Lemmie wrote:Markk wrote:Such as? at some point Kish you need to make a decision, right or wrong I made mine...being stuck in limbo defending folks like Nibley???
"make a decision" is an interesting turn of phrase in the context of this thread. To me this has been an informational thread, and I've really appreciated Kishkumen's comments. They are factual, deliberate, unbiased and have illuminated both positive and negative aspects in a neutral context. I know he recently changed his membership status with the LDS organization itself (and discussed it here), but it would be very black and white thinking for me to expect that from now on, that would mean he is required to say only negative things about any LDS topic and/or person. There is no decision, as such, to make when presenting facts, and I don't perceive his factual recollections as a defense of Nibley's religion.
Nibley was a complex man. I always appreciated his political heterodoxy and his apparent disregard for some of the arbitrary norms of Mormon culture. I would hope that I could extend to him the same kind of thoughtful consideration I would B. H. Roberts and James Talmage. I'm reminded of William Mulder's essay on The Problems of the Mormon Intellectual:
"From the point of view of the Church, the intellectual is himself a problem. The Church is fearful that his findings will loosen his loyalties and may influence others to find a basis for their faith which is not simple and old-fashioned enough to be called religious. Work for the dead, the Negro question, the narrow proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom are matters where the Church would prefer not to have sophisticated answers because these might mean radical change. History is hard on Mormonism because Mormonism stakes so much on history, and if the evidence fails-if there really were no gold plates, if Joseph Smith really was more scoundrel than prophet-Mormonism faces a serious dilemma. Mormonism without a Book of Mormon as miracle is like Christianity without the Virgin Birth. But the intellectual may, in fact, provide the mystery religion requires and, with proper encouragement, give Mormonism its Sufis and Vedantists. When Mormonism can embrace both superstition and sophistication in the same fold, the intellectual will have found a productive place and revitalize the professed doctrine of the glory of God as intelligence.
Meanwhile, the Mormon intellectual faces a great test of humility to remain in an organization led by anti-intellectuals. If he is not to lose the name of action, he must, like Hamlet, resolve his dilemma. If to remain within the Church means paralysis of will and denial of the deepest urgings of his thought, he must make a break for the open sea. He leaves one haven, as every institution is a haven. There waits, perhaps, the larger harbor of a more inclusive humanity."
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Pro ... 05-02.html