honorentheos wrote:Earlier in the thread you excused individual behavior due to their being believing cogs in the wheel of the machine that is the institutional church. You're arguing whichever side suits you on a particular point. Feel free to say whatever you want about my pointing this out. At least it isn't arbitrary and silly. Oh, and wrong.
Nope! Sorry. You have misunderstood me.
Ok. He's clearly saying what he didn't say because you know what he was saying between the lines. Got it.
He's clearly saying things in the context of everything he has previously said. If we don't understand what he has said over time, what he says in one quote may be misunderstood. That's not a revolutionary idea. It's pretty standard for a responsible and accurate interpretation of the evidence.
Even if we were to assume the entire issue here is the handling of history, you are then arguing in defense of hiding resources to protect a particular narrative. That's not ethical in any field. You want to argue the people doing so aren't trained historians so they shouldn't be held to the same standard as a professional historian? Unethical behavior when practicing in a field where one lacks training isn't defensible anywhere, anyhow. You want to shift the argument, the problem remains: Withholding the information is unethical. That doing so tightens the grip of authority of the leadership of the church over the membership, steals agency from the membership, and infantilizes the membership in doing so is simply immoral.
I don't know why you want to burn yourself up over this issue. You're on the wrong side. You recognize that readily when the subject isn't the LDS church who is behaving in the same manner. Your defense swings wildly from argument to argument as needed to defend the assumed position even when it contradicts previous positions you've laid out.
Yeah, I don't think you are really getting what I am saying. What I am saying is that, within the community of believers, the faithful narrative and those things that support it will be favored and amplified, whereas things that challenge it will be resisted and dismissed. What was once resisted may be embraced once believers learn how it may be read in a supportive way. I think Don's book is a fine example of how something that might have potentially been resisted because one might have expected it to be controversial and faith-challenging can be embraced because, although it does not simply tell the same old narrative, it is seen as illuminating and adding to the faith narrative.
What appears to you to be immoral because it does not conform to your priorities and values can, within the system of values and priorities of the community, be deemed acceptable. If we understand things sympathetically through the eyes of insiders, even if only for the sake of intellectual clarity, we improve our understanding of the community and compassion for its members. It is easy to make sweeping judgments according to different standards. For example, marrying more than one person is wrong. Right? I am not inviting you to change your morals. I am inviting you to change your approach to dealing with other cultures.
You're a funny guy, and this is an entertaining thread. I am not "burning myself up" over this. I can do this all day and enjoy myself.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith