The Critic and the Other

[_MrStakhanovite]

Part 1

About four years ago, I started to read heavily in subjects like philosophy, history, religion and the social sciences like anthropology and sociology. Before that time, I still read, but it was mostly popular books geared at spoon feeding politics to people, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, so on and so forth. See, I was raised on conservative politics, I have distinct memories from the 1st grade sitting in my Dad’s truck listening to Rush on our way to go fishing on the Mississippi river just a few miles from home. I know it’s hard to imagine strict secularism wedded to American conservative politics, but that was my environment.

In High school, I did book reports on Bill O’Reilly and dutifully parroted my memorized lines about crazy and stupid liberals who wanted to ruin America because they were envious of Europeans, who practically lived under strict Marxism, which was synonymous with Communism in my mind. Even as I discovered the joys of sex and pot by my senior year, I had moved on to Ayn Rand and her heir Leonard Peikoff, talking nonsense about how leftists were trying to stifle my masculine creativity with politically correct jargon and what not, and how all reality could be deduced from the proposition A=A.

Thankfully, I finally learned how to really read a book, and how to carefully examine topics, being considerate of nuances and fully recognizing that most things in life are not black and white, but various shades of grey. With that came the startling realization that those “Leftists” I dismissed all my life were actually people, people who took time to think things through and actually made valid points and observations. I learned that I simply could not dismiss a named like Chomsky or Deridda as being liberal wackos out of hand, I needed to actually read these people.

And by reading I don’t mean that I would get their works and go through them for the express purpose of debunking what they had to say. You sit down and you enter that author’s world, you let them change you and walk you through everything that is on their mind and when they have had their say, you go back pick out the mistakes. You try and check your baggage at the door, more or less.

So I did what none of the pundits I was reading up until this point had done, I decided to read people like Chomsky, Marx, Durkheim, Nietzsche, and the like. Wow, was I for a surprise. Marx blew me away, not only by his ideas, but his sheer intensity and dense academic prose, like everybody he had ever met of course had read Hegel. I still don’t get his theories of labor and value, and I probably never will because I think most macro-economics is a black magic (by that I mean, hard to comprehend), but I was intrigued by his materialism, his narrative of history and his prophetic predictions of just how the cogs will turn in society, and most of all, his genuine concern for the average guy working is slavish conditions. He may be wrong, and interpretations of his work as lead to some disastrous results, but the man’s intellect was impressive, and far beyond anything I could hope to achieve.

I’ve tried to do this with all subjects. I’ve stopped reading atheism-heavy pop books from bravados like David Mills or George Smith and have read religious authors on their own terms. I stopped reading the Bible looking for contradictions and gruesome stories and began to learn about Higher and Lower Criticism, gaining a appreciation for Myth and Historical Narratives, Poetry and Epistle.

I dived headlong into the enemies of political conservatism and metaphysical atheists and have come out unscathed. I still vote Republican, I consider myself conservative in the American sense and I’m still a radical, hardcore atheist. I’m a fan of both Richard Dawkins and George Bush, how’s that for contradiction?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Part 2
So, what was the point of that long and boring life story? I was thinking about this on the bus ride to school at six o’clock this morning. Last night, before I went to bed, the last thing I read was This comment from MfBukowski:

If you read the OP, you will see that the op is looking for someone to represent "Mormonism truthfully." That would exclude critics.

If you’ve spent any time here, you are familiar with this gentleman, whom I see as a kindred spirit because he is eclectic like me even though we seem to be diametrically opposed. I was actually shocked to see him make this comment. You can follow the link and see the context of the comment for yourself, and I’m half convinced he made it out of spite, considering the amount of barbs he’s gotten from critics that I’m sure he is pretty fed up with us at this point, but I really don’t want to discuss MfBukowski or take him to task on this comment.

What I want to focus on is how he described the critics of the Church, how they mutually exclusive from anything that represents ‘Mormonism truthfully.’ The critic, be they Evangelical, Catholic, or Secular are the great ‘Other’ that the apologist must contend with. How we describe the Other often dictates how we treat the Other, and in turn, how we get treated.

One thing that did change about me, and for the better I contend, is that while my political beliefs didn’t shift to the other side of the spectrum and my denial of Theism remains the same, my concept of the Other changed dramatically. I know longer saw them as confused, diabolical, silly, stupid, malicious, unread, and flighty, I think I’ve begun to see more of who they really are, which is simply a person trying to make sense of this world while keeping overriding doubt at bay.

This became vivid to me last night while I had my first encounters with legendary posters like Selek and USU. I was actually surprised how these men refuse to see homosexuals as anything but depraved addicts and cowards trying to shut down LDS Professors everywhere. I wonder how these guys have gotten to this point that critics cease to have anything to do with being truthful or that Homosexuals can be whole, happy human beings.

Now, up front, I’m far from the paragon of enlightened conversation. I’ve mocked and run down people on this board plenty of times, and I’m not suggesting we all group hug and have polite conversation. This isn’t a call to raise the level of civility on this board or anything like that. What I do want to ask everyone here is, how do you view the Other? How should we view the Other? Is MfBukowski right in stating that critics of the Church have nothing valid to say about its truth claims? Can TBMs ever make honest and sound judgments about their own faith?

What do you think?

[Guest]

Thanks for your thoughts. I really liked what you wrote. Giving up a black and white view is difficult if you were brought up that way. Just think what a art gallery would look like if the paintings were only in black and white. Thank goodness for something other than black and white. Grey is great color to work with when you paint.

[_asbestosman]

What I do want to ask everyone here is, how do you view the Other? How should we view the Other? Is MfBukowski right in stating that critics of the Church have nothing valid to say about its truth claims? Can TBMs ever make honest and sound judgments about their own faith?

What do you think?

I think we all see shadows from a cave or look through a glass, darkly.

I think it's useful to try and understand the Other. They may offer a new or useful perspective. However, I think it's also important to realize that you may not ever be able to really understand the Other. Even having previously been a part of the Other does not mean you currently understand them nor that you indeed truly understand yourself.

I think all views are suspect, but I do think that honest people can be found in both parties. As far as honest and sound judgments goes, that's a bit trickier. I'm not big on philosophy so I can't really speak to the technicalities of sound judgment. I would say that faithful Mormons can make honest and sound judgments based on the evidence they currently have. I would say the same for the Other. Maybe I'm talking nonsense though. Maybe sound judgments require that you have all relevant information or withhold judgment until you know that any more information could not possibly alter your evaluation.

[_asbestosman]

I’m a fan of both Richard Dawkins and George Bush, how’s that for contradiction?

Not a bad contradiction. Richard Dawkins is certainly no fan of "W". I wonder what your take on Bush is. I'm no fan of Dubya, but I don't think he was rotten to the core. I don't think he lied. I think he was sincere but had a dangerous blind spot--one that was very costly in terms of human life, and American reputation abroad.

I don't want to derail your thread too much, but I just gotta know how an atheist like you feels about the tea party.

[_JAK]

The “tea party” is a threat to democracy and dangerous in that it relies on non-factual conclusions. From those non-factual conclusions, it proceeds to leap to other false conclusions and uses the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to propagate a variety of false statements to give exposure to the tea party (which is no party of any organization or substance).

It’s a threat in that it discourages critical thinking and follow-through on just what it would mean to adopt its flawed positions.

JAK

[_Ray A]

How should we view the Other? Is MfBukowski right in stating that critics of the Church have nothing valid to say about its truth claims? Can TBMs ever make honest and sound judgments about their own faith?

What do you think?

I’ll attempt a reply to this before I put on my morning bed cap.

To answer the two questions in a nutshell. No and rarely, if by the latter you mean someone like Charity or Selek on MAD, as examples.

I view the search for truth as occurring in stages, and it’s very useful to use Carl Sagan’s BS filters along the way. Imagine it like the stages of life: childhood, teenaged years, young adulthood, adulthood, and final aging years. At each stage, previous misconceptions are corrected as we learn more. We can look back at previous stages even with amusement that we believed certain things, and how naïve we were to believe them. But as you note, life is not black and white. Some people grow old with all of their outdated beliefs and prejudices, so not everyone is a learner. I know a man in his late 50s, for example, who is as racist as anyone who lived in the 1950s, with the view that Blacks (and in this case it is Aborigines) are inferior, and that no Black could ever match the intellect of a white man. Although this is better classified as prejudice, it only takes an open mind willing to learn to see that this is not the truth. And we learn in some areas better while in others we don’t progress the same. Some people may even become brilliant in some areas, while grossly lacking in others.

As a believer the theory of evolution never threatened my belief, and I mean never; it never even once came under my radar as a threat. That was corrected, and when I properly understood how powerful this theory is, I had a “paradigm change”, or more like a nuclear bomb go off and having to start from scratch. Yet this never once bothered me as a TBM, because I didn’t grasp it and the implications of it properly. Had I not corrected this knowledge deficit, I might still be a believer, but that’s probably an overstatement, as much more than that contributed to my change, but it underscores my point about how we can develop “blind spots” (and there’s another little lesson; that until I became a driving instructor at the age of 33, I never fully understood how crucial it is to check blind spots before changing lanes – that came with age and learning how to drive properly, the professional way, to avoid those things we all call “accidents”. 33 years it took for this seemingly very minor thing to finally “sink in” properly). Far from being an ad for evolution, I have used this example for the next point, which is why some TBMs state that critics have nothing valid to say about Mormon truth claims.

It is not that the critic doesn’t understand Mormonism – not at all. They may have as good, or even better an understanding than many practicing TBMs, and most critics were once TBMs themselves, in the very same position as current TBMs. The difference is in the “blind spots”. Once someone’s view is irrevocably changed forever, based on facts, which come through learning and experience, things that “finally sink in”, the two can no longer see eye to eye, nor understand on the same level, hence the TBM will say, naturally, that the critic “cannot say anything about Mormon truth claims”. But what they really mean is they cannot say anything about Mormon truth claims according to their understanding (the TBMs understanding).

For another simple example, let’s have a TBM, for the purpose of this simplified illustration only, who believes that Joseph Smith only married one woman – Emma. Then let’s have a critic who knows that he really married up to 33 women (sounds arrogant, doesn’t it? He knows?). How does he know? In the very same way scientific facts are discovered, through observation and reason, or empirical knowledge. But the true believer in Joseph-the-one-wife-man will say something like: “critics of the Church have nothing valid to say about its truth claims”.

This is why I seldom bother much anymore about getting into long and argumentative debates with the “true believers”. I may go to a certain point, but then I’ll stop, realising that they are at a certain stage, one which I am very familiar with, and in their case time may or may not heal the deficit. (One can still understand facts, like Smith's multiple marriages, yet have other "blind spots" so that the multiple marriages "problem" (as they would say) is "cancelled" by "superior knowledge" or even "mysteries").

Conclusion: It is very crucial to check blind spots when driving, either in a car, or through life itself.


PS: It's almost as certain as night follows day, that someone is going to feel the urge to "spiritualise" all of this by saying, "but you need to see the 'bigger picture' to 'really' understand Mormonism". We call them "Internet Mormons".

Forget it, but do have a good day anyway.

[_beastie]

First, I think that the tendency to dehumanize and at times demonize the “other” is universal to all humans. We can see it on the critic side, as well.

Having said that, however, I think the tendency may be exaggerated in believing LDS due to LDS church teachings. I’ve long said that the LDS church engages in teachings about “apostates” that could likely be labeled bigoted. LDS have been taught since the inception of the church – likely before – that apostates are evil, of the devil and liars. At the very least they are lazy and easily offended. I don’t believe the LDS church can rightfully be called a “cult” anymore (I think it could have been at the beginning) but it certainly behaves like a cult in this aspect. It teaches that since GOD will make the “truth” of the LDS church manifest to any sincere person who asks in good faith, then for any LDS to reject that “truth” is a deliberate act of defiance against God. This is not a teaching that is easily discarded: one can see it leaking out all over the internet on boards like this and MAD.

In my view, unless and until the LDS church ceases to teach hateful things about apostates, then the contention, mistrust, anger, and tendency to demonize the “other” on both sides will continue to exist and flourish. When folks leave the LDS church, they know good and well that the members they leave behind – family, friends, larger society in some cases – now believe that they are one of the “other”: the apostate other. The one who has hardened one’s heart and opened the door to Satan. In response, the exLDS will seek to explain his/her loss of faith. “No, no, it wasn’t that I never believed, it wasn’t that I am lazy, it wasn’t that I wanted to sin, it wasn’t that I was easily offended over something trivial, it’s that I found out X, Y and Z”. Then members will feel attacked over the recitation of X, Y and Z and lash out even more. And so the cycle goes.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Stak -

Nice thread.

I will be brief. My view of the other comes from an anthropology class I took early in college. In short, the professor discussed how being either a subjective part of a culture (the us) versus being an objective observer of culture (and "other") provide both advantages and obstructions in understanding that culture.

The subjective view helps a person understand what it feels like or means to be a member of the culture, while the objective outsider can see the whys and hows. Yet the one gets in the way of the other. We really can't have it both ways.

For this reason, I try to use "other" POV as a way of seeing things about my beliefs,values, and behaviours that I otherwises can not access because I'm too close to them. My leaving Mormonism was a maturation process because this was very much a part of it. I also have no illusions that it isn't still true today.

As a never'mo, I am sure there are things you see on the boards that just baffle you because of how obviously certain outcomes or behaviours are tied to certain beliefs that seem incongruent with the non-LDS worldview. Yet, there are things shared that you can not access fully because of this.

This informs how I take MFB's statement, having conversed with him many times over the last few years. Given his practical view of truth and the value of his religion/philosophy, I can see him sincerely meaning that the "other" voice has no ability to inform one's understanding of Mormonism. I see that as being too bad.

[_beefcalf]

I can distinctly remember that feeling of certainty.

My departure from the fold began almost exactly 3 years ago. Up to that point in my life, I felt an awful lot of certainty. I knew who were the good guys, and I knew who were the bad guys. Pick any arena, political, religious, cultural... bam! I could tell you all about it.

George Bush was being unfairly attacked by the leftists. The threat of Global Warming was a hoax employed by the left to gain power and shut down business. The church was the fastest growing church on the face of the earth because the fields were ripe and ready for harvest.

Back then, I looked at all the venom people would spew at George Bush. It didn't surprise me because that's what you should expect from people who couldn't see the world for what it was. I knew that if the tables were turned, there was no way my people would treat their President that way.

I have always been scientifically minded, and it bothered me that in this one area of global warming, the scientists were being used to promote a false political agenda. In virtually everything else, I trusted science. But it was disappointing to me that they were being hustled by the left on climate change.

Then something happened. I saw someone attack the church. It was so weird! Why would someone, obviously demented, make such an off-the-wall, weird accusation like that? Peep stones??? In a hat?

My attempts to prove these idiots wrong eventually led me down a path of questioning every single thing I ever took for granted. The shock of finding out that the Church I thought I knew so well was hiding its own history from me led me to start questioning everything. I could now take nothing for granted. Every aspect of belief and knowledge I had was now subject to review and difficult analysis. The hardest thing for me was the pride. I had been outspoken on a lot of these issues. I had lived and worked with people for a dozen years, who knew where I stood, who had very likely bit their tongues and let me rant on and on about 'how the world really works'. And now, I realized, all that certainty was gone. It was really difficult. And as I've gone through everything, and looked at things from a different angle, I have found a new nugget of certainty: "it ain't that simple..." Where before, things were black and white, good and evil, right or wrong, now I was seeing so many shades of grey.

And over these last three years, I've started to enjoy the uncertainty. I've come to regard certainty as that comfortable spot you arrive at right before you truly comprehend what the hell is really going on.

I used to be a cheerleader for the right. Now I am a cheerleader for honesty, for tolerance, and perhaps for uncertainty.

In the end, I still like G.W.B. but I see him in a different light. And I've been sad to see that 'my' people have been every bit as nasty to President Obama as 'those' people were to President Bush. I'm still not a big fan of Al Gore, but I don't see Global Warming as left-wing conspiracy I used to.

As far as the church goes, I have a new perspective. I see that the Church has a positive influence on an awful lot of people. I think that the teachings of the church have made Mormons distinctive in their culture, kind, caring and helpful of their neighbors. Self sufficiency and moderate living are good values for any culture and you see them clearly in Mormon communities. Mormons are typically kind and trusting (to a fault) and willing to lend a hand.

I have come to the tentative conclusion that, for the most part, the church today is not a hoax, in the sense that the leadership are people who push this thing to be accepted as the truth all the while knowing it is not. I think the hoax by-and-large ended when Smith (and Young?) died. I think that we all inherited the hoax that Smith invented and the momentum he imparted has thus far been unstoppable. The inconsistencies we see coming from Salt Lake today, in my opinion, come from men who 'know' the church is true and try to make all the puzzle pieces fit. They've seen people leave over some of those gosh-darn puzzle pieces and so they know that those pieces should be hidden. Yes, they are hiding evidence, but I'm not certain that it isn't out of pious desperation rather than premeditated, calculating deceitfulness.

Again, I'm not certain. But now I'm ok with that.

I don't know that anything I ever say or do will influence anyone, but I'm pretty sure that the approach taken by Schryver or Simon or Joseph do a lot for stirring up drama and very little in terms of getting people to reconsider their deeply entrenched opinions. Anytime you act like that, you've just about ruined any chance you might have had of convincing someone you are right.

I think my goal in being the Other is to disagree in an agreeable way.