Re: Proving the church true in the US court of law
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2024 9:55 pm
I don't think any moral framework would justify Joseph Smith and company, especially the framework of Mormonism, which is why people discovering the truth about church history go through a faith crisis.
Mormon ethics is either materialist or none of the above. James Faulconer, who knows a lot more about this topic than Dan does, says "none of the above".
Postmodernism has a great appeal after learning the truth about Church history. Look at MG. After learning the truth about how bad the Church is, there is a great temptation to gravitate towards theories that say right and wrong are conventional, a matter of perspective, or non-existent, enough to get Joseph Smith out of hot water and then they can go on condemning others. In fact, that's the reason the new MI exists, is to nuance the truth with postmodernism so Mormonism can still be right, after all the hard data is made available.
But then there are MGs, who realize historical truth needs a ton of postmodern nuance so that he can believe whatever he wants about Joseph Smith. But gender has zero postmodern nuance, gender is completely fixed and anyone who says otherwise. Postmodernism can be a terrific ally to fascism.
The appeal of postmodernism may be nearly irresistible for those who come into the ranks of learning basic church history. Dan is an exception, even though he draws on postmodernism now and again to take science down a notch. In general, however, Dan holds firm and maintains the facts are wrong, and that Joseph Smith was an exemplary figure by normal evidential measures and a Christian framework. But he's going to be in the deep minority. Sure, I have no doubts that the Dodo is more on Dan's side than the new MI side. But it's a losing battle, because the typical person isn't capable of such dissonance; just like the typical lawyer can't take on Trump's cases.
The choice is either a) ignorance, or b) postmodernism, for all practical purposes.
Mormon ethics is either materialist or none of the above. James Faulconer, who knows a lot more about this topic than Dan does, says "none of the above".
Postmodernism has a great appeal after learning the truth about Church history. Look at MG. After learning the truth about how bad the Church is, there is a great temptation to gravitate towards theories that say right and wrong are conventional, a matter of perspective, or non-existent, enough to get Joseph Smith out of hot water and then they can go on condemning others. In fact, that's the reason the new MI exists, is to nuance the truth with postmodernism so Mormonism can still be right, after all the hard data is made available.
But then there are MGs, who realize historical truth needs a ton of postmodern nuance so that he can believe whatever he wants about Joseph Smith. But gender has zero postmodern nuance, gender is completely fixed and anyone who says otherwise. Postmodernism can be a terrific ally to fascism.
The appeal of postmodernism may be nearly irresistible for those who come into the ranks of learning basic church history. Dan is an exception, even though he draws on postmodernism now and again to take science down a notch. In general, however, Dan holds firm and maintains the facts are wrong, and that Joseph Smith was an exemplary figure by normal evidential measures and a Christian framework. But he's going to be in the deep minority. Sure, I have no doubts that the Dodo is more on Dan's side than the new MI side. But it's a losing battle, because the typical person isn't capable of such dissonance; just like the typical lawyer can't take on Trump's cases.
The choice is either a) ignorance, or b) postmodernism, for all practical purposes.