Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”
-
- God
- Posts: 2946
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm
Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”
Perhaps it explains half of them better. I really don’t care who is or isn’t an academic here. I have not noticed that non-academics are any less intelligent, insightful, or good at interpreting texts. For my money, the real loss to this board would be the exit of our best non-academic posters.DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:07 amIt better contextualizes the social dynamics in play.
I always felt that Cassius University was a wonderful spoof and about deliberately parodying the bad behavior of certain BYU professors. I prefer to stick with that over this idea that I have a pedagogical duty to the entire universe every time I make a comment in a public space.
Indeed, there is also a reason I am the Reverend, not the Dean or the Distinguished Chair of Mopologetics. It was a conscious choice to step away from my professional life in a fun space.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”
going back to this...
thank you Gad, this is worth thinking about for quite a while.Gadianton wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:45 pm...If the outcome of all the chemical factors in an insane murder's head is accounted for by a psychiatrist, on what grounds do we say anything is really bad?
Making moral assessments while wearing both a scholarly hat and while also being a moral agent, is maddening. Suppose I have an altercation with a stranger in a parking lot. As a psychiatrist, I understand these conflicts very well, I understand the chemical reasons why I acted out as well as the other party, and so I have to decide, am I always just as wrong as the other party because my psychology is equally bound to my brain chemistry as the other person? "Mythology" is an abstraction layer above psychology as psychology is above neurons firing. As an apostate, I know I'm subject to broader social movements as-is everybody else. There was some (non-Mormon) professor at Claremont (Armand Mauss?) who did a study about post-Mormon mythology. Post-Mormons recite their experiences in predictable ways, and the apologists were all over that study because to them, that meant that post-Mormons are just as irrational as Mormons are -- they have exit narratives that are the equivalent of a testimony. Both are bound to social fabric. And so if I'm a sociologist, and happen to be Mormon, I can't make a fully authentic decision about anything because I will ultimately be explained by the time and place I live, if not by my psychological profile or brain chemistry. And so as a moral agent, I have to put all that away, and nonetheless believe that I can make right or wrong decisions and contrast that with the choices of others. In fact, ironically, I'm wired to do so whether I wish to or not.
And so I think that, as a student of human behavior while at the same time as being human, I must appreciate the limits of my own original thinking and actions, knowing that I can't escape my humanness, but at the same time, since it is axiomatic that all behaviors are equally sensible in terms of causal human explanation by sociology and psychology, it's pointless to suspend all moral judgment just because I know no mater what I do, I'll be explained equally well by history.
Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”
Wasn’t this thread supposed to be about Nelson?