juliann lobs another water balloon at Beastie

[_Mister Scratch]

I enjoyed the discussions I had with Ben McGuire very much. He's civil and smart and does a pretty good job sticking to the issues, in my opinion. We mainly went back and forth on the issue of whether or not the Church has engaged in "whitewashing" of its history. Also, he made an extraordinarily strange (and ineffectual) claim that BKP's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" has a different meaning due to the fact that it was addressed to Church educators. It seemed odd to me that a self-described postmodernist would hack up interpretive dissemination in this way. (It made me wonder if he'd ever read, say, Derrida's The Postcard.)

[_beastie]

Thanks, Bond. Interesting. Perhaps it wasn't worth their time since I no longer posted there.

[_Sam Harris]

And yes these boys threatened my life and harassed me on campus for weeks on end...you are right they are dangerous

All I have to say is industrial strength pepper spray.

[_Sam Harris]

Yeah, I checked too, you weren't listed as banned. I don't post there much anymore either, which is probably why they didn't ban me. But then again, I crossed the queen, so who knows?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Yeah, I checked too, you weren't listed as banned. I don't post there much anymore either, which is probably why they didn't ban me. But then again, I crossed the queen, so who knows?

Perhaps that will be our Christmas present. A major purge of everyone who doesn't toe the line.

Bond

[_Runtu]

Yeah, I checked too, you weren't listed as banned. I don't post there much anymore either, which is probably why they didn't ban me. But then again, I crossed the queen, so who knows?

Perhaps that will be our Christmas present. A major purge of everyone who doesn't toe the line.

Bond

I may get banned now because I wished everyone a Merry Christmas and yet I post here. Oh, well.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Yeah, I checked too, you weren't listed as banned. I don't post there much anymore either, which is probably why they didn't ban me. But then again, I crossed the queen, so who knows?

Perhaps that will be our Christmas present. A major purge of everyone who doesn't toe the line.

Bond

I may get banned now because I wished everyone a Merry Christmas and yet I post here. Oh, well.

If they ban you for wishing Merry Christmas, I will PM the administrators and ask for the same punishment. Anyone who would ban someone for wishing Merry Christmas is truly a scrooge.

Bond

[_Ray A]

I like Ben, too, and a good part of the reason is due to the fact that he is pretty consistent in his stance, and has the courage to defend it. Whether or not I agree with him (and I don't agree with him that he presents the actual stance of the LDS church at all) I can tell his approach is well thought out.

However, I do think EA is right. I think that Ben is having a problem with "truth" and relativity. What really matters? One's personal revelation and the confirmation of the community alone? Then really there is no external truth being reflected by that standard, since past revelation and confirmation of the community can be rejected as no longer true.

For the record, this is EA's post:

If Shade's board was still up, I'd have access to quotes from you admitting to this very thing as you embraced relativist epistemology when I merely was attempting to critique your ideas by arguing they collapse into relativist epistemology. If you can't maintain a consistent position, that's your fault, not mine.

But I don't think "consistency" should be defined by another poster. Being consistent is easy. But I have to say, Ben's views about continuing revelation are startling, for an active Mormon that is. It has actually impressed me.

[_beastie]

Why do you think consistency shouldn't be "defined", so to speak, by another poster?

And it's not just posters like charity who would be shocked. In these sort of conversations in the past, Nighthawke insisted that Jesus as Savior is THE only core, foundational belief of the church, and others, including Juliann, seemed to agree with her.

The frustrating thing about talking with Juliann has always been her unwillingness to actually explain herself. She throws out quotes and acts as if that explains all of her beliefs. But I have seen her, in the past, completely misunderstand citations, so I don't know what she thinks these citations mean at all. Perhaps she would be willing to go as far as Ben, I don't know. I doubt she would ever be open about it though, as he has been.

But if Ben is saying that the only foundational idea of Mormonism is continuing revelation, and the content of the revelation is immaterial as long as it was received by revelation and has the confirmation of the community of believers, then - at least in terms of religious truth - Ben really is saying that external, objective reality is immaterial.

[_Ray A]

Why do you think consistency shouldn't be "defined", so to speak, by another poster?

I haven't seen Ben's reply to EA (is it there yet?). I'd like to hear from him whether he has changed his view, or whether this has always been part of his thinking. As startled as I am, I would not accuse Ben of being "inconsistent", and I too can dig up past statements that seem to contradict what he's saying now, but I'd like to keep reading and see what he says rather than throw a bland "you're inconsistent". Do you think he has changed his view?

And it's not just posters like charity who would be shocked. In these sort of conversations in the past, Nighthawke insisted that Jesus as Savior is THE only core, foundational belief of the church, and others, including Juliann, seemed to agree with her.

Well it is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints too. But I am finding the pomo ideas interesting.

The frustrating thing about talking with Juliann has always been her unwillingness to actually explain herself. She throws out quotes and acts as if that explains all of her beliefs. But I have seen her, in the past, completely misunderstand citations, so I don't know what she thinks these citations mean at all. Perhaps she would be willing to go as far as Ben, I don't know. I doubt she would ever be open about it though, as he has been.

She may be willing to go as far as Ben on things like polygamy, as one example. When I posted the church media spokesperson's statement that polygamy is like "stoning for adultery" as far as LDS are now concerned, Charity's reply was mainly twofold: 1) She should be sacked. 2) "Stone her." Juliann had no objection, and I think she might welcome even a dumping of polygamy, even "in principle". Just my guess. If they chucked out section 132 I think Charity would have a fit, but not Juliann.

But if Ben is saying that the only foundational idea of Mormonism is continuing revelation, and the content of the revelation is immaterial as long as it was received by revelation and has the confirmation of the community of believers, then - at least in terms of religious truth - Ben really is saying that external, objective reality is immaterial.

I don't think so. I think he is saying that from the viewpoint of revelation, not external, objective reality. Perhaps he thinks the prophets are getting "line upon line"? Or that they too are progressing in understanding? Something like "we spoke with a limited understanding"? I would ask too, external, objective reality in regard to what? We know the realities that we have empirically observed over long periods of time, but the whole purpose of metaphysics is to speculate "beyond physics" (meta-physics). There are things "out there" that we don't know.