SquareTwo

[_Sethbag]

Ok, actually I had already read almost all of Bushman's science discussion before my last post. Here's another quote, with my comment.

The same is true up and down Mormonism. Mormon objections to science are all particular, not general. The scientific enterprise as a whole is never discredited, only its errors in particular realms where it contradicts Mormon belief. The work of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is entirely predicated on the value of scientific inquiry. Although the FARMS scholars all affirm they believe because of spiritual experience, they expend their life’s blood on using scientific reasoning to support Mormon belief. [emphasis added by Sethbag]

There are several problems with this. Discrediting science only when it contradicts Mormon belief is an oxymoron. What it would take to discredit that particular science would undermine and unravel almost everything else.

Here is an example. "There was no death on Earth before the Fall of Adam." This is scientifically contradicted by enormous mountains of evidence of various natures, all intertwined together and mutually supported by various branches of science. What it would take to object to the science underpinning the contradictory interpretation of the evidence we have, would have grave consequences for modern biology, paleontology, archeology, chemistry, physics, geology, and probably some other things. You simply cannot object to the science that contradicts Mormon teaching in this area, and leave "science" intact.

Moreover, is there not something innately disturbing about the idea of wholesale acceptance of science, thereby acknowledging science's trackrecord of trustworthiness and reliability, but then objecting to the scientific claims that just happen to contradict one's religious beliefs? Should it not require some really powerful evidence to contradict the power of science's track record? Should this reliability, except in the specific cases of contradiction of one's religious belief, not serve as a powerful red flag that there may well be some "reality" problems with one's religious belief?

I believe that Bushman's treatment of science, and it's conflicts with Mormon teaching, really ignore and/or gloss over the very serious problems.

Mormon teaching, in the absence of good scientific education, tends to promote the kind of ignorant zealotry of members such as the missionary in my ward who argued with me just a few weeks ago that Adam really was the first homo sapiens, that nothing on Earth ever died until Adam fell just a few thousand years ago, and that the entire Earth really was flooded a few thousand years ago, and that homo sapiens (and all other animal species) would have gone extinct were it not for a few souls saved from this flood by building a giant wooden boat. And he's not the only one. Mormon teaching, in the absence of a good scientific education, produces Prophets, Seers, and Revelators like the one who wrote "Man, His Origin and Destiny."

A good scientific education, however, produces Mormons who inevitably disclaim former Mormon prophets' teachings, who reinterpret what was originally conceived of and taught as literal history as merely metaphor, or who water down or dilute the claims to the point where they become untestable. This is the trend I was speaking of in my earlier post. Where scientific education is good, science is on the ascendancy at the expense of a decline in religious claims and beliefs. Where scientific education is bad, religious zealotry is exposed to the light of day.

How much can the foundation and teachings of Mormonism be eroded before the edifice itself is imperiled? That is a serious question, and one which I don't think Bushman has really approached. Perhaps, as a historian and not a scientist, he's simply not prepared to approach it. But, as a historian, I think it's something he ought to be well-positioned to observe in our collective past. I'd really love to see a thorough treatment of that history by him.

[_rocket]

Mormon objections to science are all particular, not general. The scientific enterprise as a whole is never discredited, only its errors in particular realms where it contradicts Mormon belief.

This is a massive overstatement. The statement may be true as to certain arch-conservative general authorities, but not to any church pronouncement accepted by the body of the saints.

Here is an example. "There was no death on Earth before the Fall of Adam." This is scientifically contradicted by enormous mountains of evidence of various natures, all intertwined together and mutually supported by various branches of science.

That assumes too much about Mormon theology. Does the word "death" refer to death of any living protoplasm, or to a specific race of man?

Was Adam a real person, or is his story an allegory? Certainly, if all one had to go on was the temple endowment, one could easily conclude it is an allegory.

When was the Fall? Is it timed by Ussher's chronology of the Bible, or is there a lot of allegorical timing thrown into the chronology such that the Fall could have been eons ago? And, is the fall allegorical?

Are we to trust a theology which depends upon allegory? After all, allegory is the essential basis of christianity, Islam and many other faiths.

Why must a "true" theology be founded on allegory?

Is our understanding of an allegory jeopardized because some "prophet" (i.e., any member of the Quorum of the 12) has a different view? When the Old Testament prophets of old made mistakes, and they are aplenty and well documented, are we to throw out their teachings?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

You crazy Mormons with your fine print!

for shades: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[_Daniel Peterson]

He seems to be setting up an elaborate strawman.

You won't be surprised to discover that I disagree.

The thornier problem, I believe, is that science has brought forth evidence that contradicts the worldview set up by Mormon scriptures, doctrine, and teachings.

In some ways, particularly in those that I personally regard as peripheral. Not in other ways, that I regard as essential.

the capabilities of science to make reliable and trustworthy claims based on the available evidence have skyrocketed, and improved radically. There is a trend here, one of progress, improvement, and increasing reliability.

True. This is the overall trend of the past three to four hundred years, and especially, perhaps, of the past century.

In the Mormon church, exactly the opposite has been experienced.

I disagree.

I see a tendency toward reining in speculation and refining our sense of what has really been revealed and what has not.

So, we have an ascending science, showing a marked trend toward greater reliability, greater precision, and a wider body of knowledge. At the same time we have religious claims and teachings within Mormonism on the retreat, with an outright cessation of willingness to make claims, and relentless retreat from the teachings and claims of former leaders.

I don't see it that way.

It is the outright retreat from previously-held and previously-taught matters in the face of contradictory evidence from science, that most threatens the church.

I don't find it threatening at all to adjust one's presuppositions in accordance with better science, more rigorous scholarship, and clearer thinking.

Just so you know, though you'll reject our claim, apologists of my type (and scholars of my type even they're not doing apologetics) believe that, when they're not simply defending or explicating, they're carefully sifting what is genuine revelation from what is cultural baggage, assumption, and misreading. We don't see it in any way as a retreat, but, rather, as an advance.

And though the apologetic practice of disclaiming former teachings as fallible human opinion, "adjusting one's paradigm", redefining the teachings from historical accounts to metaphorical parables, and the like, may seem to rescue the testimonies of some members today, it does so at the cost of removing many of the kinds of things that bring and bind members together. These include a sense of common cause against the outside world, "enemies" that are to be rallied against, a sense of uniqueness and "specialness" in possessing secret knowledge that everyone else doesn't have, and belief that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are being lead and taught, in person, by the Creator of the Universe.

Oddly, though, I believe in all of those things. So, I'm quite confident, do my apologist friends.

Mormon apologetics are inevitably eroding the foundation of Mormonism, the substance of Mormonism, and the differentiating, unique beliefs of Mormonism.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I absolutely glory in those distinctives, and I believe in them wholeheartedly. Moreover, I believe that God appeared to Joseph Smith, that Moroni led Joseph Smith to real, tangible plates, that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, that real priesthood authority was restored by real messengers, and etc. Certainly, on your account, I ought to be pretty far down the road of the metaphorical Mormonism that you predict. Yet I'm not at all.

They are thus, IMHO, diluting the future ability of the church to captivate and hold together the church.

We shall see.

And this is all in response to the growing contradiction of historical Mormon teachings and beliefs by science.

Something that, by and large, I don't really see.

Discrediting science only when it contradicts Mormon belief is an oxymoron.

How do you define oxymoron?

Here is an example. "There was no death on Earth before the Fall of Adam." This is scientifically contradicted by enormous mountains of evidence of various natures, all intertwined together and mutually supported by various branches of science.

I agree. And I'm untroubled about it.

Moreover, is there not something innately disturbing about the idea of wholesale acceptance of science, thereby acknowledging science's trackrecord of trustworthiness and reliability, but then objecting to the scientific claims that just happen to contradict one's religious beliefs?

I see nothing inherently contradictory about respecting science as a whole yet refusing to genuflect before this or that article of current scientific consensus. Science has proven wrong on fundamental points before (e.g., with regard to the universal ether, continental drift, the cause of peptic ulcers, steady-state cosmology, and etc.), and will certainly do so again.

Should it not require some really powerful evidence to contradict the power of science's track record? Should this reliability, except in the specific cases of contradiction of one's religious belief, not serve as a powerful red flag that there may well be some "reality" problems with one's religious belief?

Sure! Which is why intelligent believers always try to harmonize what they believe with the best scholarship and science they know. Yet you fault us for doing so.

This is the trend I was speaking of in my earlier post. Where scientific education is good, science is on the ascendancy at the expense of a decline in religious claims and beliefs.

I haven't seen this happening in my own case, nor in the cases of my friends.

How much can the foundation and teachings of Mormonism be eroded before the edifice itself is imperiled?

I don't think that the foundations have been eroded at all.

How much can inessentials be abandoned before essentials are surrendered? As long as what is being abandoned is inessential, the process can go on indefinitely.

That is a serious question, and one which I don't think Bushman has really approached. Perhaps, as a historian and not a scientist, he's simply not prepared to approach it.

Perhaps, like me, he doesn't see the foundations of the faith being eroded.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith and early Mormons grew up in a culture that was biblicistic and literalistic, and that much of the biblicism is unsustainable. I'm happy, therefore, that it's being scraped away. And I'm happy to participate in the scraping. What's left, in my opinion, will be solid, and strong, and more pure. And it will include all of the fundamentals -- faith, hope, repentance, baptism, atonement, revelation, pre-existence, life after death, resurrection, exaltation, etc. -- that, to me, represent the exhilaration of Mormonism.

[_Sethbag]

Mormon objections to science are all particular, not general. The scientific enterprise as a whole is never discredited, only its errors in particular realms where it contradicts Mormon belief.

This is a massive overstatement. The statement may be true as to certain arch-conservative general authorities, but not to any church pronouncement accepted by the body of the saints.

Sorry, you'll have to take that up with Bushman, since the quote you're objecting to was copied and pasted from his article - not written by me. What I'm still trying to figure out is whether or not you knew that, or whether you thought you were actually responding in this way to me.

Here is an example. "There was no death on Earth before the Fall of Adam." This is scientifically contradicted by enormous mountains of evidence of various natures, all intertwined together and mutually supported by various branches of science.

That assumes too much about Mormon theology. Does the word "death" refer to death of any living protoplasm, or to a specific race of man?

Bob, unless you wish to argue that Mormon prophets are always speaking in code, such that their words could mean literally anything, I'm not going to parse words with you, trying in that Clintonesque way to establish what the meaning of is is.

I will offer, and I'm sure you've seen this before, the Bible Dictionary article on the Fall of Adam, which I believe adequately lays out the meaning of "death" in the context of Adam and the Fall that the LDS Church Correlation Committee deems appropriate for public consumption. Barring any claims that this entry is actually written in code, I think this answers your question sufficiently.

Was Adam a real person, or is his story an allegory? Certainly, if all one had to go on was the temple endowment, one could easily conclude it is an allegory.

I don't see how you can conclude that. The only part of the endowment that I remember being explained as being figurative was the part where God causes a deep sleep to overcome Adam, and for a rib to be taken from his side and Eve created from it. That Adam and Eve actually existed, however, is nowhere inferred to be anything but literal.

Not to mention, if Adam was supposed to be merely figurative, what did Joseph Smith mean when he taught about that great convocation at Adam Ondi Ahman in the last days to be presided over by Adam?

At any rate, if Adam wasn't real, then he never "fell", which undercuts the whole rationale for the atonement.

First off,
When was the Fall? Is it timed by Ussher's chronology of the Bible, or is there a lot of allegorical timing thrown into the chronology such that the Fall could have been eons ago? And, is the fall allegorical?

None of this matters so long as Adam "fell" as the first homo sapien. Mountains of evidence place the emergence of homo sapiens at no further back than maybe 100k - 200k years ago, but even if we stretched it all the way back to 4 or 6 million years ago when our line branched off from that of our closest primate cousins, there still is the nasty problem of all the evidence of living and dying life forms on Earth going back over a billion years prior to that. You can have all the eons you want, but Adam the ur-homo sapien was not the first living thing to become subject to death on planet Earth.

Are we to trust a theology which depends upon allegory? After all, allegory is the essential basis of christianity, Islam and many other faiths.

No, but that's just my opinion. You asked.

Why must a "true" theology be founded on allegory?

Why indeed? Perhaps you are too wise to be understood, because you seem to have lost me here.

Is our understanding of an allegory jeopardized because some "prophet" (i.e., any member of the Quorum of the 12) has a different view? When the Old Testament prophets of old made mistakes, and they are aplenty and well documented, are we to throw out their teachings?

The credibility of any person who stands up and represents to the world that they have been deputized by the Creator of the Universe to represent his will and his desires and teachings to the rest of us, must inevitably be scrutinized and differentiated from these same kinds of claims made by manifest frauds and kooks over the ages. Any rational human being should expect such scrutiny. When the claims of said individual or individuals are found to be without merit, it is only logical that rational human beings can and will judge that person likely also to be a fraud or a kook, cast from the same mold as the thousands of other such.

When the claims that can be tested are found to be false, why should a person go on to believe the claims from that same individual that cannot be tested? Where is the credibility? Where is the reliability? Where is the trustworthiness?

For the record, I find the prophets of the Old Testament to be just as non-credible, untrustworthy, and unreliable in their claims as anyone else, and more abominable than some. The Old Testament is, in my view, to be regarded as a particularly Israelite evolution of the wider regional historical and religious mythology of the time period, mixed with a little local history and local mythology. No more than that.

[_Sethbag]

Daniel, thanks for your reply. I wish to reply, but I will reply to a subset of your post, and let the remainder stand as-is. I believe you and I both expressed ourselves fairly clearly, and the juxtaposition of our stated opinions is a pretty good record of the state of our agreement or disagreement on these things.

The thornier problem, I believe, is that science has brought forth evidence that contradicts the worldview set up by Mormon scriptures, doctrine, and teachings.

In some ways, particularly in those that I personally regard as peripheral. Not in other ways, that I regard as essential.

The things you regard as essential are revealed to the rest of us by the same people who revealed the things you regard as peripheral. In my view, the reliability of the essential things must suffer under the cloud of doubt and suspicion created by the peripheral things these people got wrong.

the capabilities of science to make reliable and trustworthy claims based on the available evidence have skyrocketed, and improved radically. There is a trend here, one of progress, improvement, and increasing reliability.

True. This is the overall trend of the past three to four hundred years, and especially, perhaps, of the past century.

In the Mormon church, exactly the opposite has been experienced.

I disagree.

I see a tendency toward reining in speculation and refining our sense of what has really been revealed and what has not.

The corollary to this argument is that the start of the Mormon church, and the career of its founding Prophet and early leaders and successors, was rife with speculation, and plagued by the inability of its early members, and the leadership itself, to tell the difference. That thought ought to be seriously disturbing to anyone, but it's your call.

Frankly, I think that the refinement of our sense of what is revealed and what is not is quite a bit easier than it seems to have been for the church over the last 179 years, or for you in your life. I'll bet you can figure out how I mean that.

It is the outright retreat from previously-held and previously-taught matters in the face of contradictory evidence from science, that most threatens the church.

I don't find it threatening at all to adjust one's presuppositions in accordance with better science, more rigorous scholarship, and clearer thinking.

I don't either, when the matter under discussion is acknowledged to be the product of the human mind. Unfortunately, most religions, and Mormonism in particular, have been fond of claiming that the people who founded their particular belief systems had their teachings directly from the Creator of the Universe. At some point the retreat from previously-held teachings in the face of contradictory science has got to put up red flags in our minds.

At least I think so. You're apparently fine with people who stood up and claimed to have been deputized by the Creator of the Universe to teach His Truth to the rest of us being proven wrong in some of their claims, and still regarding them as credible and reliable in the things they claim which cannot be tested.

Just so you know, though you'll reject our claim, apologists of my type (and scholars of my type even they're not doing apologetics) believe that, when they're not simply defending or explicating, they're carefully sifting what is genuine revelation from what is cultural baggage, assumption, and misreading. We don't see it in any way as a retreat, but, rather, as an advance.

I performed a sifting process too, and regarded the conclusion that it was all the product of the human mind, and not the revelations of the Universe's Creator to mankind. I, too, regarded that realization as a very great personal advance.

I would urge you to continue with the advancement, to its inevitable conclusion.

Also, I must throw this in here: I think it's inevitable that apologists consider their work an advance. The alternative is that they think it is some kind of retreat, and it's likely, IMHO, that such people would eventually leave the church. For apologists, "it's an advance" is necessarily the "fittest" meme consistent with continued faith in the church, and thus it survives, and thrives, in that population.

Mormon apologetics are inevitably eroding the foundation of Mormonism, the substance of Mormonism, and the differentiating, unique beliefs of Mormonism.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I absolutely glory in those distinctives, and I believe in them wholeheartedly. Moreover, I believe that God appeared to Joseph Smith, that Moroni led Joseph Smith to real, tangible plates, that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, that real priesthood authority was restored by real messengers, and etc. Certainly, on your account, I ought to be pretty far down the road of the metaphorical Mormonism that you predict. Yet I'm not at all.

I believe you. You are still, however, undoubtedly at odds with the current state of publicly-taught and published church teachings on probably many matters, and clearly on a different end of the spectrum as Elder WhatsHisFace, who was arguing the literalist position with me in my livingroom a few weeks ago. And I've met a great many just like him in my day.

So long as loyalty to the tribe is the paramount virtue a member will judge another member by, I think you're doing just fine. In fact, you're probably doing wonders. I think, as the church is eventually dragged from the current "chapel" versions of various beliefs to the "internet" versions of the apologists, the cohesion and tribal loyalty will be under increased strain.

At least it was with me, and I finally "snapped" and went all the way in my judgment of various teachings as the product of the human mind.

Discrediting science only when it contradicts Mormon belief is an oxymoron.

How do you define oxymoron?

It's possible, even likely, that I chose the word poorly. Perhaps I should have used "impossibility" instead. I don't think it's possible that one can support science, disclaiming it only where it contradicts Mormon church teachings. To do so would unravel it all, and thus not really be supporting science in the first place.

Here is an example. "There was no death on Earth before the Fall of Adam." This is scientifically contradicted by enormous mountains of evidence of various natures, all intertwined together and mutually supported by various branches of science.

I agree. And I'm untroubled about it.

I claimed not to be troubled by it for many years. But really, in my heart of hearts, I was indeed troubled by it, and though it took decades to really come to a head, it did serve as a chink in the armor of my faith that finally allowed its total failure. (along with other scientifically-contradicted teachings)

Should it not require some really powerful evidence to contradict the power of science's track record? Should this reliability, except in the specific cases of contradiction of one's religious belief, not serve as a powerful red flag that there may well be some "reality" problems with one's religious belief?

Sure! Which is why intelligent believers always try to harmonize what they believe with the best scholarship and science they know. Yet you fault us for doing so.

Not really. What I fault you for doing is trimming off only those beliefs that are actually contradicted by science, thus leaving the rest of the belief system not only intact, but indeed untestable at all. I think there are lots of things in Mormon teachings that should serve as evidence to a thoughtful person that the belief system is an invention of man. Trying to think one's way around these problems is, I think, missing the point.

This is the trend I was speaking of in my earlier post. Where scientific education is good, science is on the ascendancy at the expense of a decline in religious claims and beliefs.

I haven't seen this happening in my own case, nor in the cases of my friends.

From my vantage point, I definitely see it in the juxtaposition of the beliefs of Elder WhatsHisFace (and plenty of Mormon friends and relatives of mine), with the beliefs of people such as yourself.

How much can the foundation and teachings of Mormonism be eroded before the edifice itself is imperiled?

I don't think that the foundations have been eroded at all.

I, and probably a great many former believers, would obviously disagree with you. I didn't abandon the faith lightly, nor to sin, nor because I "couldn't hack it as a Mormon", or whatever. I would not expect to find agreement with you or other believers on this issue, or else you'd probably have joined me and the other former believers by now, on this side of the aisle.

How much can inessentials be abandoned before essentials are surrendered? As long as what is being abandoned is inessential, the process can go on indefinitely.

It didn't go on indefinitely with me, once I realized that the games we play with the nonessentials actually generalizes out pretty well to the essentials too.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith and early Mormons grew up in a culture that was biblicistic and literalistic, and that much of the biblicism is unsustainable. I'm happy, therefore, that it's being scraped away.

As am I. You stop scraping too soon, I find.

And I'm happy to participate in the scraping. What's left, in my opinion, will be solid, and strong, and more pure. And it will include all of the fundamentals -- faith, hope, repentance, baptism, atonement, revelation, pre-existence, life after death, resurrection, exaltation, etc. -- that, to me, represent the exhilaration of Mormonism.

I think that by the time the apologists are through with it, Mormonism will be a dried-out, nearly-empty husk, a shadow of its former glory. You want to try "exhilaration of Mormonism", try the millenial fever of pre-1838 Missouri War Mormonism. Try the Council of Fifty crowning Joseph Smith King of the world, in anticipation of the imminent return to earth of Jesus Christ. Try the first time Joseph explained to a young woman how God wanted him to marry her secretly and have sex with him, and she believed him. Now that's exhilaration. Faith, repentance, and the notion of some ill-defined future exhaltation, without the clarity of former church leader's teachings on the subject, cannot possibly hold a candle to that.

Anyhow, I appreciate the exchange of views in a civil manner between us, and I feel like I understand your point of view better, and I think that you probably understand better where I'm coming from, whether you agree with me or not.

[_Analytics]

In some ways, particularly in those that I personally regard as peripheral. Not in other ways, that I regard as essential.

The things you regard as essential are revealed to the rest of us by the same people who revealed the things you regard as peripheral. In my view, the reliability of the essential things must suffer under the cloud of doubt and suspicion created by the peripheral things these people got wrong.

The apostle Bruce R. McConkie called the Creation, Fall, and Atonement, the Three Pillars of Eternity.

I’d love to see a conversation between Elder McConkie and Professor Peterson about whether or not the specific, literal claims made about these doctrines by multiple prophets are peripheral.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The apostle Bruce R. McConkie called the Creation, Fall, and Atonement, the Three Pillars of Eternity.

I’d love to see a conversation between Elder McConkie and Professor Peterson about whether or not the specific, literal claims made about these doctrines by multiple prophets are peripheral.

What have I said, anywhere, ever, that casts any doubt whatsoever upon the doctrine of the Atonement?

What have I said, anywhere, ever, that casts any doubt whatsoever on the doctrine of Creation?

Hint: Nothing.

Your only hope of painting me as an apostate is to suggest that I disbelieve in the doctrine of the Fall.

But I don't.

I have no doubt at all that Elder McConkie understood it somewhat differently than I do, but I believe in it just as certainly as he did. In fact, I agree with G. K. Chesterton, who famously remarked that the doctrine of the Fall is the only Christian doctrine that is empirically verifiable; we observe it every day.

The things you regard as essential are revealed to the rest of us by the same people who revealed the things you regard as peripheral.

They are given by the same people, but it's usually fairly easy, in my experience, to distinguish what has been revealed (in the sense of propositional divine revelation) from what has not been revealed in that sense.

In my view, the reliability of the essential things must suffer under the cloud of doubt and suspicion created by the peripheral things these people got wrong.

I don't disagree. In this life, as Paul observed, we see through a glass, darkly. And, very strikingly, he expressly included prophets and prophecies under that judgment. This is the Mormon doctrine of "the veil."

At some point the retreat from previously-held teachings in the face of contradictory science has got to put up red flags in our minds.

I grant the general principle. I don't grant that we've reached that point in Mormonism.

At least I think so. You're apparently fine with people who stood up and claimed to have been deputized by the Creator of the Universe to teach His Truth to the rest of us being proven wrong in some of their claims, and still regarding them as credible and reliable in the things they claim which cannot be tested.

I'm fine with sticking to what seems to have been revealed and feeling free to jettison anything else. I would regard any other stance as insane.

I would urge you to continue with the advancement, to its inevitable conclusion.

Hegel and Marx, too, saw the march of the World Spirit or of History as "inevitable." I myself am a radical believer in freedom.

Also, I must throw this in here: I think it's inevitable that apologists consider their work an advance. The alternative is that they think it is some kind of retreat, and it's likely, IMHO, that such people would eventually leave the church. For apologists, "it's an advance" is necessarily the "fittest" meme consistent with continued faith in the church, and thus it survives, and thrives, in that population.

Which, if you choose to take it in a reductionistic sense, explains you just as well as it explains me.

I believe you. You are still, however, undoubtedly at odds with the current state of publicly-taught and published church teachings on probably many matters,

I'm as orthodox as the day is long, and, so far as I can tell, in perfect accord with the Brethren.

and clearly on a different end of the spectrum as Elder WhatsHisFace, who was arguing the literalist position with me in my livingroom a few weeks ago.

I probably am elsewhere on the spectrum than he is. I'm pretty near where people like Elder Oaks and Elder Holland are. And I'm comfortable with that.

And I've met a great many just like him in my day.

So have I.

So long as loyalty to the tribe is the paramount virtue a member will judge another member by, I think you're doing just fine. In fact, you're probably doing wonders. I think, as the church is eventually dragged from the current "chapel" versions of various beliefs to the "internet" versions of the apologists, the cohesion and tribal loyalty will be under increased strain.

Time will tell.

I see no evidence that you're right.

I look around among the leading "apologists" and see absolutely devoted bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and the like. I don't see reduced commitment.

I don't think that the foundations have been eroded at all.

I, and probably a great many former believers, would obviously disagree with you.

I'll go further: I think the foundations are better established now than they have ever been.

I've always been struck by the claim, advanced by your camp, that we're in retreat. I can assure you that nobody I know of sees it that way. Quite the opposite. There's a palpable sense of elation. We think the evidence is trending in our favor.

Anyhow, I appreciate the exchange of views in a civil manner between us, and I feel like I understand your point of view better, and I think that you probably understand better where I'm coming from, whether you agree with me or not.

You've missed a real opportunity in this thread to call me "Danny-Boy," lament my execrable taste in pasta, ridicule my personal appearance, accuse me of anti-Semitism, charge me with leading a campaign to destroy the lives of dissidents, threaten to sue me, and ponder the sheer corruption of my personal finances. If you study the contributions of certain others here, they'll show you how it's done.

[_Inconceivable]

Sethbag,

Simple yet brilliant description of the church's underlying state of affairs and that of it's apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sethbag,

Simple yet brilliant description of the church's underlying state of affairs and that of it's apologists.

We should take Inconceivable's endorsement for what it's worth.

If you had posted your comments in certain other places, and I had responded, I would be receiving the kudos.