DiscussMormonism.com

In the latest issue of Sunstone, Helen Whitney wrote an article dealing with the creation of her documentary The Mormons.

She writes:

How do you avoid both the hagiography of the devout and the reflexive critique of the skeptics? How do you move beyond the extremes without succumbing to another trap: the overly respectful balanced portrait that is without edge and complexity? In the case of Smith, such a portrait would strip him not only of his boldness and visionary insights but also for his recklessness and the ruthlessness that made him both loved and hated. And then, if you do embrace these contradictions, how do you avoid making endless, unresolved contradictions itself the goal and, therefore, finally an evasion?

What is it about Mormonism that makes it seemingly impossible to dialog about? Why is it we are so often like the pro-life/pro-choice debate; not really talking to each out and debating to separate issues? What is the answer to Whitney's lament?

The answer is to simply tell what happened.

Dr. Shades wrote:The answer is to simply tell what happened.

You are right, but why does that seem to be so hard to do, reasonably?

You are right, but why does that seem to be so hard to do, reasonably?

in my opinion, because people are often "attached" to their beliefs... In other words they ARE their belief.

And, for others the ramifications of their prior attachment and familial attachment create ongoing challenges.

I do not think this phenomenon is unique to Mormonism, but demonstrates itself here. My observation is that whenever people hold to the "truth" that they are right and everyone else is wrong (or less right), there are conflicts. Add to this the idea that wrong belief is the influence of sin or Satan or ignorance and you have a clash.

~dancer~

Because some critics don't want to know that there was some good in Joseph Smith, and almost all believers don't want to know that he was a lying, philandering scumbag.

Its not hard, but as Gad said in a different thread: "Everyone has to either admit the church is true or say absolutely nothing about it. Even the slightest criticism sends them into persecution mode where to question the church is to inagurate Mormon genocide." This is what you're dealing with, what you'll be hit with.

On another point, I'm not sure what Whitney means by "the reflexive critique of the skeptics." Does she mean "reactive?" I don't see how "reflexive critique" is the opposite of hagiography. Perhaps her meaning would be clearer reading the whole essay--is it available online or am I going to have to inter-library loan it?

by the way, I thought her documentary the very image of the conventional "well-balanced" portrait, and thus, yes, simplified and for the most part bland.

The article is online and well worth the read: http://sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issu ... -32-45.pdf.

I think by reflexive she mean "knee-jerk". I would guess she is thinking about ex-Mormon's like Tal Bachman, who refused to talk to her when he thought she was too pro". She mentions this incident in the paper, but does not name him. He talked about it in the old The Church is Not True podcasts.

John

John Larsen wrote:The article is online and well worth the read: http://sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issu ... -32-45.pdf.

I think by reflexive she mean "knee-jerk". I would guess she is thinking about ex-Mormon's like Tal Bachman, who refused to talk to her when he thought she was too pro". She mentions this incident in the paper, but does not name him. He talked about it in the old The Church is Not True podcasts.

John

Thanks for the link. I would have looked for one myself but I'm working on a crap computer today and it would take forever.

I thought that must be her sense, since "reflexive critique" is usually used as a positive; I wanted to be sure that it really was a case of perhaps poor phrasing.

It can't be discussed impartially because anyone who knows anything about it is not impartial to it. If you're talking about it, you have an emotional attachment. If you're indifferent, you wouldn't show up here.

Plus, you've got people talking about it from completely different paradigms. A great example is coggins talking about becoming god, and JAK coming on talking about god's existence in the first place. Clearly, if your base assumptions are different, the conversation isn't going to get much traction.

This isn't a subject like "how to cook a steak" where everyone can agree on the base assumptions, like "you need heat to cook something." If I start a thread on the best way to cook a steak, how far is it going to go if someone wants to argue that freezing is the best way to prepare food, or that you can't prove that heat cooks?

Some Schmo wrote:It can't be discussed impartially because anyone who knows anything about it is not impartial to it. If you're talking about it, you have an emotional attachment. If you're indifferent, you wouldn't show up here.

Plus, you've got people talking about it from completely different paradigms. A great example is coggins talking about becoming god, and JAK coming on talking about god's existence in the first place. Clearly, if your base assumptions are different, the conversation isn't going to get much traction.

This isn't a subject like "how to cook a steak" where everyone can agree on the base assumptions, like "you need heat to cook something." If I start a thread on the best way to cook a steak, how far is it going to go if someone wants to argue that freezing is the best way to prepare food, or that you can't prove that heat cooks?

However, I can publish an article critical of Core Catholic doctrines and the Catholics will not fall all to pieces. So why are Mormons seemingly more emotionally vested than other people who also believe their religion is true. I know this is a common characteristic of cults, but I have always been hesitant to suggest Mormonism is a cult.