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.
Maksutov wrote: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."
That's a fascinating quote, maksutov, thank you for the reference! Saying intellectuals who feel repressed must resolve the issue by making a break for the open sea is evocative on so many levels.
Even more relevant now is this phrase; to me it is the true heart of Mulder's exposition:
History is hard on Mormonism because Mormonism stakes so much on history, and if the evidence fails... Mormonism faces a serious dilemma.
richardMdBorn wrote:One can argue about how fast Old Testament Judaism progressed to henotheism and monotheism. But it's clear that was the overall trend. Mormonism reverses that and claims that polytheism was the orthodox position. I don't think that fits in with any version of Christianity (even give the LDS claims about the executive order teaching on Theosis/Deification).
I'm speaking at a symposium at Harvard next week so I won't be posting much in the near future.
Enjoy Harvard. I don't agree with much of anything you wrote in that response.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Years ago I had an exchange with Wesley P Walters over Nibley's article in the journa Church History on the passing of the primitive church. He found many sources on early church history (church fathers) were misused as well as some of the New Testament scriptures he used. I think I have the letters scanned and will send u a copy if u desire.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
richardMdBorn wrote:One can argue about how fast Old Testament Judaism progressed to henotheism and monotheism. But it's clear that was the overall trend. Mormonism reverses that and claims that polytheism was the orthodox position. I don't think that fits in with any version of Christianity (even give the LDS claims about the executive order teaching on Theosis/Deification).
I'm speaking at a symposium at Harvard next week so I won't be posting much in the near future.
Enjoy Harvard. I don't agree with much of anything you wrote in that response.
Sometimes I'm happy I still lurk...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Maksutov wrote: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."
richardMdBorn wrote:One can argue about how fast Old Testament Judaism progressed to henotheism and monotheism. But it's clear that was the overall trend. Mormonism reverses that and claims that polytheism was the orthodox position. I don't think that fits in with any version of Christianity (even give the LDS claims about the executive order teaching on Theosis/Deification).
I'm speaking at a symposium at Harvard next week so I won't be posting much in the near future.
Enjoy Harvard. I don't agree with much of anything you wrote in that response.
Hi Kish,
Do you disagree with my statement that, "One can argue about how fast Old Testament Judaism progressed to henotheism and monotheism. But it's clear that was the overall trend." Do you think that by circa 400 BC, Judaism was basically monotheistic. If not, what was it?
Do you disagree with my statement that, "Mormonism reverses that and claims that polytheism was the orthodox position." What do you think about Joseph Smith's June 16, 1844 sermon. It appears to me to be teaching polytheism. Since Mormonism teaches that it is the restoration of pre-apostate Christianity, pre-apostate Christianity must have been polytheistic. Or do you think that the June, 1844 sermon does not reflect the official LDS teaching.
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???
Markk, I am not joining a political party or a fan club. I use my own knowledge and exercise my own judgment as I interact with these things. If it is important to you to make the right gang signs at all times, bully for you, but I chose a long time ago not to worry about fitting in to that degree. I suppose the cost is that everyone is bound to think I am a little "up in the night," but, hey, I gotta be me.
Then in a discussion about Nibley...why did you choose to inject my faith? Think about it/
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Maksutov wrote: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."
