A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

[Philo Sofee]

The dichotomy is silly--religious regimes vs atheist ones. Hitler saw himself as conducting God's work. Stalinist Russia was run on the same type of dogma that religion is. On the other hand, Peterson should feel lucky atheists often promote a secular humanist approach. he benefits from the progress. If there were nothing but religious regimes we'd find ourselves in a bigger mess. Jeez. Should I head back over to sic et non and teach that old man a lesson again? I don't' know if I can stomach it.

Just remember, if you tell them anything other than their version of truth, you will be lambasted, mocked, spit upon, and ultimately barred from participation. It's why I don't post there.

[Philo Sofee]

Dr. Exiled
Robert Smith told me over and over again, that the brethren didn't have time to give official church positions or form any theology,

Yeah.... after all, prophets and such, of what use are they for the world after all, except to make money? It's been that way from time immemorial, right? After all Isaiah certainly preached from his 10 story $5,500,000 bungalow in the city Jerusalem to ancient Israel out there in their tents...
And take Joseph Smith... he couldn't possibly find time in his busy schedule to actually form any theology..... right? Robert Smith whether he knows it or not, has clobbered modern LDS-ism vastly stronger than Givens even has capacity for! Just WOW! What a concession! And it sailed right over his head on the lunacy of his contention in order to save the brethren. You can't make this stuff up folks!

[dastardly stem]

It either speaks to me spiritually or it does not.

And many of us are kinda like, What does it mean to speak to me spiritually or not? To say it speaks spiritually to me sounds about like someone saying "I want it to mean more to me than what it means". You know people we interact with when discussing the Book of Mormon are claiming it's actual ancient history and it speaks spiritually to them. That's the thing, any book can speak spiritually to anyone at any given time. It doesn't even take a book to do that. There's not much to say on that other than why do we do that to ourselves? Is it because we want special meaning given to us from another world? We all have this desire to be the special ones who know things we otherwise can't know? To me that kinda trots into the realm of dangerous thinking. Its almost as if if there ever was a dangerous action done in the world it was due to that mindset.

So in a sense you want to just shrug and be like "Whatever...people are going to believe what they want and there's not much we can do about that". In another, it seems like we should actually be able to explore that type of thinking and question whether it's useful to us or not. If in any sense the type of thinking that religious thinking offers can be a danger we ought to stop and question that mode of thinking altogether. I can't really escape the thought myself because I feel a bit at an impasse...can we ever identify an instance when the "let's pretend there's another world giving us answers, or we have special answers no one else knows or can know" wherein it wasn't part of the dangerous activities we've seen in history? I'm intrigued by the notion of pushing that whole mindset out of us, as hopeless an act that may seem. And yet, I don't want to be harsh, dogmatic or certain about it either.

I see this is a couple years old, but whatever I got intrigued when the thread got bumped and I was notified as if you responded to me when you offered a recent edit.

[sock puppet]

What does it mean to speak to me spiritually or not? To say it speaks spiritually to me sounds about like someone saying "I want it to mean more to me than what it means". You know people we interact with when discussing the Book of Mormon are claiming it's actual ancient history and it speaks spiritually to them. That's the thing, any book can speak spiritually to anyone at any given time. It doesn't even take a book to do that. There's not much to say on that other than why do we do that to ourselves? Is it because we want special meaning given to us from another world? We all have this desire to be the special ones who know things we otherwise can't know? To me that kinda trots into the realm of dangerous thinking. Its almost as if if there ever was a dangerous action done in the world it was due to that mindset.

So in a sense you want to just shrug and be like "Whatever...people are going to believe what they want and there's not much we can do about that". In another, it seems like we should actually be able to explore that type of thinking and question whether it's useful to us or not. If in any sense the type of thinking that religious thinking offers can be a danger we ought to stop and question that mode of thinking altogether. I can't really escape the thought myself because I feel a bit at an impasse...can we ever identify an instance when the "let's pretend there's another world giving us answers, or we have special answers no one else knows or can know" wherein it wasn't part of the dangerous activities we've seen in history? I'm intrigued by the notion of pushing that whole mindset out of us, as hopeless an act that may seem. And yet, I don't want to be harsh, dogmatic or certain about it either.

Feelings are feelings. The rub is in the attribution of a feeling's origin.

In my experience, when someone describes their feelings as 'spiritual,' it's usually some kind of a code for 'I don't want to explain it or discuss it, just take what I say about it at face value.' For example, a high school graduating student says she prayed about it, the Spirit told her to stay home and help take care of grandpa rather than go to college in the fall. She's saying, I don't want to go to college, I want to stick around home--and I don't want to dig deeper and try to explain it because it is probably a decision I cannot defend, as my real reasons will likely look silly. It usually boils down to when someone does not want to discuss certain feelings.

[High Spy]

Feelings are feelings. The rub is in the attribution of a feeling's origin.

In my experience, when someone describes their feelings as 'spiritual,' it's usually some kind of a code for 'I don't want to explain it or discuss it, just take what I say about it at face value.' For example, a high school graduating student says she prayed about it, the Spirit told her to stay home and help take care of grandpa rather than go to college in the fall. She's saying, I don't want to go to college, I want to stick around home--and I don't want to dig deeper and try to explain it because it is probably a decision I cannot defend, as my real reasons will likely look silly. It usually boils down to when someone does not want to discuss certain feelings.

Warm fuzzy feelings don’t rule, but warm fuzzy socks do.

[Kishkumen]

And many of us are kinda like, What does it mean to speak to me spiritually or not? To say it speaks spiritually to me sounds about like someone saying "I want it to mean more to me than what it means".

There are many ways that a text can be used. For example, gematria was used to come up with entirely different meanings of the Hebrew Bible that were not found in the surface words themselves. Words were turned into numerical values and then turned into different words with the same numerical value. The assumption was that the text was imbued with infinite truth and meaning, there to be dug out by a skilled interpreter.

Scripture is, in my view, oracular. So, there is no "more than what it means" in that way of looking at it.

You know people we interact with when discussing the Book of Mormon are claiming it's actual ancient history and it speaks spiritually to them.

Yeah. At least one of those things I cannot accept in literal terms. The Book of Mormon was not, in my opinion, written before the 1820s.

That's the thing, any book can speak spiritually to anyone at any given time.

Some are a lot more likely to than others. The manual to my Akai AX80 polyphonic analog synthesizer does not speak to me spiritually, and there are probably vanishingly few other people who would claim that it does.

It doesn't even take a book to do that.

Is that a problem? That doesn't seem like a problem to me.

There's not much to say on that other than why do we do that to ourselves? Is it because we want special meaning given to us from another world? We all have this desire to be the special ones who know things we otherwise can't know? To me that kinda trots into the realm of dangerous thinking. Its almost as if if there ever was a dangerous action done in the world it was due to that mindset.

I don't agree that it is inherently dangerous to seek meaning. We all seek meaning all over the place. It is part of being human. I guess you can say that being human is dangerous, just as life leads to death, but at a certain point these anxieties become absurd and needlessly debilitating.

So in a sense you want to just shrug and be like "Whatever...people are going to believe what they want and there's not much we can do about that". In another, it seems like we should actually be able to explore that type of thinking and question whether it's useful to us or not.

Your mindset is, in my view, quixotic. You want to fix behavior that goes back millennia because *you* think it might be dangerous. People do stupid things, and that is part of the human condition. It would remain the same whether there were a Book of Mormon or not.

If in any sense the type of thinking that religious thinking offers can be a danger we ought to stop and question that mode of thinking altogether.

That looks like a great formula for tyranny to me. Ever see Minority Report? If someone might commit a crime, then we better apprehend them before they do. Now THAT is a dangerous way of thinking.

I can't really escape the thought myself because I feel a bit at an impasse...can we ever identify an instance when the "let's pretend there's another world giving us answers, or we have special answers no one else knows or can know" wherein it wasn't part of the dangerous activities we've seen in history? I'm intrigued by the notion of pushing that whole mindset out of us, as hopeless an act that may seem. And yet, I don't want to be harsh, dogmatic or certain about it either.

Well, I am glad you are still thinking about it because I think risk and error are part of the human condition. Religion is not especially causal in bringing about either. The human condition will continue to abound in both, even if people tyrannically seek to extirpate religion from human cultures.

I see this is a couple years old, but whatever I got intrigued when the thread got bumped and I was notified as if you responded to me when you offered a recent edit.

Yeah, I noticed I had mis-transcribed some Greek and that was too much for me to leave uncorrected.

[dastardly stem]

Feelings are feelings. The rub is in the attribution of a feeling's origin.

In my experience, when someone describes their feelings as 'spiritual,' it's usually some kind of a code for 'I don't want to explain it or discuss it, just take what I say about it at face value.' For example, a high school graduating student says she prayed about it, the Spirit told her to stay home and help take care of grandpa rather than go to college in the fall. She's saying, I don't want to go to college, I want to stick around home--and I don't want to dig deeper and try to explain it because it is probably a decision I cannot defend, as my real reasons will likely look silly. It usually boils down to when someone does not want to discuss certain feelings.

Yep. I think some of that is happening when it comes to saying something is spiritual. On a naturalist position it really just amounts to us just talking to ourselves it seems.

[dastardly stem]

There are many ways that a text can be used. For example, gematria was used to come up with entirely different meanings of the Hebrew Bible that were not found in the surface words themselves. Words were turned into numerical values and then turned into different words with the same numerical value. The assumption was that the text was imbued with infinite truth and meaning, there to be dug out by a skilled interpreter.

Scripture is, in my view, oracular. So, there is no "more than what it means" in that way of looking at it.

Yes. agreed.

Yeah. At least one of those things I cannot accept in literal terms. The Book of Mormon was not, in my opinion, written before the 1820s.

Same.

Some are a lot more likely to than others. The manual to my Akai AX80 polyphonic analog synthesizer does not speak to me spiritually, and there are probably vanishingly few other people who would claim that it does.

Yes, again. We're on the same page....

oh wait...

Is that a problem? That doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Nope...other than spiritual is not well defined, if it really means much of anything other than interesting.

I don't agree that it is inherently dangerous to seek meaning. We all seek meaning all over the place. It is part of being human. I guess you can say that being human is dangerous, just as life leads to death, but at a certain point these anxieties become absurd and needlessly debilitating.

I didn't suggest its inherently dangerous to seek meaning. Basically the opposite of that--meaning spiritual meaning doesn't carry a ton of seeking meaning at all. That's why I find the whole practice a bit too self-serving and a bit too self-aggrandizing for me.

Your mindset is, in my view, quixotic. You want to fix behavior that goes back millennia because *you* think it might be dangerous. People do stupid things, and that is part of the human condition. It would remain the same whether there were a Book of Mormon or not.

Call me a hopeless optimist...hah. I like the idea that we can as a human movement continue to find progress, which may not always be continuously upward. I do think dropping the self-aggrandizing movement of finding special personal spiritual meaning in texts, or anywhere else, would be a good thing. We can find meaning, no doubt, in anything we want to. We can apply texts and stories to ourselves, sure. But to think there is a spiritual realm, of which there's no evidence (at least not sufficient), filling human minds with special truths guiding human action, seems problematic. And, while I'm a bit iffy on it, I do think it could very well be a huge part of the problems we humans create--treating this spiritual realm as a reasonable guide.

That looks like a great formula for tyranny to me. Ever see Minority Report? If someone might commit a crime, then we better apprehend them before they do. Now THAT is a dangerous way of thinking.

I mean stop oneself in his/her own thoughts--not tyrannically stop people in their tracks. As soon as we think God has a special plan for me, or God is telling me to do an unreasonable thing, we ought to stop and question God or the spiritual. I think most do that to some extent. But obviously in the history of mankind huge amounts of problems result after people let those thoughts continue. I'm not saying "lets apprehend anyone who has spiritual thoughts." I'm saying let's be rational in our lives and that would mean we ought to stop prizing a "spiritual realm" giving us "spiritual thoughts". They don't seem to be doing any good, and there's too much risk of too much bad being the result.

Well, I am glad you are still thinking about it because I think risk and error are part of the human condition. Religion is not especially causal in bringing about either. The human condition will continue to abound in both, even if people tyrannically seek to extirpate religion from human cultures.

I would never think it a good thing to extirpate religion, or do so tyrannically. I'd say we ought to reason our way out of religion and this spiritual realm that no one can validate.

Yeah, I noticed I had mis-transcribed some Greek and that was too much for me to leave uncorrected.

Lol. Cool. Gotcha.

[sock puppet]

The manual to my Akai AX80 polyphonic analog synthesizer does not speak to me spiritually, and there are probably vanishingly few other people who would claim that it does.

I would have hoped that the manual was not so regarded by anyone. But, for Piggy, the conce was so highly regarded, it might have been "spiritual" to him, in the way holding what Jeff Holland proclaimed was the actual copy of the Book of Mormon that his great grandfather had in the Carthage Jail was for Jeff. Now, the sounds generated by the synthesizer might understandably be 'spiritual' for some listeners even if the manual isn't.

[Kishkumen]

Nope...other than spiritual is not well defined, if it really means much of anything other than interesting.

So, you never felt something you would identify as spiritual? I would say that my experience of that sensation is quite different from merely interesting.

I didn't suggest its inherently dangerous to seek meaning. Basically the opposite of that--meaning spiritual meaning doesn't carry a ton of seeking meaning at all. That's why I find the whole practice a bit too self-serving and a bit too self-aggrandizing for me.

Huh. Well, I think there are some meanings that can carry a spiritual feeling with them. Of course, there is more than one sense of meaningful, and perhaps the simple experience of the spiritual can be meaningful. It is interesting that you think spirituality is too self-serving or self-aggrandizing. I would agree that it is important not to mistake spiritual feelings for altruistic outcomes. But I think the obsessive concern about selflessness is counterproductive. I think there is value in the experience of spirituality, even for those who are not directly experiencing it. You might call these collateral benefits.

Call me a hopeless optimist...hah. I like the idea that we can as a human movement continue to find progress, which may not always be continuously upward. I do think dropping the self-aggrandizing movement of finding special personal spiritual meaning in texts, or anywhere else, would be a good thing. We can find meaning, no doubt, in anything we want to. We can apply texts and stories to ourselves, sure. But to think there is a spiritual realm, of which there's no evidence (at least not sufficient), filling human minds with special truths guiding human action, seems problematic. And, while I'm a bit iffy on it, I do think it could very well be a huge part of the problems we humans create--treating this spiritual realm as a reasonable guide.

I don’t assume that dropping spirituality and religion is progress. So, I disagree with you. I see nothing wrong with finding spiritual meaning in texts, and I think it can be a very salutary practice.

I mean stop oneself in his/her own thoughts--not tyrannically stop people in their tracks. As soon as we think God has a special plan for me, or God is telling me to do an unreasonable thing, we ought to stop and question God or the spiritual. I think most do that to some extent. But obviously in the history of mankind huge amounts of problems result after people let those thoughts continue. I'm not saying "lets apprehend anyone who has spiritual thoughts." I'm saying let's be rational in our lives and that would mean we ought to stop prizing a "spiritual realm" giving us "spiritual thoughts". They don't seem to be doing any good, and there's too much risk of too much bad being the result.

I think they do lots of good. They seem to bring peace to individual lives and inspire people to do good for others. These are not bad outcomes.