped it was. He said, "You mean, you hope it's true, even if it's not?"

Bam! He hit me with his insight hammer. I was instantly and forever changed. In the forty years since then, seldom have I passed a day without remembering that question. "You hope it's true, even if it's not?"

The scientist is expected to eschew wishing and hope. The researcher is obligated to look for the truth, whatever it may be.

The Buddha Siddhartha Gautama taught that all suffering is the result of wishing and hope. He was a smart man.

The first time I read that closing statement by Dawkins, it leaped off the magazine, causing me to jot it down.

But is the statement pious hypocrisy? I don't know Dawkin's heart. But it appears that way, especially when he labels anyone who interprets Biblical passages literally as fundamentalist clowns.

But a triune God who creates ex nihilo is incomprehensible, way beyond what any theologian would dream up. Don't you think?

Casey that's a hoot! Christians have been successful in conversion by virtue of recasting their religion to suit the local culture. Christmas has a pagan origin & no validation in the bible whatsoever.

I actually find quite a bit of guidance in the old holy books. If you take out the superstition & cosmological fairy tales, there's a lot of humanity in them that's worth preserving. I like the Tao and some of the Sermon on the Mount. I also like the Jewish tradition of an annual period of self-reflection and restitution.

Religion has much to offer its adherents. If you strip away the superstition and fairy tales (as Jefferson did in his bible) there's quite a bit of wisdom in the old "holy" books. There's also good guidance in more modern secular books. I don't see myself as having rejected religion as much as having outgrown it.

Why is God greater than anything we can know? Is there even the slightest reason to believe that? God could be a really lazy guy. A couch potato. After all if this was the best world he could create then he was surely and underachiever. That is of course if his accomplishment is judged by the reactions of those living in it.

This is what has led me to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. No fooling around with all this speculation about God's greatness. When you look at t6he mess of a world around you it makes sense to believe it was created by a big ball of spaghetti.

All praises be upon Him and His noodly appendage, The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Mr Otterson:

Isn't that what Islam has been telling you all along? A world that has an all powerful God cannot accomodate Jesus' divinity. The same Jesus who said "On my own, I can do nothing" and who was, according to the bible, crying for help on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". These are hardly the qualities of a God, let alone the one true God. Don't you agree?

The Judaeo-Christian "bible" is the organic law of Judaism and its "Christian" version; and, as a "bible," it is to be construed as the fixed, immutable "word of God." The "bible" begins with the creation of everything in six days by "God" (Yahweh). That is the cornerstone, the fulcrum, upon which all versions of Judaeo-Christian religion rests. Either you believe that story or you have no religion. If you begin altering the story by allowing for evolution as part of God's plan (Pope John's announcement), then you are changing the scriptures, the "word of God," and demolishing your own beliefs.
    I do not know for sure what "religion" Michael Otterson is talking about when he refers to "my religion." Presumably he means the Mormon religion. If Michael has not read "The Mormon Murders" by Naifeh and Smith, he should. And anybody who has read the massive, documented evidence in that book exposing the Mormon religion as a fraud on humanity, and who nevertheless continues to believe in the hoax on which it is based, is either an idiot or a lunatic.
    No matter what "religion" MIchael Otterson refers to when he asserts "my religion", it most certainly does not teach what he says it teaches. It has no reference whatsoever to other "worlds" that are "inhabited". There is nothing in any version of Judaeo-Christian religion which "teaches" that "God works with natural laws." Every version of it "teaches" that "God" (Yahweh) creates everything by means of "his" own power (Genesis 1), including the creation of the first man in "his" (God's) "image" (Genesis 1:26) by "form[ing]" that man from "dust from the ground" (Genesis 2:7). That is not working with "natural law."
    In short, either you believe that "God" worked and continues to work through super power within the structure established in your "bible" or you are no longer following your religion and, indeed, you no longer have any religion to follow. As soon as you begin attempting to modify your religion by hooking up "God" to "natural law" and cosmic experience and belief in other inhabited planets, you are into science and the hopes in life elsewhere generated by science and not by any scriptural statement in your religion.

Here's the thing, the universe is much bigger than our observable universe. Our observable univers has about 100 billion galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars. The age is 13.7 billion years, and so the furthest distance from which we've received information (light) is 3 x 13.7 billion light years (factor of 3 because it's expanding - if no expansion the 'horizon' distance would be 13.7 billion light years). That's the observable univ