Blixa wrote:Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."
I fear that a lot of people don't understand that history is not usually replaced with a new version. Sure there are times when new information comes along that creates an entirely new narrative, but usually people just reinterpret existing facts or add to the narrative. A lot of the people at MAD seem to think that the "new" history they're waiting for is like a total software replacement; History 2.0 that totally replaces Mormon history 1.0 rather than expansion packs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.
Maybe someday they'll come to grips with the reality that the Mormon church's history (and North American history in regards to the B. of Mormon) is set and can't be replaced. Things will only get worse for Mormon history if science proves Joseph Smith fathered children on his polygamous wives or some other damning information comes to light.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Bond James Bond wrote:I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.
Ironically, I think the nastiness comes from insecurity. The "nice" folks are comfortable acknowledging their doubts and struggles; the ones who are terrified that they might be wrong are those who most stridently attack the questioning or the unbelieving.
Bond James Bond wrote:I didn't want to say "the ever stupid" Deborah, but "malicious" applies to Deborah and a host of other people over there. It's amazing to me that the most "pure and true believers" almost always have a set of hidden claws ready to sink into someone who shows any weakness or crisis of faith. Seems the truly pious (perhaps I mean the nice people) have a bit of doubt to keep them humble, like Steuss, consig, and others.
Ironically, I think the nastiness comes from insecurity. The "nice" folks are comfortable acknowledging their doubts and struggles; the ones who are terrified that they might be wrong are those who most stridently attack the questioning or the unbelieving.
+1. An attack reflex almost where if they coat themselves in a teflon style defense nothing bad can stick to them because they don't allow any ideas contrary the established dogma to even penetrate the armor. (Of course nothing good a critic might say can stick either i.e. empathy for conflicted believers).
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Blixa wrote:Yeah, this one is pretty sad. Especially at this point when the rising generation of people in Mormon Studies have thrown off apologia and are producing excellent and challenging scholarship. I suspect the problem here is that "history" = "old," and thus if you are interested in it you're de facto missing "the new."
I fear that a lot of people don't understand that history is not usually replaced with a new version. Sure there are times when new information comes along that creates an entirely new narrative, but usually people just reinterpret existing facts or add to the narrative. A lot of the people at MAD seem to think that the "new" history they're waiting for is like a total software replacement; History 2.0 that totally replaces Mormon history 1.0 rather than expansion packs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.
Maybe someday they'll come to grips with the reality that the Mormon church's history (and North American history in regards to the B. of Mormon) is set and can't be replaced. Things will only get worse for Mormon history if science proves Joseph Smith fathered children on his polygamous wives or some other damning information comes to light.
Exactly. The narrative will get increasingly refined, but not entirely replaced by an "affirmation" of all truth claims.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
You don’t know pain yet until you’ve been in my shoes. For someone who is a total philosophy nerd, I’ve tried several times to alert the U.N. about the crimes against humanity perpetuated over there under the banner of my beloved discipline.
Stem wrote:I can't get over how hard critics actually have it. I mean I live my religion because of my faith and for some reason they feel the need to criticize my religion based on theoretical, often contrived, arguments. Most the time, it seems its most appropriate to just say "So?" in response. They haven't proven a whole lot in many instances. They seem to pose a possibility and then suggest because they can offer a possibility that means I should not believe. The hill they have to climb, if they really wish to climb it, is far steeper and longer than they anticipated, I think. But then, I'm the dumb one who can't think for himself, or whatever.
Um....
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Stem wrote:I can't get over how hard critics actually have it. I mean I live my religion because of my faith and for some reason they feel the need to criticize my religion based on theoretical, often contrived, arguments. Most the time, it seems its most appropriate to just say "So?" in response. They haven't proven a whole lot in many instances. They seem to pose a possibility and then suggest because they can offer a possibility that means I should not believe. The hill they have to climb, if they really wish to climb it, is far steeper and longer than they anticipated, I think. But then, I'm the dumb one who can't think for himself, or whatever.
Um....
And that is why I am on solid ground in believing that the Republican party platform is the restoration of the true politics that were practiced in the lost city of Atlantis, and which Poseidon has divinely inspired to be brought back in our modern day.
I have yet to see anyone prove a lot to the contrary.
Daniel Peterson: A word of advice, born of long experience: Don't waste your time. George Bernard Shaw's famous witticism is perfectly apropos with regard to the Stalker: "I learned long ago," he quipped, "never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Darth J wrote: And that is why I am on solid ground in believing that the Republican party platform is the restoration of the true politics that were practiced in the lost city of Atlantis, and which Poseidon has divinely inspired to be brought back in our modern day.
I have yet to see anyone prove a lot to the contrary.
Apparently stem didn't learn anything from his time here, except to sort of, in a garbled way, repeat back the criticisms that were made of his "remote possibilities" approach to belief.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.