John Gee claims in his new book intro that there's no need for his new book

[_Lemmie]

... But, if you are surprised that "a fellow academic" would not agree with your reading of Gee, I thought it would be helpful to remind you of some things about me that you seem to have forgotten.

Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:

I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.

[_Kishkumen]

Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:

I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.

Oh my. Now we are opening up a whole new can of worms. Objective? I hope we hold such an aspiration and honestly try to live up to it. Do we succeed? Questionable. I want to see Ben Park in his new history of Nauvoo as admirably succeeding as much as one may be able, when I get around to reading it.

But no, I never claimed that being passionate and striving for objectivity are mutually exclusive places/processes to be in. What is under discussion, at least in my view, is about so much more than having passion versus striving for objectivity.

[_Lemmie]

Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:

I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.

Oh my. Now we are opening up a whole new can of worms. Objective? I hope we hold such an aspiration and honestly try to live up to it. Do we succeed? Questionable. I want to see Ben Park in his new history of Nauvoo as admirably succeeding as much as one may be able, when I get around to reading it.

But no, I never claimed that being passionate and striving for objectivity are mutually exclusive places/processes to be in. What is under discussion, at least in my view, is about so much more than having passion versus striving for objectivity.

Thank you for the clarification! I’m relieved to see it.

[_mentalgymnast]

I disagree with John Gee about many things, but I do recall what it was like to tie spiritual convictions and knowledge, and the loss of spiritual convictions to the loss of that knowledge. I can see how easy it would be within that paradigm to conclude that a person who left the LDS Church either did not know what the person needed to know or somehow forgot what was known.

Hi Kishkumen, your honesty is refreshing. I enjoyed your post to Lemmie. One question. How and when did you determine that spiritual knowledge was not to be prioritized alongside with knowledge? And by knowledge are we to assume that you are referring to purely secular knowledge? I find it interesting that at one time in your life apparently the two ways of knowing dovetailed each other...and then they didn’t.

Why?

So could we safely assume that secular...or so called factual knowledge...superseded spiritual knowledge? I find it interesting that you end your first sentence with the words “that knowledge”. What exactly are you referring to?

If this is considered a derail, I apologize. I am interested in your answer though. Another thread if appropriate? Or just a quicky answer without going off on a complete derail.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

Hi Kishkumen, your honesty is refreshing. I enjoyed your post to Lemmie. One question. How and when did you determine that spiritual knowledge was not to be prioritized alongside with knowledge? And by knowledge are we to assume that you are referring to purely secular knowledge? I find it interesting that at one time in your life apparently the two ways of knowing dovetailed each other...and then they didn’t.

Why?

So could we safely assume that secular...or so called factual knowledge...superseded spiritual knowledge? I find it interesting that you end your first sentence with the words “that knowledge”. What exactly are you referring to?

If this is considered a derail, I apologize. I am interested in your answer though. Another thread if appropriate? Or just a quicky answer without going off on a complete derail.

Regards,
MG

Hello, MG. I believe that there are different kinds of knowledge and knowing, yes. I do not reject spiritual experiences as a kind of knowledge. That said, I am not really certain of how to contextualize or reconcile different kinds of knowledge. I also think it can be dangerous to extrapolate in certain ways based on spiritual knowledge. I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts, for example. If I find my spiritual life is enriched by the Book of Mormon, that does not mean it is an ancient text. The Bible does not prove the resurrection of Jesus. I do not feel obligated to obey President Nelson because I once prayed about the Book of Mormon and got an affirmative answer. Just because a Church tells me to follow a certain line of reasoning following a spiritual experience does not mean the line of reasoning is sound.

I hope that helps. Maybe another thread will help me complete the process of destroying any credibility I imagined having to everyone’s satisfaction, including my own.

[_Gadianton]

I think if we were going to make a distinction between spiritual "knowledge" and "factual" knowledge, then we'd need to steer clear of the apologist shell game that simply uses notions of spirituality to defend against uncomfortable facts, or to just make up facts whole cloth. I think the key to any kind of authentic spiritual knowledge, to the extent that such a thing could actually be, is that spiritual knowledge must not be propositional. Now, that might wipe out nearly everything Mormons believe about spirituality because for Mormons, propositions such as the existence of God or Satan or the truth of the Book of Mormon, often as literal history, actually aren't suppositions of any different kind than statements about rain and snow. There really is no distinction between "spiritual knowledge" and "factual knowledge" if spiritual knowledge is merely a list of empirical claims except that they benefit some special narrative or power structure, while having no credible evidence. And I must point out, If the evidence were credible, then apologists wouldn't jump out of their seat to suppose some knew kind of knowledge such as "spiritual knowledge" that is exactly like ordinary knowledge except the believer gets to be right about whatever he wants by some invented criteria. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were really believed that Mormon propositions are credible.

The holy ghost can "testify" to the truth of all things, right? And so an angel could come down from heaven and explain how light works while the Holy Ghost gives you a good feeling, and bam, you now know how light works in exactly the same way as you know Nephi built a ship. So what's the difference between "factual" and "spiritual" knowledge?

rev: " I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts,"

Yes, that silliness must be flushed before any progress could be made to legitimize "spirituality" at all.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think if we were going to make a distinction between spiritual "knowledge" and "factual" knowledge, then we'd need to steer clear of the apologist shell game that simply uses notions of spirituality to defend against uncomfortable facts, or to just make up facts whole cloth. I think the key to any kind of authentic spiritual knowledge, to the extent that such a thing could actually be, is that spiritual knowledge must not be propositional. Now, that might wipe out nearly everything Mormons believe about spirituality because for Mormons, propositions such as the existence of God or Satan or the truth of the Book of Mormon, often as literal history, actually aren't suppositions of any different kind than statements about rain and snow. There really is no distinction between "spiritual knowledge" and "factual knowledge" if spiritual knowledge is merely a list of empirical claims except that they benefit some special narrative or power structure, while having no credible evidence. And I must point out, If the evidence were credible, then apologists wouldn't jump out of their seat to suppose some knew kind of knowledge such as "spiritual knowledge" that is exactly like ordinary knowledge except the believer gets to be right about whatever he wants by some invented criteria. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were really believed that Mormon propositions are credible.

The holy ghost can "testify" to the truth of all things, right? And so an angel could come down from heaven and explain how light works while the Holy Ghost gives you a good feeling, and bam, you now know how light works in exactly the same way as you know Nephi built a ship. So what's the difference between "factual" and "spiritual" knowledge?

rev: " I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts,"

Yes, that silliness must be flushed before any progress could be made to legitimize "spirituality" at all.

Spiritual knowledge cannot be handed to you on a silver platter.

Alma 32

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

The personal pronoun referencing first person you is found 25 times, to my count, in a short span of words. It’s not infrequently that critics are observed saying, in one form or another, “Show me a sign or I will not believe.”

Good luck taking that approach. You have to receive your own spiritual witness. And without the propositional position of seeking and/or learning about a personal God how in the world would you ever expect to progress, or even begin, to obtain this spiritual knowledge/growth that Alma describes?

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

I remember when this was a thread about John Gee's book...

[_Gadianton]

MG "The personal pronoun referencing first person you is found 25 times, to my count, in a short span of words. It’s not infrequently that critics are observed saying, in one form or another, “Show me a sign or I will not believe.”

lol. Your reading comprehension is as bad as always if you thought my post had anything to do with sign-seeking.

[_kairos]

Bishop: Priest Jones you say that you are masturbating 8 times a day and you feel distant to the church and barely have a testimony?

Priest Jones: well i am down from 10 times a day-it's just hard to keep up and i have little time for reading the Book of Mormon or praying so yeah my testimony is in the dumpster-what can i do?

Bisbop: Well i applaud your effort to get the number to 8- remember Joseph Smith was not a masturbater at all once he found he could bang 14 year olds and just about any other female he promised celestial glory to- have you tried that?

Priest: No but i would like a couple of names of the girls you think might be plowable (Samson used that word).

Bishop: Sure i have a few names- let's you try to keep the sex down a little till you go on your mission-by the way you can balance fornication and masturbation can't you?

Priest: i feel my testimony is getting stronger because of your help Bishop!