It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:20 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm 
First Presidency

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:48 pm
Posts: 813
cwald wrote:
Servant wrote:
. I see it all over this forum with men and women who have claimed to have left Mormonism, but will rise up in an instant to defend that which they have left, or it founder.


Oh please. I don't think you have spent much time on this forum if you have this kind of opinion. Who does this? Please list a few exmormons on this site who deny and/or defend Joseph Smith having sex with 14 year old girls.


It appears to have changed - become a lot more Mormon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what it appears like.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:42 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8991
cwald wrote:
Servant wrote:
. I see it all over this forum with men and women who have claimed to have left Mormonism, but will rise up in an instant to defend that which they have left, or it founder.


Oh please. I don't think you have spent much time on this forum if you have this kind of opinion. Who does this? Please list a few exmormons on this site who deny and/or defend Joseph Smith having sex with 14 year old girls.

servant wrote:
It appears to have changed - become a lot more Mormon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what it appears like.

I'm curious, what have you read that leads you to this conclusion?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8984
Location: On walkabout
Servant is confusing defending Mormonism with rejecting anti-mormon Christianity (an oxymoron if I ever heard one.)

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 9566
Res Ipsa wrote:
Servant is confusing defending Mormonism with rejecting anti-mormon Christianity (an oxymoron if I ever heard one.)

It seems Servant's approach is to treat Mormonism as a single, monolithic thing. And their experience with online Mormon apologists defines this along with holding a view of the LDS church as a cult that is deceiving people away from the true religion of Christ.

Most people on this board share Servant's experience with Mormon apologists, or mopologists as we call them, and would probably be right there with Servant in denouncing their behavior. But most of us, regardless of where we are on the post-Mormon spectrum, don't view the Mormon people as a monolith. Daniel Peterson couldn't be further from my great Grandmother or my mission president in tone, charity or views. Likewise, with few exceptions, most of us on this board do not identify with Christianity as a true and divine Way that must be followed or else eternal torment awaits.

It's about as bad a combination for not finding common ground as one could script.

That said, I would be very interested in Servant sharing the evidence she told Shulem to check out on the Resurrection. It's been a while since the board has broken out the New Testament in a meaningful way. I'd be down for that thread.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1333
Location: Parowan, Utah
Kishkumen wrote:
I do not agree entirely with your interpretation of all I have written here, but I will account that to my lack of clarity as I fumble about in exploring my thoughts. More later.


I look forward to the generosity of your instruction and correction, though I doubt it can compete with the generosity of your praise (my prose is very Symmachan for some reason...).

I'm sure I've missed things but I tried to cast two kinds of arguments as opposite endpoints on various lines (focus on past/present, arguments about past/present, text/culture) because, as the scope of the conversation broadens, I'm just trying to situate the various kinds of arguments and make sense of their relationships. It is inevitably misleading, then, when I also introduce Kishkumen/Physics Guy, since neither of you land on one side or the other in any of these without ambiguity. I don't mean to misinterpret (who does?), but it's possible too that I misunderstand.

In any case, the conversation had been tending to this larger problem of religious belief, which inevitably invites an even larger problem—namely, just what the hell religion is anyway—so all that categorizing is just a handy conceptual sorting to help me articulate, however imperfectly, the emphasis on culture, not just as a background to Mormonism or Scientology but also to the questions that are asked and answered on the thread.

I say "had been tending" because:

Servant wrote:
I see it all over this forum with men and women who have claimed to have left Mormonism, but will rise up in an instant to defend that which they have left, or it founder...
[this forum] appears to have changed - become a lot more Mormon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what it appears like.


Well, since you initially responded with a quotation from me, I feel some obligation to respond. Trouble is, I'm not sure I can answer directly because I cannot detect the line of reasoning that got you from the words of mine you quote to the response you've written. Cwald is certainly right, but just to be clear, I don't think my amateur tackling of questions about religion is tantamount to defending Joseph Smith's sexual predation and deceit. I wasn't even talking about Joseph Smith.

I haven't, by the way, ever "claimed to have left Mormonism." One cannot leave one's own past. But it is past. Here's the past I'm coming from: though I did go to BYU, I was always a cultural Mormon ("jack Mormon" as they used to say in olden days) who, despite being brought up in the Church, just never could buy into Joseph Smith's story, never paid tithing, didn't go on a mission, didn't marry in the temple, didn't even marry a Mormon, haven't brought up children as Mormon, was never endowed in the temple, never wore garments, never served a calling. I resigned my name anyway a few years ago. I just like to read books, which I guess means I "turn the other way" and "don't face facts." I don't recall "submitting to a pedophile," though. Not without a little alcohol, at least, which of course may be why I don't recall it.

Other than having Mormon family members, the extent of my personal commitment to Mormonism can be gauged by the fact that I had to Google "Renlund" a couple of weeks ago to understand a post here. Judging your response from that perspective, your emotional link to Mormonism appears to be much deeper than mine. Mine is non-existent, yours is antagonistic. But this too shall pass, and one day you will know the enlightened relaxation that comes from not giving a flying ____ about the Church.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:14 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20095
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Consul, it is not so much that I seek to correct and instruct as find my footing regarding my own views. As others share their thoughts and critiques, I better learn what it is I am thinking and trying to communicate.

I agree completely that religion is a problematic category, by the way. I use it primarily for the sake of convenience. What other term should I use?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1333
Location: Parowan, Utah
Kishkumen wrote:
I agree completely that religion is a problematic category, by the way. I use it primarily for the sake of convenience. What other term should I use?


I don't know. I don't mean to suggest we need another term or that we should avoid the category, only that it conditions the questions to some degree and obscures (or at least can obscure) the answers.

For example, with Scientology, already putting in the same category as both Mormonism and Christianity is going to color our answer to the question "how can people believe claim X" because Scientology isn't going to meet certain cultural expectations of what constitutes a reasonable religious claim (which is one way of rephrasing the argument that Mormonism's narrative has a certain advantage in a Christian culture). But to me that we won't really get to a sufficient answer to the question. Compared to something like Mormonism, Scientology is more of a sub-elite philosophical movement or even more analogous to Buddhism, another complex of religious belief and practice that often doesn't really seem to be a religion, at least in certain forms (e.g. Zen or the Westernized variants). It isn't the narrative power of Thetan cosmology that persuades people but something else. There is another explanation for whatever success Scientology has had that stems from de-Christianization of the culture, so therefore its difference from Christianity is actually a benefit.

With Mormonism, examining the question "how do people believe this" purely as a religious claim likewise will obscure what happened in the past and what is happening now. It was certainly to its advantage that Mormonism mapped relatively well onto the religious landscape in terms of practice and even belief system, but that wasn't always about the power of its narrative. The narratives that someone like Physics Guy find so incredible were primarily vehicles for doctrines, and it is the doctrines that people found either compelling or repellent. Doctrine was very important in the 1830s to the early 1900s in a way that it isn't today. Few people care about infant baptism, for example, and while Mormons take the wrongness of infant baptism for granted, I doubt they argue with many non-Mormons today about it, if they could even find people interested enough in the practice to argue with in the first place. Judging from the kinds of publications (Millennial Star in England, for instance, or Prophwyd y Jubili in Wales) doctrine was a big driver of overseas conversion until the early 20th century, as well as the opportunities of immigration in general, which has nothing to do with religion but which features prominently even in many issues of the Millennial Star. In that context, the incentive was to maximize the Christianity of Mormonism and it was effective at least in getting people to Utah. But what happened when they were there? I think it is very easy to overestimate the extent to which Mormon converts bought into, if they even knew about, some of the less mainstream claims of Mormonism. I think this is a topic that Mormon historians have hardly even thought about but lots of Mormons drifted away pretty quickly and went to California or somewhere else. Some even formed separate towns (e.g. Spring Glen in Carbon County) that were later brought back into the Mormon orbit, especially after polygamy. And the fact is that correlation began as a way to corral the many different kinds of people that came into the Church into a single kind of Mormonism in both practice and belief because of administrative and accounting difficulties. It is at that point that the narrative gained more importance and thus started to become subject to more scrutiny. That is why, about mid 20th century, the Book of Mormon became a central text and not a background detail, as it had been practically since its publication in 1830, and also why you start getting the apologetic strain starting with Hugh Nibley (earlier apologetics had been doctrinal—e.g. Widtsoe—or responses to perceived slander of Mormon people—e.g. B. H. Roberts—but not defenses of the historical claims of Mormon myths, which is what most people here perceive as Mormon apologetics). Doctrine has been receding into the background at the same time; what people used to care about was the doctrinal cargo carried by the weird narratives, but now they only see the weird narratives.

The prominence of the narrative was not always there. A lot of people in this forum grew up on a narrative that many people born before 1960 had only the slightest acquaintance with, or at least it had a different, less central place in their Mormonism (see, e.g. Roger Hendrix). The Church became more committed to certain of its myths alongside (and maybe because of) the Correlation project that was an administrative response by the upper echelons of the Church to managing the diffuse kinds of Mormonism that existed inside the Church. That to me, is not really a religious problem, though it has had consequences in how Mormons practice their religion and what they have been taught to believe. Much of the social life that constituted Mormonism for probably most Mormons has not survived, with and the result is that the narrative has a bloated importance. I have argued several times here that the narrative has become the glue holding Mormonism together, which was not always the case, with the result that Unfortunately for the Correlationists, the technologies of mass media have grown much more quickly than the Church has been able to handle, so they are stuck with this narrative and have resorted to the kinds of tactics we all find stupid and embarrassing. Worse still for them, the country has quite rapidly moved away from traditional Christianity, so therefore the similarity with traditional Christianity, such as it is, can be a hindrance, paired with a weird, Google-able narrative.

So, I guess my answer to the question "how can people believe X vs. Y" has more to do with forces that have less to do with religious claims and more to do with the historical contexts in which those religious claims are made.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:33 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9067
Location: Cave
Symmachus wrote:
With Mormonism, examining the question "how do people believe this" purely as a religious claim likewise will obscure what happened in the past and what is happening now. It was certainly to its advantage that Mormonism mapped relatively well onto the religious landscape in terms of practice and even belief system, but that wasn't always about the power of its narrative. The narratives that someone like Physics Guy find so incredible were primarily vehicles for doctrines, and it is the doctrines that people found either compelling or repellent. Doctrine was very important in the 1830s to the early 1900s in a way that it isn't today. Few people care about infant baptism, for example, and while Mormons take the wrongness of infant baptism for granted, I doubt they argue with many non-Mormons today about it, if they could even find people interested enough in the practice to argue with in the first place. Judging from the kinds of publications (Millennial Star in England, for instance, or Prophwyd y Jubili in Wales) doctrine was a big driver of overseas conversion until the early 20th century, as well as the opportunities of immigration in general, which has nothing to do with religion but which features prominently even in many issues of the Millennial Star. In that context, the incentive was to maximize the Christianity of Mormonism and it was effective at least in getting people to Utah. But what happened when they were there? I think it is very easy to overestimate the extent to which Mormon converts bought into, if they even knew about, some of the less mainstream claims of Mormonism. I think this is a topic that Mormon historians have hardly even thought about but lots of Mormons drifted away pretty quickly and went to California or somewhere else. Some even formed separate towns (e.g. Spring Glen in Carbon County) that were later brought back into the Mormon orbit, especially after polygamy. And the fact is that correlation began as a way to corral the many different kinds of people that came into the Church into a single kind of Mormonism in both practice and belief because of administrative and accounting difficulties. It is at that point that the narrative gained more importance and thus started to become subject to more scrutiny. That is why, about mid 20th century, the Book of Mormon became a central text and not a background detail, as it had been practically since its publication in 1830, and also why you start getting the apologetic strain starting with Hugh Nibley (earlier apologetics had been doctrinal—e.g. Widtsoe—or responses to perceived slander of Mormon people—e.g. B. H. Roberts—but not defenses of the historical claims of Mormon myths, which is what most people here perceive as Mormon apologetics). Doctrine has been receding into the background at the same time; what people used to care about was the doctrinal cargo carried by the weird narratives, but now they only see the weird narratives


Fascinating stuff, Symmachus.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:05 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7458
Location: Cassius University
Gadianton wrote:
Symmachus wrote:
With Mormonism, examining the question "how do people believe this" purely as a religious claim likewise will obscure what happened in the past and what is happening now. It was certainly to its advantage that Mormonism mapped relatively well onto the religious landscape in terms of practice and even belief system, but that wasn't always about the power of its narrative. The narratives that someone like Physics Guy find so incredible were primarily vehicles for doctrines, and it is the doctrines that people found either compelling or repellent. Doctrine was very important in the 1830s to the early 1900s in a way that it isn't today. Few people care about infant baptism, for example, and while Mormons take the wrongness of infant baptism for granted, I doubt they argue with many non-Mormons today about it, if they could even find people interested enough in the practice to argue with in the first place. Judging from the kinds of publications (Millennial Star in England, for instance, or Prophwyd y Jubili in Wales) doctrine was a big driver of overseas conversion until the early 20th century, as well as the opportunities of immigration in general, which has nothing to do with religion but which features prominently even in many issues of the Millennial Star. In that context, the incentive was to maximize the Christianity of Mormonism and it was effective at least in getting people to Utah. But what happened when they were there? I think it is very easy to overestimate the extent to which Mormon converts bought into, if they even knew about, some of the less mainstream claims of Mormonism. I think this is a topic that Mormon historians have hardly even thought about but lots of Mormons drifted away pretty quickly and went to California or somewhere else. Some even formed separate towns (e.g. Spring Glen in Carbon County) that were later brought back into the Mormon orbit, especially after polygamy. And the fact is that correlation began as a way to corral the many different kinds of people that came into the Church into a single kind of Mormonism in both practice and belief because of administrative and accounting difficulties. It is at that point that the narrative gained more importance and thus started to become subject to more scrutiny. That is why, about mid 20th century, the Book of Mormon became a central text and not a background detail, as it had been practically since its publication in 1830, and also why you start getting the apologetic strain starting with Hugh Nibley (earlier apologetics had been doctrinal—e.g. Widtsoe—or responses to perceived slander of Mormon people—e.g. B. H. Roberts—but not defenses of the historical claims of Mormon myths, which is what most people here perceive as Mormon apologetics). Doctrine has been receding into the background at the same time; what people used to care about was the doctrinal cargo carried by the weird narratives, but now they only see the weird narratives


Fascinating stuff, Symmachus.


Agreed. It's both true (i.e., that Mopologists/apologists are completely ill-equipped to deal with questions of LDS doctrine) and hilarious. I would be lying if I said I've never chuckled at all those classic FAIRboard (et al.) threads that posed questions about how many earrings one is permitted to wear, or whether Brigham Young was a "false prophet" for advocating Adam-God. Symmachus's post is so spot-on because today, to us, those kinds of doctrinal posts seem like "trolling," and they seem that way to both sides of the debate. And compare how different the apologists' reactions are: they sort of roll their eyes and get annoyed when you ask them how they feel about BY's commentary on HF coming down in his "bodily tabernacle" to begat Jesus (or they say nothing), but when it comes to Book of Mormon historicity, they are will to chew even other LDS into pieces. To put it another way: how/why is it more important that there were real Lamanites and Nephites in Latin America, than to address questions about whether or not people in the lower kingdoms will lose their genitals? Symmachus's post answers the question: it's because the Book of Mormon question is "just" narrative: it has no real bearing on what will happen to you in the afterlife--nor does it provide explanation or commentary on how you are supposed to live. (The Mopologists will argue that you *must* have the historicity in place in order to enable everything else. But they almost always avoid going any further than that, thus implying that the "everything else" is boring/irrelevant/embarrassing.) I guess they have assumed that their target audience doesn't care about doctrinal questions? Or they themselves don't? Or they suppose that this has all been sorted out at weekly ward-house meetings and Family Home Evening (etc.)? I guess that, at the end of the day, this is still the public reality that has emerged: in the "intellectual" life of Mormonism, no one seems to care about doctrine any more.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:25 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 8144
Symmachus wrote:
Doctrine was very important in the 1830s to the early 1900s in a way that it isn't today. Few people care about infant baptism, for example, and while Mormons take the wrongness of infant baptism for granted, I doubt they argue with many non-Mormons today about it, if they could even find people interested enough in the practice to argue with in the first place.


I agree. At church today in Priesthood guess what the whole time was spent discussing, again. Yep, you've got it...ministering. Doctrinal lessons that get into some Niblisque kind of stuff? Thing of the past. If it ever actually was...at least in my lifetime and the wards I've been in.

Fortunately we're at two hours now rather than three. Less likely the battery on my smartphone will die. :wink: Thank goodness for portable devices.

Correlation is the bane of all good discussions in church.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:28 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8991
Symmachus wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
I agree completely that religion is a problematic category, by the way. I use it primarily for the sake of convenience. What other term should I use?


I don't know. I don't mean to suggest we need another term or that we should avoid the category, only that it conditions the questions to some degree and obscures (or at least can obscure) the answers.

For example, with Scientology, already putting in the same category as both Mormonism and Christianity is going to color our answer to the question "how can people believe claim X" because Scientology isn't going to meet certain cultural expectations of what constitutes a reasonable religious claim (which is one way of rephrasing the argument that Mormonism's narrative has a certain advantage in a Christian culture). But to me that we won't really get to a sufficient answer to the question. Compared to something like Mormonism, Scientology is more of a sub-elite philosophical movement or even more analogous to Buddhism, another complex of religious belief and practice that often doesn't really seem to be a religion, at least in certain forms (e.g. Zen or the Westernized variants). It isn't the narrative power of Thetan cosmology that persuades people but something else. There is another explanation for whatever success Scientology has had that stems from de-Christianization of the culture, so therefore its difference from Christianity is actually a benefit.

With Mormonism, examining the question "how do people believe this" purely as a religious claim likewise will obscure what happened in the past and what is happening now. It was certainly to its advantage that Mormonism mapped relatively well onto the religious landscape in terms of practice and even belief system, but that wasn't always about the power of its narrative. The narratives that someone like Physics Guy find so incredible were primarily vehicles for doctrines, and it is the doctrines that people found either compelling or repellent. Doctrine was very important in the 1830s to the early 1900s in a way that it isn't today. Few people care about infant baptism, for example, and while Mormons take the wrongness of infant baptism for granted, I doubt they argue with many non-Mormons today about it, if they could even find people interested enough in the practice to argue with in the first place. Judging from the kinds of publications (Millennial Star in England, for instance, or Prophwyd y Jubili in Wales) doctrine was a big driver of overseas conversion until the early 20th century, as well as the opportunities of immigration in general, which has nothing to do with religion but which features prominently even in many issues of the Millennial Star. In that context, the incentive was to maximize the Christianity of Mormonism and it was effective at least in getting people to Utah. But what happened when they were there? I think it is very easy to overestimate the extent to which Mormon converts bought into, if they even knew about, some of the less mainstream claims of Mormonism. I think this is a topic that Mormon historians have hardly even thought about but lots of Mormons drifted away pretty quickly and went to California or somewhere else. Some even formed separate towns (e.g. Spring Glen in Carbon County) that were later brought back into the Mormon orbit, especially after polygamy. And the fact is that correlation began as a way to corral the many different kinds of people that came into the Church into a single kind of Mormonism in both practice and belief because of administrative and accounting difficulties. It is at that point that the narrative gained more importance and thus started to become subject to more scrutiny. That is why, about mid 20th century, the Book of Mormon became a central text and not a background detail, as it had been practically since its publication in 1830, and also why you start getting the apologetic strain starting with Hugh Nibley (earlier apologetics had been doctrinal—e.g. Widtsoe—or responses to perceived slander of Mormon people—e.g. B. H. Roberts—but not defenses of the historical claims of Mormon myths, which is what most people here perceive as Mormon apologetics). Doctrine has been receding into the background at the same time; what people used to care about was the doctrinal cargo carried by the weird narratives, but now they only see the weird narratives.

The prominence of the narrative was not always there. A lot of people in this forum grew up on a narrative that many people born before 1960 had only the slightest acquaintance with, or at least it had a different, less central place in their Mormonism (see, e.g. Roger Hendrix). The Church became more committed to certain of its myths alongside (and maybe because of) the Correlation project that was an administrative response by the upper echelons of the Church to managing the diffuse kinds of Mormonism that existed inside the Church. That to me, is not really a religious problem, though it has had consequences in how Mormons practice their religion and what they have been taught to believe. Much of the social life that constituted Mormonism for probably most Mormons has not survived, with and the result is that the narrative has a bloated importance. I have argued several times here that the narrative has become the glue holding Mormonism together, which was not always the case, with the result that Unfortunately for the Correlationists, the technologies of mass media have grown much more quickly than the Church has been able to handle, so they are stuck with this narrative and have resorted to the kinds of tactics we all find stupid and embarrassing. Worse still for them, the country has quite rapidly moved away from traditional Christianity, so therefore the similarity with traditional Christianity, such as it is, can be a hindrance, paired with a weird, Google-able narrative.

So, I guess my answer to the question "how can people believe X vs. Y" has more to do with forces that have less to do with religious claims and more to do with the historical contexts in which those religious claims are made.

Thanks, Symmachus, for this very informative post. That's very interesting about the prominence of the narrative and the lack thereof in earlier years. It puts a different spin on all of the family histories I've been reading lately. I used to casually wonder about the lack of, well, 'Mormon' detail, but this makes sense. I'll have to go back and re-read them now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:56 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9067
Location: Cave
Quote:
Doctrinal lessons that get into some Niblisque kind of stuff? Thing of the past. If it ever actually was


It was, just look at the material online within any Ensign published in the 70s. Also the lesson manuals were pretty meaty -- (all things are relative) -- a favorite of mine I got from Dad was a lengthy priesthood manual about the Great Apostasy.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:58 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9067
Location: Cave
Scratch wrote:
The Mopologists will argue that you *must* have the historicity in place in order to enable everything else. But they almost always avoid going any further than that, thus implying that the "everything else" is boring/irrelevant/embarrassing.) I guess they have assumed that their target audience doesn't care about doctrinal questions?


It's a good point, for the Mopologists, there is no such thing as gospel study, just for iron-clad proof that whatever the gospel is, something nobody seems to know these days, is true.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:59 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 8144
Gadianton wrote:
Quote:
Doctrinal lessons that get into some Niblisque kind of stuff? Thing of the past. If it ever actually was


It was, just look at the material online within any Ensign published in the 70s. Also the lesson manuals were pretty meaty -- (all things are relative) -- a favorite of mine I got from Dad was a lengthy priesthood manual about the Great Apostasy.


I wasn't looking as much at church lesson manuals as I was looking at Dad's Sunstone mags and Dialogue issues in the late sixties and early seventies. I guess I got sidetracked from the 'good stuff'. Mission in the mid seventies and when I got back everything had gone the correlation route.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:06 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8991
Gadianton wrote:
Scratch wrote:
The Mopologists will argue that you *must* have the historicity in place in order to enable everything else. But they almost always avoid going any further than that, thus implying that the "everything else" is boring/irrelevant/embarrassing.) I guess they have assumed that their target audience doesn't care about doctrinal questions?


It's a good point, for the Mopologists, there is no such thing as gospel study, just for iron-clad proof that whatever the gospel is, something nobody seems to know these days, is true.

Seriously. I still remember when Hinckley made that cringe-inducing statement, "I don't know that we teach it." What a cowardly move, but it certainly set the stage for the current obfuscation we get here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:00 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20095
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
There is another explanation for whatever success Scientology has had that stems from de-Christianization of the culture, so therefore its difference from Christianity is actually a benefit.


I have no doubt that Scientology was able to appeal to a small group of people by not being another brand of Christianity, but the truth is that most successful new churches to this day, in North America at least, are probably Christian ones. So, from my view you are saying that capturing a niche market proves that something is as popular as the mass market option.Yes, among a small group of people, Scientology is very appealing, but that doesn't change the fact that this group numbers in the tens of thousands, whereas Christianity still numbers in the billions. It also does not help to note that Christianity is declining, whereas Scientology could be the wave of the future. We simply do not know enough to say.

Symmachus wrote:
So, I guess my answer to the question "how can people believe X vs. Y" has more to do with forces that have less to do with religious claims and more to do with the historical contexts in which those religious claims are made.


Thank you for your reflection on doctrine and the changing religious landscape. I agree with you about historical contexts, and this is why, as you noted above, I switched from a purely narrative-based discussion to one that included praxis and other factors as well. The sheer weight of tradition must be factored into the historical contexts you refer to. Christian churches remain, to this day, the most visible religious structures on the landscape. LDS meeting houses basically fit the mold. Perhaps we are in the midst of a huge shift away from these things. It remains to be seen. I will be happy to eat crow if I am proven wrong by the coming decades.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3322
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
mentalgymnast wrote:

I wasn't looking as much at church lesson manuals as I was looking at Dad's Sunstone mags and Dialogue issues in the late sixties and early seventies.


If I remember correctly, there weren't Sunstone and Dialogue issues in the late 60s and early 70s. I'm pretty sure it was 74-76ish that these magazines were started. You may have created a false memory here, my friend.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:50 am 
1st Counselor

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:13 pm
Posts: 464
Morley wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:

I wasn't looking as much at church lesson manuals as I was looking at Dad's Sunstone mags and Dialogue issues in the late sixties and early seventies.


If I remember correctly, there weren't Sunstone and Dialogue issues in the late 60s and early 70s. I'm pretty sure it was 74-76ish that these magazines were started. You may have created a false memory here, my friend.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


I believe Dialogue started up in '66. (One of the original Board members was Oaks.)

The first issue of Sunstone was in '75.

I suspect both evolved over the years.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:00 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 8144
Morley wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:

I wasn't looking as much at church lesson manuals as I was looking at Dad's Sunstone mags and Dialogue issues in the late sixties and early seventies.


If I remember correctly, there weren't Sunstone and Dialogue issues in the late 60s and early 70s. I'm pretty sure it was 74-76ish that these magazines were started. You may have created a false memory here, my friend.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


I was on a mission back to Washington D.C. from 73-75. My days with Dad's Sunstones and Dialogues were before that, or at least I would have to think they were. I went up to BYU from Calif. in 76. It would have had to been before my mission, I think. Anyway, yes, the memories do get a bit fuzzy over time. But it is true, I had a plethora of Dad's reading material to read back in the day. To the exclusion, best I can remember, of reading much of the Niblisque kinds of material. Those came later after my mission.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:03 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 8144
toon wrote:

The first issue of Sunstone was in '75.



Hmmm...Sunstone would have had to been post mission then, I guess. I'm starting to feel old...

I must have started reading them before I left Calif. to go to BYU. Thanks for the corrections and trip down memory lane, Morley and toon.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm
Posts: 3322
Location: The Mahonri Young Academy of Art
toon wrote:

I believe Dialogue started up in '66. (One of the original Board members was Oaks.)

The first issue of Sunstone was in '75.

I suspect both evolved over the years.


Ahhh, thank you!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exiled, Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group