Why I think Thomas Riskas Is A Joke

[_gramps]

At some point you should just publish something, do a blog post or something like that, and then maybe link to it. An OP of that length on a discussion board is just ridiculous.

Ridiculous to suniluni2, perhaps. But not to others. Certainly not to me. So, we cancel each other out, and Stak should continue.

And you can disregard the thread. There are plenty of other threads to participate in if you so choose. Right?

[_MrStakhanovite]

In short, someone like me, who is not as able to see those flaws or doesn't even care about them, may find something of interest and value in this book. While I think Riskas is painful to read at times (Okay almost all the time), he also asks questions that I have always asked. "What does eternal mean, how is God infinite, what the hell does families are forever mean, does Satan make sense as a real person, how does the Plan of Salvation depend on these other concepts, and so on and so on. Frankly I don't care how flawed he is, and I don't care much about the deep psychological motivations he thinks drives religions. Nor do I care about his conclusions about religion in general. What he does that I really like, is lay out arguments about statement that Mormons make all the time, and then he asks what the hell does this really mean? That part hits home with me because most of my life I have been puzzled when Mormons talk God talk to me. It just never made sense. (I was sitting in tithing settlement with my family when I was about 14ish. The bishop was telling me how lucky I was to have been chosen to be sent to such a wonderful family. I replied "I believe I argued and lost".)

FS,

You are far from dumb. There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking the book, and there is nothing wrong with getting a lot out of the book, the only thing that it betrays about you is that you have some stamina when it comes to reading.

What really chaps my hide is that Riskas does such a poor job explaining himself to his readers, that none of them seem to really understand his position about how the terms “meaning” and “truth” should be understood. He honestly does you a disservice in that regard and is what motivated me to post all this.

Kai Nielsen may be right or may be wrong, I don’t intend to really explore why he is right or wrong. All I want to do is show people what his beliefs really entail so people can make an honest assessment for themselves instead of trying to track down and piece together the background needed to make sense of it. And how would they accomplish that anyways? Buy up all the books listed in the back? Like finding a needle in a haystack.

[_DrW]

At some point you should just publish something, do a blog post or something like that, and then maybe link to it. An OP of that length on a discussion board is just ridiculous.

Ridiculous to suniluni2, perhaps. But not to others. Certainly not to me. So, we cancel each other out, and Stak should continue.

And you can disregard the thread. There are plenty of other threads to participate in if you so choose. Right?

+1

Hey, Gramps.

[_wayfarer]

I'm finding this dialog/thread fascinating.

If I understand it correctly, a thread on RfM was opened to cover Riskas' Deconstructing Mormonism, and MrStak had the temerity to participate, challenging the extent to which Riskas quoted Kai Nielson's work. Then Riskas, backed up by Steve Benson, seek to censure MrStak for speaking up?

I think Riskas revealed his complete intention in his responses: he wants to liberate people from the double-bind of Mormonism -- in other words, he wants to advocate. Funny, though, if one is going to advocate for something, then using language that has a fog index beyond all comprehension, coupled with a very contrived requirement to read and comprehend each chapter and every footnote...with the inevitable outcome that if you can get through the incomprehensible language and circuitous logic, you'll be convinced that Mormonism is shyte.

Knowing a little of the worldview from which Riskas comes -- the type of management consulting from Covey that knows better than mere mortals -- then I'm not surprised that the entire riskas' presentation -- and his reaction to mrstak comes off a bit narcissistic. The problem is, if he wants to advocate -- to sell his supposed freedom from the double-bind, then he needs to sell -- keeping it simple, straightforward, and convincing. He does not. If, on the other hand, he wants to lay out a complete logical treatment of the challenges with Mormon theology, then he needs to accept the idea that others may challenge his logic and question the basis of his beliefs, including driving into the source material. He can't have it both ways.

I don't think it's hard to completely debunk Mormonism -- or any religion, for that matter, in its attempts to create a logical basis of understanding god. Religion provides no real ontology, it's epistemology, particularly the Mormon variety, is completely untenable, the cosmology of fundamental christianity and particularly of the Abraham cosmos in the Book of Abraham are impossible. The list goes on. That we have difficulty with god-talk because we are using symbols without intrinsic meaning, means that any conversation about god -- even in Riskas' book -- is inherently meaningless.

However, we as mere mortals do make shyte up in our effort to find meaning. It's a human, evolved, strategy for coping with life. I choose to participate in rituals and the rites of Mormonism because it has value to me -- not because of any non-existent philosophical framework. How does this figure into Riskas' worldview?

[_Shiloh]

I'm finding this dialog/thread fascinating.

If I understand it correctly, a thread on RfM was opened to cover Riskas' Deconstructing Mormonism, and MrStak had the temerity to participate, challenging the extent to which Riskas quoted Kai Nielson's work. Then Riskas, backed up by Steve Benson, seek to censure MrStak for speaking up?

RFM is a cult just like any other.

Susan (RFM Mod) -- if you are reading this:

I know you have been deleting comments critical of Riskas' book. This is standard fare at RFM, of course. But I just wanted YOU to know that others see your dishonesty and attempts to stifle discussion. Just like BCspace makes Mormons look like intolerant ***holes, you make exmormons look like whiny, self-entitled children. You are an embarrassment to freethinkers everywhere.

The RFM pantheon has a new god to take his place alongside Steve Benson. By the way you and your ilk have been verbally fellating Riskas, however, I think that he may have become "the Most High" relative to the others.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So just who is this Thomas Riskas fellow?

Uh. Who are you again?

Oh, yeah. An invisible "philosopher" yapping away in the Internet.

So brave.

- Doctor Cameron

[_EAllusion]

There's an irony here in that one of the reasons apologists engaged in atheist/theist debates like to use Kai Nelsen as their foil is precisely because he is known for hinging his entire case on a fairly criticizeable target in those exchanges. Yet, apparently, in Riskas's view, "[Kai's] Atheism is, among all forms of Atheism I have studied over the years, the only approach that can neutralize Mormon apologetics and promote the real doubt necessary to break the vicious "double-bind" of Mormonism."

Good God. For those familiar with Neilsen, think about that assertion. Even Neilsen would laugh at it. If the people at RFM, familiar with Neilsen or not, were to give it and their knowledge of LDS apologetics a modicum of thought, they'd be laughing too.

[_Shiloh]

So just who is this Thomas Riskas fellow?

Uh. Who are you again?

Oh, yeah. An invisible "philosopher" yapping away in the Internet.

So brave.

- Doctor Cameron

Hmmm.... 30 seconds of googling reveals precisely who Stak is. He makes no effort to conceal his identity.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't Internet stalk people, Mr. Shiloh. I think it's bad form. I have no idea who this Internet "philosopher" is, and I don't care. He's silly.

Regardless, how important is it to destroy Mr. Riskas' reputation, and why? Why start a thread on this man? Why is it that Mr. Stak, who is a non-Mormon, who feels the need to debunk an ex-Mormon's book? What's the underlying motivation other than some vague, overly nuanced "philosophical" angle?

It's odd.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

If, on the other hand, he wants to lay out a complete logical treatment of the challenges with Mormon theology, then he needs to accept the idea that others [del]may[/del] will challenge his logic and question the basis of his beliefs, including driving into the source material. He can't have it both ways.

Exactly my take away. Stak asked some basic questions that revealed he (Riskas) wasn't prepared for critical examination of his book. It didn't seem like Stak's first post was particularly critical, either. At least, it doesn't seem like Stak was coming out of the gate looking to undermine Riskas but did so unintentionally because he was asking what would have been basic questions for someone with Stak's background in philosophy.

That Riskas was unprepared for this is not a mortal sin. That he responded as he did, however, is unfortunate as it puts him precisely where Blixa hints we should cataloged him - among the mopologists. That his position differs from the others is less important than that his technique fits.

ETA: I don't mean any of the above to reflect on the actual book. I haven't read it. Actually, if fence sitter liked it, I would guess I might like it as well since I've found his taste often parallels my own. But again, Riskas' response as represented in this thread is unfortunately very similar to that of the pro-Mormon mopologists who try to shut down critique through popular appeal and attacking the motives of the critic rather than responding to the critique itself. Seeking sanctuary on a sympathetic board from admin seals it.