Kishkumen wrote:I wonder whether we would be able to top this list by compiling a bibliography of all of the works written in support of the existence of Big Foot or aliens.
You did make me chuckle with the scare-quoted descriptor canonical.
What surprises me is how many of these "canonical" works I have read, probably more than half of them. I can't decide if I should feel contented or a little chagrined that I've spent so much time on these things.
Kishkumen wrote:By the way, I highly recommend this insightful and groundbreaking article by Dr. Price. Mormon Studies scholars are still catching up to his insights.
I've been arguing this for many years. It seems the inevitable end of this issue, in my opinion. I'd predict that within the next ten years it will be an acceptable stance amongst believers. It will take longer for the leadership to begin to openly embrace the idea.
honorentheos wrote:in short, it's not a case of answering the same question differently or one side engaging it more earnestly than the other. Both sides are asking different underlying questions that are not explicitly understood by both sides when engaging in discussing a particular topic.
It depends. If the critics were never LDS, or never-believing Mormons, then yes, they cannot truly comprehend the TBM's underlying questions. However, if the critics were formerly TBMs, they do explicitly understand the questions because they once took the same approach themselves. In fact, in my opinion arguments made by critics who were once TBM carry more weight precisely because the memory of their former approach gives them a perspective TBMs who have always believed do not have.
I've even seen a few people who believed, lost their belief, then regained it. Speaking as a former TBM who is now completely convinced the LDS Church has no basis in truth, this is inconceivable to me. Thus, I acknowledge theirs would be an approach I would not understand, and I would give their arguments more weight than I would an always-believing TBM.
The point is, some people can understand all questions being asked regarding Mormon-related issues, and the different approaches to those questions, while others cannot. It depends on their respective experiences with the LDS Church.
Elphaba
I agree to a point that being a former Mormon gives a person perspective on how a Mormon approaches truth seeking. But I think we're talking about two different things at the same time.
Having first-hand knowledge of how a Mormon might be approaching a subject is slightly different than being able to place ones self in the shoes of the Mormon and actually approach the subject from that perspective. As I mentioned in my other post, it becomes an anthropology exercise at some point. While a person can attempt an emic approach, one isn't actually seeking truth about the subject from a Mormon's perspective. Instead, a person is seeking truth about the Mormon's perspective of the subject. Which is another subject all together.
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
honorentheos wrote: Having first-hand knowledge of how a Mormon might be approaching a subject is slightly different than being able to place ones self in the shoes of the Mormon and actually approach the subject from that perspective. As I mentioned in my other post, it becomes an anthropology exercise at some point. While a person can attempt an emic approach, one isn't actually seeking truth about the subject from a Mormon's perspective. Instead, a person is seeking truth about the Mormon's perspective of the subject. Which is another subject all together.
The problem I see is there is no real Mormon perspective. Each person has a unique perspective to some degree, but the difference can be a lot depending on the person and what environment they have experienced or interested in. The sci-ency person who tends to be analytic sees things very differently then the person who is not and doesn't want to spend time engaging it either.
Themis wrote:The problem I see is there is no real Mormon perspective. Each person has a unique perspective to some degree, but the difference can be a lot depending on the person and what environment they have experienced or interested in. The sci-ency person who tends to be analytic sees things very differently then the person who is not and doesn't want to spend time engaging it either.
Exactly.
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
Water Dog wrote:New to the forum and as I go through this massive thread that's been my line of thinking so far. It's one big circle jerk. "It's awesome" "The death blow" "Raining silver bullets" I really hope it doesn't continue on like this or I'm going to lose interest.
On the subject of circle jerks,...it is ironic that you have kept yourself center of attention, of a rather long thread. And there is a former attendee of this board who was prone to use the phrase "circle jerk" is a non-sexual way of course. Is "waterdog" just another sock puppet?
This was one of the most-watched videos on YouTube before it got taken down because the maroons at Google have no concept of fair use. It is back up (for now). If it gets taken down, it can be viewed in chunks at Vimeo. It is relevant to the discussion of the creative process. It is called "Everything is a Remix":
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Tomorrow will be the 6th anniversary of our epic conversation on The Late War as a contemporary influence on the Book of Mormon. This thread was so hot that I received an email from BYU recommending that I slow down and conceding the basic point of influence. The author’s name will remain unknown.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
was this a “remember our friend Grant Palmer?” Kind of suggestion?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
