Call for assistance

[_Runtu]

The MAD board is blocked by our firewall, so if someone has a moment, could you locate the David Bokovoy thread over there about paradigm shifts? I'm pretty certain his OP talked about how the paradigm can shift all it wants, as long as the center is inviolable.

Anyway, many thanks if you can help me.

[_Ray A]

I can't search MAD since I'm not a member, but I have access to an archive. Do you know roughly when he did this thread?

[_Runtu]

I can't search MAD since I'm not a member, but I have access to an archive. Do you know roughly when he did this thread?

I'm guessing somewhere around 12 to 18 months ago.

[_Ray A]

Is THIS the thread Runtu?

[_Runtu]

Is THIS the thread Runtu?

I have no idea, as the site is blocked, and I can't see it.

[_Ray A]

Here is David's OP:

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that “when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,” we should offer him our hand and “request him to shake hands” (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, “for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message” (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this “contradiction” that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowment—and the story of Eden for that matter—as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.

[_Ray A]

An interesting post from David:

I mean what are the issues that lead a person to question LDS theology? Plural marriage, scientific observations, lack of historicity in the Book of Mormon, Blacks and the Priesthood, differences in the First Vision accounts, etc.

What I’m trying to express is that all of these issues that lead people to question their spiritual experiences are really not problematic. Evidence may simply require that a person adopt a new paradigm in order to make sense of the truthfulness of the Church.

[snip]

I would go so far as to apply this standard to the Book of Mormon. If a person becomes convinced that there simply is not enough evidence to support the historicity of the work, rather than abandoning one’s spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the book, one simply needs to adopt a new paradigm which allows for God to have used Joseph Smith to produce inspired pseudeopigraphy. (emphasis added)

I now remember reading this thread, because the bold portion struck me like lightning.

[_Runtu]

An interesting post from David:

I mean what are the issues that lead a person to question LDS theology? Plural marriage, scientific observations, lack of historicity in the Book of Mormon, Blacks and the Priesthood, differences in the First Vision accounts, etc.

What I’m trying to express is that all of these issues that lead people to question their spiritual experiences are really not problematic. Evidence may simply require that a person adopt a new paradigm in order to make sense of the truthfulness of the Church.

[snip]

I would go so far as to apply this standard to the Book of Mormon. If a person becomes convinced that there simply is not enough evidence to support the historicity of the work, rather than abandoning one’s spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the book, one simply needs to adopt a new paradigm which allows for God to have used Joseph Smith to produce inspired pseudeopigraphy. (My emphasis)

I now remember reading this thread, because the bold portion struck me like lightning.

Yeah, that's the thread. Thanks, Ray. In both the posts you cite, David starts from the spiritual witness that the church and Book of Mormon are true. What shifts, then, is the approach to problematic evidence. The Book of Mormon isn't historical? No problem, the church is still true, so its historicity must not be important.

For the life of me, I don't know how David can't see how dangerous this approach is.

[_Ray A]

For the life of me, I don't know how David can't see how dangerous this approach is.

I believe David did say when he was on here last that he had lost, or was losing interest in apologetics.

I don't know if this is his position, but certainly one who does not accept the Book of Mormon as historical is going to have a difficult time remaining a TBM. David seems to think not.

[_Gadianton]

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism

David didn't mention Kuhn, so we can't be too hard on him, though, this is a perfect example of the typical LDS apologist "kuhn talk" that apologists like LoP get all excited about and then demand the critics, as LoP so hastily did, to go "read Kuhn".

Clearly, anyone who has read Kuhn or commentaries on him knows the language "I've had to employ a variety of such shifts" has nothing to do with Kuhn.