David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_dartagnan]

From this, it seems you have COMPLETELY misunderstood the whole idea David expressed. Wow. Right over your head. David said nothing about changing facts.

Neither did I. I should leave it at that so you can sloth away in embarrassment, but I just remembered, you don’t get embarrassed – no matter how hard you try.

Or interpreting facts to fit the premise.

Yes he did. That is the whole point of a paradigm change.

Or about remaining faithful even "thought they no longer accept the orginal premised that the Church is true."

Yes he did. He said leaving the Church is never a good idea. It seems that it doesn’t matter to him if the person no longer believes it is true. One should stay put and change his or her paradigm to account for the conflict. Everyone has understood David accordingly, and he doesn’t deny it.

I will refrain from calling you an idiot, as you respond when anyone disagrees with you, but let me say, this is pretty unbelievable.

I disagree with many people here, but only you have earned the idiot title as of late.

Let me walk you through this.

You’re not in any position to walk me through anything. You can’t even educate me on psychological principles, which is supposed to be your area of expertise.

1. Church member has a spiritual witness that the Church is true. A spiritual witness is not a paradigm.

It is an integral element to the Mormon paradigm. It is simply the body giving itself good feelings as a means to confirm what someone wants to believe.

2. Church member has a paradigm that the Church is true.

It is an assumption that the Church is true. A paradigm is a pattern of set assumptions, for which this is only one. You don’t even know what a paradigm is.

Many different ideas about different aspects constitute the paradigm. One could be, for instance, prophets are infallible.

You don’t say. What’s worse than someone who cannot speak intelligently? Someone who pretends to speak intelligently.

3. Church member discovers a FACT. e.g. A prophet has made a statement which is in error.

This is only one of many problems struggling members have. You’re picking an easy example to topple but this is not what David’s remarks were limited to.

4. Church member does not dispute or ignore FACT or try to interpret the FACT so as to still permit prophet infallibility.

Nobody is talking about infallibility of the prophet. We’re talking about the validity of the Church, which is not the same thing. This is what I am talking about. Let’s just call you “Mrs. Straw” from now on.

5. Church member examines paradigm and finds prophet infallibiliity to be in error, and adjusts paradigm.

You’re simply choosing a lame and easy straw man example to knock over, but David’s presentation has universal application as he made it clear it is never a good idea to leave the Church for whatever reason. The premise that the Church is true must carry ultimate authority and all subsequent concerns must be reinterpreted to meet that premise. People do not generally leave the Church because a prophet made a mistake on his math test. They leave because there is compelling evidence that the Church is not what it claims to be.

The FACT is accepted, the paradigm adjusted, the spiritual witness was never denied.

Yet, when proof (not just evidence, proof) is presented that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian, it proves he was in the business of fraud. Once this is established it strongly suggests his previous works based on the same claims of divine authority, must also be treated with skepticism and rejected.

Sure the fact that Joseph Smith translated the text to mean X when Egyptologists translate it as Z, is accepted by the apologist. But the paradigm shift occurs when the apologist recreates reality to make the original premise valid. For instance, apologists now go down the catalyst theory route. Also, they have to account for the fact that Joseph Smith’s translations do not meet scholarly standards, so they come up with the lame theory that Egyptology is so complex, that virtually any translation can be valid given enough time to perfect our knowledge of it. The typical "wait and see" gambit. The game is rigged so teh Church can never be falsifiable, despite what its leaders have suggested in the past.

So no, facts are not rejected, but they are reinterpreted in order to suit a presupposition that the Church is true. Again, everyone understands what David is saying here, even if you don’t.

Now do you have it?

I always have. You’re an idiot. I said you guys try to “reinterpret” or “reconcile” the facts with your premise. I never said they were facts “rejected” “ignored” or “changed.” Didn’t they require reading comprehension before letting you attend graduate school?

And now will stop with the stupid claim that David suggested ignoring or changing facts?

I never said that, which is a reason why I think you’re an idiot. Even though your straw man tendency has been drawn to your attention over and over and over, you’re simply too stupid or too lazy to make any adjustments. You continue to misconstrue. I said,

“Facts ultimately don’t matter. If the facts point to speciousness of the Church, then the paradigm must be changed in a way so the Church can still be true.”

This is precisely what David prescribes, but it is already in full swing. We have been watching this phenomenon take place in LDS apologetics for many years now. Facts don’t matter because they can be ultimately reconciled if you try hard enough to shift your paradigm.

[_charity]

The fact (prophets make mistakes) is indeed interpreted, and the paradigm adjusted. Fine and dandy. What David has been saying is that there is one non-negotiable part of his paradigm that will never be adjusted (and you apparently agree with him). When a piece of the paradigm is beyond adjustment, then it's the evidence we percieve that gets adjust. Kevin is absolutely right on this point. That's why your analogy doesn't work. The prophet infallibility idea was adjustable. The truth of the church is not.

I am not speaking for David.

I will agree with the idea that the truth of the Church is not adjustable. But this is not a paradigm. The word paradigm has been bandied about a lot and maybe it is not being used correctly in all instances. A paradigm is simply a "world view." "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline" to quote dictionary.com

There is nothing in the concept or use of the word which indicates truth. The Church is True is not a paradigm. The assumptions, concepts, values and practices that individuals hold with regards to what makes the Church true constitutes the paradigm.

[_Runtu]

I am not speaking for David.

I will agree with the idea that the truth of the Church is not adjustable. But this is not a paradigm.

Note that I said that the truth of the church being inviolate is a "part of David's paradigm that will never be adjusted." When part of the paradigm is inviolate, the paradigm can only shift in ways that embrace that particular staked-out truth. I'm not sure why you're insisting on misreading my statement.

The word paradigm has been bandied about a lot and maybe it is not being used correctly in all instances. A paradigm is simply a "world view." "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline" to quote dictionary.com

We're talking about paradigms in a Kuhnian sense. Have you read Kuhn?

There is nothing in the concept or use of the word which indicates truth.

Kuhn asserts that our perception of reality ("truth" in Mormon terms) is a product of the particular paradigm that we adopt. What David has said quite clearly (and for what it's worth, I really respect his candor) is that his paradigm approaches truth in certain ways that will never be adjusted.

The Church is True is not a paradigm. The assumptions, concepts, values and practices that individuals hold with regards to what makes the Church true constitutes the paradigm.

"The church is true" is part of the paradigm by which you and millions of other people live their lives. What is unique about that part of the paradigm is that for you it is impossible for the church not to be true.

[_charity]

Sorry, runtu, this is the part of discussions over here that I find most distressing. You just told me what I believe.

By the way, even if you can't post over on MA&D, you can read the discussion there. It is pretty good stuff. And guess what, nobody has been calling anybody else idiots, and denying their own experience. Not to say that you have done that, but others here sure have.

[_Runtu]

Sorry, runtu, this is the part of discussions over here that I find most distressing. You just told me what I believe.

Where did I do that? I simply restated your earlier post wherein you said that the truth of the church was an unadjustable part of your paradigm. If I did anything beyond that, I'm sorry. Can you please point out where I did that?

By the way, even if you can't post over on MA&D, you can read the discussion there. It is pretty good stuff. And guess what, nobody has been calling anybody else idiots, and denying their own experience. Not to say that you have done that, but others here sure have.

I haven't called you an idiot or denied your experience. I have read the discussion over there. Thanks for pointing it out.

[_Jason Bourne]

Since I can't respond over on the other board, I hope David doesn't mind if I hijack his thread:

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.

Anyway, as one who used Kuhn in my master's thesis, I understand what you mean. I would imagine every member of the church must shift his or her paradigm in the wake of new information, whether that's a deeper understanding of gospel principles or some damning bit of historical data. I would say that your paradigm of the Book of Mormon has rightly shifted to allow for modern expansion and insertion.

You seem to be arguing that once one has had a spiritual witness of the truth of Mormonism, the paradigm must simply shift to accommodate information, regardless of what that information is. I think that's what I did for a very long time. For example, at 20 on my mission, I came to accept that the endowment was not literally a restoration of an ancient ritual. At 35 I shifted again to accept that the Book of Mormon was not a translation of an ancient record. I could accept these things as long as I remembered the spiritual witnesses I had received. I think what changed for me was the realization that maybe the spiritual witness wasn't really what I thought it was. I had expanded the paradigm to the breaking point, and when I finally allowed myself to wonder, "What if I'm wrong? What if this isn't really true?" that's when the pieces fell into place. For me, Mormonism makes complete sense as a hoax in a way it never did as a true restoration of the gospel.

Could I be wrong? Sure. My paradigm is still shifting, and who knows? Maybe I'll shift back to Mormonism. I doubt it, but you never know. :)

This may work to a certain extent. Where it seems to fail or some is that there comes a point that the shift fails. Then all the other shifts may be viewed in a different way. For example, one can shift that the endowment is not literal, that the Book of Mormon may not be a literal history but still contain rich spiritual truths. But maybe one finally see an issue that they just cannot shift for. It may be polygamy, it may by masonic ties to the temple, or Kirtland, or the fact that the saints may not have been the totally benign persecute sect in Missouri that is portrayed, or whatever

When this happen a person is right to question the spiritual witness and its validity? Does the spiritual witness Trump all other facts? Must one always shift in it favor and if so why? I used the think sure, the spiritual witness Trump's everything. Then I matured to the point that many other people in other beliefs have as strong a spiritual witness as I have.

[_Pokatator]

This post is completely and totally signature line worthy. This post captures just about everything that goes on daily at MAD. Trying to nail jello to the wall and talking colors to a blind person. This post fully illustrates my frustration when I was at MAD. It explains the methods used in FARM and FAIR articles and the character of the apologists and their arguments. The perfect example of how they think.

This thread is probably one of the most honest and revealing threads that I have read recently on the mind of the apologist. As Sethbag has responded earlier that all this has been stated before by critics but it seems to me that it is the first time that a major apologist and a major poster at MAD has admitted it.

This is a very enjoyable thread.

I am glad you are enjoying this. It is a little frustrating when the blind men keep insisting there is no such thing as color, and people who see color are only deluding themselves. We learned early on in our study of sensation that we are limited by our our senses. We have the five senses, hearing, sight, taste, feel, kinesthetic. We can invent measuring devices for these senses. We can measure light, even in frequencies not visible to our own eyes. But we can perceive light. What if there is some sensory mechanism we humans do not possess? We would be totally unaware of it, because we do not have any sensory mechanism to detect it.

But isn't it the heigth of arrogance to demand that there are only five sensory mechanisms with which any event may be experienced? Does your paradigm admit to the possibility that there may be something out there that others are experiencing that you , and others who deny the validity of the spiritual witness, aren't?

I'm glad you're glad that I am glad I am enjoying this. And yes I am.

I think you have hit a height of arrogance with me several times in the past. You have told me repeatedly to continue to pay, pray, and obey, to rely on someone else's testimony until I get my own. That it is my fault that Moroni's promise never worked for me. I didn't ask with a contrite spirit, etc. etc. This seems the same as telling me to move my paradigm but don't face the facts but keep on keeping on.

I do discount the possibility that you have experienced anything beyond your 5 senses. I think that most spiritual witnesses are explainable. Southwest's are mostly emotional and are mixed with a little bit of physical symptoms. I think most SWs come about from a time of distress, stress, loneliness and hardship, etc. And/or they occur during fasting which is most likely low blood sugar and/or stomach gas from lack of food. Or lack of sleep or euphoria from lengthy reading of anything. These things have been described previously. SWs are paradigms, especially for the BICs, in my opinion. You can attribute them to the Holy Ghost if you like, I can't. I can't ignore facts either. I can't blindly move my paradigm to fit a puzzle that is without a doubt false.

I guess I am just a prick you are kicking against.

[_Jason Bourne]

The question always comes down to assimilation or accomodation. Do you change the old schema to fit the new information, or the change the new information to fit the old schema?

Myself, I think it is always a good idea to examine the old schema. And the Catholic investigaor should, too.

And a Catholic may say the same to a Mormon. Bring what you have, fix your errors and worship in the True and original Christan faith.

[_Jason Bourne]

Some of those things you have never heard in Church is because you didn't happen to be in the right place at the right time. I have heard the Adam and Eve, Noah thing you mentioned.

Really? Who taught that Adam and Eve were mythical and allogorical? That the fall did not really happen at all. Was this some ward member or did a GA teach it?

[_Jason Bourne]

Both sethbag an dartagnan are completely avoiding the issue of the spiritual witness. Why is that? It is the basis for the argument. I realize it is unhandy to deal with.

Spiritual witnesses are based on an emotional feeling. I used to deny the Church taught that testimony was based on feeling. Argued against it. But how could I with integrity? GA talks CONSTANTLY talk about feeling, when I was a missionary before we taught the FV story we taught about the Holy Ghost, the the HG would be with our message to tell them it was true, that they would FEEL peace, comfort, good, burning in the bosm or so on, while we taught and that would be the Holy Ghost telling them what we say is true.

Then, in the best way, and most dramatic as well, we would tell the FV story in Joseph's words. After we would bear our testimony and then say

"Mr Brown, how did you FEEL when we taught you about Joseph seeing God and Jesus."

"Oh I felt really good, at peace."

"And what are those feelings?"

"The Holy Ghost"

"And what does the Holy Ghost teach about?"

"Truth"

"So if you felt peace or good while we taught you what does that say about our message?"

"I must be true"

And if it is true and Jospeh was told to join no Church and that God would call him to be a prophet what does that tell you about the LDS Church?"

"That it is true"

Well you get the gist.

So yes we teach FEELINGS are our witness. But this is so subjective and not objective. It cannot be proven by any empirical evidence at all. And emotional witnesses can deceive and lead us down an incorrect path.

If the letter Dr Peterson said would course him to jettison Mormonism came to light, a letter where Joseph Smith admitted it was all a fraud what would that do to your spiritual witness based on feelings? Would you shift your paradigm to confirm to your testimony even if Joseph confesses it was a lie?

You see for me, there is now enough evidence that over rules my spiritual witness and confirms to me that Joseph was much different then I thought I had a witness of and was not a prophet at least the way I was taught he was and in the way I had a witness of. The shift I have had to make is now in a different direction. I cannot shift my knowledge and the evidence to fit the spiritual witness I thought I had had.