Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m not a big fan of titles, not just church ones, but all types. To me, titles a leftovers from long ago, when we had class systems. Our societies were very unequal not that long ago, and the use of titles seemed to fit into that. That doesn’t mean I would disregard this cultural norm if I was speaking to someone like the President of the Church or the President of our Country. Even though I’m not a fan of titles, I don’t have an issue with the use of middle initials. For whatever reason, it just doesn’t bother me. It creates a level of formality that isn’t as prominent with local leaders, and maybe that’s part of the point, to signify the importance of the calling. I don’t think that it’s necessary, but I also don’t think its a big deal. You’ve all made good points. I agree, that at the end of the day, there aren’t concrete answers to the question, but It is fun to think about–at least to me. It is one of the few aspects of philosophy that really interested me. An active, devout Mormon, BYU philosophy professor David Poulsen, has written a very good paper about this issue from Mormon perspective (if you’re interested, just google his name and the problem of evil). jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong.
Well, I apologize, I wasn’t trying to insult, only to prod and question. I have a background in stochastic processes, so I am very familiar with probability theory, decision making, bayesian inference, information theory, and other methods involving aggregating information in intelligent ways. So it’s not really just that book. That book just happens to be an extension of my specialty to other parts of society.jmb, no worries, I don’t feel insulted. I took your advice and tried to space my response better; hopefully it helped. I’m sure you understand probabability theory better than me; I’m an amateur scientist.
jmb275 wrote:I see what you’re saying. I must humbly say that I am not nearly as confident in my own ideas, my own way of thinking, my own ideals to think that others should follow them or that the world would be better off. This goes back to the wisdom of crowd idea. Study after study shows that the group consensus, if the group is wise, is
bettermeaning more optimal than any individual contributor. I don’t think that if everyone held to my ideas that the world would be a better place. Different yes, better in some ways, yes, but absolutely better – probably not. I do, however, agree that the incorrect cultural norms of Mormonism should absolutely be rooted out. I also agree with you that it is not in the best interests of an individual to disregard the contradictions found in history. But, I like you, admit this is only an opinion, it does not make it fact. It might be that it is only in my best interests not to ignore those contradictions. But, the fact that so many TBM Mormons can function readily, ably, and actually quite successfully in everyday life (even in scientific, philosophical, psychological, and historical vocations) tells me that the literal beliefs are not that disabling. When you contrast this with a typical case study of fundamentalist groups you get a clear picture of what that danger is really like.
Also, you mentioned that those people are not “good” for the church. “Good” according to which definition? If we look at it from the perspective of what a GA may have (I don’t know this, but am just guessing) that of preserving the church itself, and their claim to authority, then I suggest that you are exactly wrong, and orthodox members are good for the church, and we are bad for the church. Now of course you know that I don’t see it that way. I think we are very good for the church in reality despite what the Brethren may or may not think. My point is that “good” is a very subjective term.
Also wordsleuth23, I have a question for you. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not challenging you or trying to be offensive, I just want to prod you a bit. Are the things you’re doing, the things you’re reading, the attitude you present, giving rise to defensiveness and close-mindedness? How open-minded are you toward the idea that the authors you have read don’t have the whole story? How open-minded are you that the church produces successful people in the physical and spiritual sense? I’m not claiming this is true, but I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests this. If we cannot see that thousands of people are a testament to the fact that Mormonism is good, because we are so focused on prop 8, or the psychology of literal belief, or whatever else, then how open-minded are we being?
You make valid points jmb275. Good is a very subjective term, and depending on the view, you’re right–we’re bad for the Church and orthodox members are good. I was using good in the sense of allowing the Church to be an open-minded, progressive, modern church, that doesn’t put members against a wall when dealing with science. You may disagree, but in many ways, the Church is tacitly hostile to science. When it benefits the Church or members, then its a good thing. Vaccines are wonderful, so are airplanes, but DNA evidence or carbon dating on Papyrus scrolls isn’t.
As for you’re statement that I’m possibly being close-minded, I’m not offended. I don’t believe I’m being close-minded because I leave open the chance that science will one day prove religious truths, like confirming their is a soul, and documenting other realms, or showing real, literal angels. I don’t think it will happen, but I’m open to the idea.
It’s interesting that you question whether I’m too trusting of the authors I read. You seem to give great credence to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” book. I would argue that the crowd is often wrong, dangerously wrong. A great majority of Americans don’t believe in evolution–that isn’t wisdom. Currently, a majority of Americans reject the idea of equal rights for gays–that isn’t wisdom. Believing that the world is going to end sometime soon, and thinking that its okay to trash the earth because of this–that isn’t wisdom. Often times, small groups of people get it right, but they aren’t part of the “wise majority” so they are branded as heretics. You may rely on evidence provided by the author of the book, but there is certainly evidence to contradict the authors views. Plenty of times, throughout history, minorities have been wise, while the crowd was being racist, extremist, hateful, and ignorant.
I readily accept that the books I read are ultimately philosophizing–not proving–about religion’s role in society. Plenty of smart people disagree, but when it comes to the scientific method and the ability to “prove” something, science is the best method. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of science, and if religion wants to be legitimately used in the public realm, it needs better evidence, plain and simple. We don’t consult a religious guru to find out the weather, we rely on science. We don’t give priesthood blessings to prevent the flu–maybe on the side–we get flu shots. Science has proven its reliability, making me confident that it is the best method we currently have of understanding our world.
I’m completely aware of the fact that the Church has successful members, and I don’t believe I’ve ever said otherwise. What I am saying is that for the Church to continue to work in a modern world, the orthodox–my definition of it–members need to become less orthodox; they hold the Church back. You ask me what a GA would say about this–well GA’s are orthodox members, and if they aren’t, they don’t get the opportunity to say so publicly; in my opinion, orthodox GA’s hold the Church back. I personally know lots of good, successful, orthodox members–including my parents–but their views of science and modernity are hampered by orthodox views. I’m sorry, this may be offensive, but to me its just downright crazy to try and refute evolution. It happened, no matter what the Bible or Boyd K. Packer may say, yet my intelligent, educated parents don’t believe in it. Why? Because of orthodox views. That doesn’t mean they are bad people, it just means they are hindering their understanding of the world, and it means they often have archaic views about things.
I know I said earlier in this post that I keep an open mind, but I’m am close-minded in some ways. I am close-minded to the possibility of a 6 day creation. I’m a close-minded when it comes to viewing gay relationships as bad; too me, they aren’t bad, they are perfectly legit for people that choose to live that way. I’m close-minded when it comes to the possible benefits of polygamy in the afterlife. I’m close-minded when it comes to what I read; I don’t think any science book, history book, or any other book is bad to read. Orthodox Church leaders teach me that I should avoid reading things that aren’t uplifting to my spirit, and avoid things that challenge the Church. I am not open-minded to that view, it is wrong to me.
I think the Church will become less orthodox as time passes, and as younger people become leaders, we’ll see changing views about gays, evolution, and a host of other things. They’ll probably have “revelations” to update the Church’s views. I just think that the current TBM’s aren’t good for the Church. I don’t think the criticism and negative publicity the Church has received over Prop 8 is “good” for it. We can thank orthodox members and leaders for this. I don’t think open-minded members that aren’t so orthodox hurt the Church. Maybe leaders don’t like this because they have less control, but for the good of the Church as a whole, free thinking seems better to me. Once again, these are just my opinions. I don’t expect the whole world to follow them, but its how I see it.
jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither.
Well, I wonder if you’re conflating needing orthodox members with needing a majority of close-minded orthodox members. I’m not sure John is advocating the latter, but the former is important I think. Orthodox individuals keep our society functioning in important ways. They are often the SJs in our lives and make up 50% of the population. Can you imagine what life might be like wordsleuth if no one valued statements from authority as you and I don’t? What a nightmare? As hawkgrrrl has theorized, I think SJs probably make up the bulk of the church. I suspect there is some good evolutionary reasoning for why this is so in any organization. SJs provide a foundation. They battle against folks like us who want to turn the world upside down. It’s a great balancing act in the game of life.I think we might argue that we could stand to have more openness from orthodox members, but this is largely cultural.
jmb275, I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view. With that definition in mind, I still go back to my original post. I don’t think that in general, the current orthodox Mormon is good for the Church. That may be offensive to some, but to me, it gives rise to the defensiveness and close-mindedness on social issues we see from the Church. You are right in pointing out that John wasn’t referencing close-minded members, so its just a difference of opinion on the term orthodox. If no one respected authority as you and I don’t, then we get the perfect form of society in my eyes–communalism/socialist libertarianism/law of consecration–all basically the same idea. There is no hierarchy of authority in groups/societies like this, so I don’t personally think that is a bad thing.
jmb275 wrote:Sorry, I’m really confused here. You start out with concepts about free will and evil (even in the title of the post), and then ask a question about the church’s position on the nature of God. Can you clarify a little for me?
The problem of evil and free will tie very much into the nature of God. That’s the entire debate. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, then can he stop the evil in this world? I wrote a senior paper on this topic–40 pages–so trying to condense it will be difficult. How can God be all powerful and all good, and yet still allow so much evil? The initial response is “free will”. That opens up the debate about what free will is, whether we really have it, etc. jmb, it all ties together. The nature of God has everything to do with evil and free will. Another line of defense for evil is the idea that it allows us to grow/develop our souls/spirits. If evil is necessary, is the exact amount of evil in our world necessary? Was the holocaust necessary to build mens souls? Then it goes back to free will–God couldn’t intervene without taking away free will. If I intervene, am I taking away free will? If I shot Hitler in the head before he started killing Jews, would I have taken away his free will? If not, why can I do something that God can’t? Doesn’t that mean he’s not omnipotent? Why can I intervene and God can’t? Also, if the amount of evil in this world is perfectly tuned, why can we–humans–reduce evil but God can’t? We have vaccines for viruses that use to ravish mankind; were we interfering with God’s plans by doing so? Was the growth of developing a vaccine really necessary for the virus in the first place? There are two kinds of evil according to the theory–natural evil (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc) and moral evil (murder, rape, etc). Could God have stopped Hurricane Katrina? Was that hurricane really necessary? You start getting into whether God is really omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. If he is those things, we seem to have problems. He can’t be perfectly good and allow the evil in this world, at the level its at, and still be all powerful. This problem of evil is best challenged by John Hick and his argument of the Soul-Making Theodicy, and the free will defense is best made by Alvin Plantinga.
I like and agree with most of what John has said. I do disagree, however, with the idea that we “need” orthodox members. As–if–the Church continues to progress, orthodox members will become more and more sparse. I don’t think we need orthodox rhetoric–that is the most divisive. Orthodox rhetoric has given us the Prop 8 battle, and every other cultural divide within the mormon community. Hopefully–and most likely–the middle way will become much more common and the orthodox views will quiet down. Sure, if this kind of change takes place, the Church will change, but I don’t think it will wither. swimordie wrote:My point is that the “meaning” of anything, whether real or not, is created by our own minds. If we need to “believe” in only the objective “truth” based on “facts”, we should also be aware that we are creating the meaning for these concepts: belief, truth, facts.
No matter how much we “know”, we also only “know” what we mean by “knowing”.
Simwordie, are you a philosopher
For me though, trusting my sensory perceptions, and accepting the things I can test, is the best available option. Maybe someday science will be advanced enough to prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or even God. It’s unlikely, and either way, you can’t prove a negative so there will always be skeptics. How do we know Zeus isn’t real? How do we “know” Muhammad didn’t restore God’s religion to the earth? We can’t “know” these things because certain elements are untestable. Muslims accept Muhammad by placing faith in his story, and then they claim to “know” he told the truth. Mormons do the same thing with Joseph, and many people do that with science. The difference is that science has to show what it claims; empirical evidence is the best form of evidence we can ascertain at this time.
Swimwordie, it’s the law of probabilities that I’m relying on. We can come up with neat theories that philosophize about the possibilities of our existence–like Descartes did, or we can accept what is probable. What is most probable is what we can prove, and theories from Descartes or many other philosophers are useless today. Naturalists and religious philosophers don’t exactly get along. For extreme skeptics that doubt sensory perceptions, the burden of proof lies on them. What is more probable, that our sensory perceptions are accurate and real, or that this is all an illusion/dream/matrix/game? I apply the same approach to religion–the burden of proof lies with the Church and its claims. With all of the contradictory stories surrounding Joseph, the burden of proof lies with the Church to come up with valid, reliable, explanations. They do try–FARMS–but ultimately, they point to faith and the negative consequences of too much reason.
People have every right to exercise faith in religious stories, but the burden of proof lies with them if they want to challenge doubters/skeptics/non-believers. Mormonism makes bold claims, but the claims made are undercut by the history around the Church’s founding. That history is important in the sense that it helps draw lines in the sand. It pushes people away that used to believe, it keeps skeptics and non-believers away, and for those that choose to stay, it forces reconciliation, or a discarding of the evidence.
For the super devout/faithful, the history isn’t important in any real sense. It may be important in its simplified form, but real, accurate history isn’t, because it isn’t used. That’s the proof; if it was truly important to the Church, they would use the real history.
My bad jmb275, I’ll work on the spacing.
Primary color, I’m glad we agree on most things. I guess I should expect this because I didn’t define “matter” well. By “matter”, I mean the impact it has on the person. Plenty of people on this website know a lot of the unsavory things about the Church’s history, and they still believe in the gospel. Plenty of people are aware of the history and still have solid testimonies. The history matters to them, but in a different way than it matters to me. Of course history is supposed to be a retelling of what happened–literally–in the past. A lot of the history we get today is tainted by the historian, but good historians that research a subject to the best of their abilities, and report that as well as they can, are the best we have. The “history” of the Church “matters” to me for a lot of reasons I explained in my previous post. I’m a literal person, and if Joseph didn’t literally do the things he claims, then to me, the Church isn’t real/true and it doesn’t work for me. So by saying that how history matters depends on the person, I mean just that. It causes some people like me to lose their testimonies, it causes others to change terms/definitions/frameworks so they can still benefit and believe, and some disregard the history and still believe the literal truth. So once again, it matters depending on the person, based off of my definition of “matter”. spacious maze wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:she is not neutral like he is
I have to disagree here. While RSR is certainly academic with it’s exhaustive resources, I specifically recall Bushman attempting to tackle the issue of the various accounts of the First Vision by simply stating that JS
withheldentire portions of the story in his initial attempts to document the revelation. I think we are owed a better explanation than that, especially given the mutinous circumstances in Nauvoo preceding the 1838 version. I also think he treads a bit too lightly around the tougher issues; there are just two sentences given to fact that the BoA papyri has been dated by scholars as a polytheistic funeral text. This is expected coming from someone who’s intent is to affirm faith, so I don’t blame him, I just wouldn’t say he’s neutral. I’m with you, Spacious Maze. Bushman is a very intelligent academic, and there were areas of RSR that left me wanting–not because Bushman didn’t have better academic answers, but because he didn’t want to be too negative about Joseph. I agree Valoel that Brodie makes unprovable leaps, but RSR has its own flaws. While focusing less on Joseph, and more on the early Church, I think Quinn’s Mormon Origins books is the most sound, thorough, academically accepted book that deals with Joseph and the controversies in his life.
Bruce in Montana wrote:That’s sad…and so typical of the attitude that prevails with those of us who have objectionably studied early Church history…
Bruce, I don’t intend to offend anyone. I’m sorry you find my views “sad”. I’ve never met a fundamentalist Mormon in person. If you find happiness in your views, more power to ya. You must have a lot of faith to so confidently overlook the history the way you do. I’m sure from your perspective, or other “faithful” Mormons, I’ve got a serious case of “Korihorness”. At this point in my life, I feel like faith is a cop out if there isn’t good evidence to support something. I have a certain level of faith in the scientific method–meaning, I take the 5 senses at face value, but I feel like there is good evidence for that. I have an uncle who likes to say we all have “spiritual IQ’s”; right now, I must have a low one. My natural aptitude/disposition towards things, especially religion, is take look for literal truths, and that hasn’t served me well since I came across Quinn/Bushman. Maybe that just indicates I’ve always lacked faith, but if that’s the case, so be it. For some, like my wife, the history doesn’t matter one bit. She doesn’t like to hear negative things, she doesn’t care to study the history; it’s all about how she feels. I respect her for that, and I appreciate that she respects how I work.It matters for lots of reasons. I think most members of the Church or any religion, believe literally in the things they are taught. For me, it matters because to me it is a form of evidence. Ultimately, we can’t “prove” things about religion, but we can look at factual events that happened when the Church was founded. We can look at the Church has conducted itself over the last 179 years. It obviously matters to the Church leaders because they censor things that don’t put a positive spin of Joseph or any other early Mormon event. Since I personally, don’t view religion as a metaphor, the history matters a great deal. It matters that so many things have been lied about. It matters that Joseph probably wrote the BoM. It matters that Joseph probably fabricated the PoGP. I can either view a mountain of ration, empirical, factual evidence as the truth, or I can disregard it all and view things as metaphorically true; or I can view everything that isn’t positive as a falsehood, and still believe in the literal truth of the Church. For me personally, the mountain of evidence that contradicts the claims made by Prophets and apostles since the Church’s founding, up to the present day, makes the Church untrue. I don’t buy into the idea that they can get so many things wrong, and lie about so much, and have it still be true. More power to you if the metaphorical truth helps. I guess my main point is that it matters depending on the person. This may make me look like I’m in the wrong place. 1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Liberal Quakers (76%)
4. Nontheist (69%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (69%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (63%)
8. New Age (51%)
9. Reform Judaism (48%)
10. Taoism (47%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (41%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (36%)
13. Sikhism (36%)
14. Scientology (35%)
15. New Thought (33%)
16. Baha’i Faith (30%)
17. Jainism (28%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)
20. Hinduism (24%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (19%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (18%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (15%)
24. Islam (15%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (15%)
26. Roman Catholic (15%)
27. Jehovah’s Witness (12%)
Old-Timer wrote:“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a fascinating concept when pondered deeply. There are a lot of ways to spin it and justify actions that you really wouldn’t want others taking with you – but in the end, I believe it really is about respective others enough not to tr to force them to see what they aren’t ready to see.
I’m all for sharing things that will enlarge someone’s soul and bring them joy and peace, but some people simply are not thinkers/tinkerers – and to try to force them to be so can be brutal and cruel. What resonates within me might explode within someone else – and I would rather leave them “ignorant” than “shattered”.
How do you know when someone is ready to see? My brother didn’t know where I was at spiritually when he introduced to me to D. Michael Quinn and Grant Palmer. Sure, I’ve struggled tremendously since then, but in many ways I’m now a happier person. Even when I was struggling, I didn’t hold it against my brother, rather, I was grateful. I’m grateful that he cared about me enough to show me what he believed to be truth. Whether it be a brother, a friend, or a fellow ward member, caring enough to share what you believe to be truth isn’t a bad thing.
From an orthodox perspective, this makes sense. It ties into why they censor history, because uncensored stuff makes it nearly impossible not to doubt, and that undermines the Church’s goals. I personally liken doubt to skepticism, and I think some level of that is healthy and very necessary. That may not lead one to be an orthodox Mormon, but searching for the truth, even if it leads to some doubt is okay. If God really did create us, then he gave us the capacity to reason. I don’t think God would have done that, and not wanted us to use it.
