- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
MormonDiscussion.podbean.com author : Bill Reel
Newest Episode –
http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/2012/09/04/methods-of-the-critic-pt13/ METHODS OF THE CRITIC pt. 1/3
This episode is a little different. This is a three part series where I take the evening program of another church and comment on it. This evening Program is about … duh duh… duhhh the Mormons. The speaker though respectful, gets a lot of information and descriptions of our beliefs wrong so here is my effort to show how one must be careful when hearing someone criticize our faith. I would love Feedback… please let me know. If you loved it or hated it. I was too nice… or too mean. Let me know. Either Comment here or send me a message via the links below.
http://www.facebook.com/LDSLeadership mormondiscussion.podbean.com
Hi Bill, I appreciate your efforts. I listened to much of the first 30 minutes so far, as a side note I found myself pushing the little bar ahead many times to try to get to the meat of the discussion. There were at least 5 minutes in the beginning of the program that you were responding to, the introduction of the guest, plus similar “fluff” that I think could very easily be cut out. If it were me I would jump to the heart of the challenges that you wanted to respond to and go from there.
From the beginning the podcast sounded like one that I would normally look past. As you say it is intended for newer members or those who may be exposed to critical material for the first time. Personally I am more interested in approaches to the questions that I think you would also call challenging. I agree many of the arguments from other Christians are not really material to our faith, and over the years I have grown tired of the same discussions played over and over again.
I do have a thought on your comment about the different accounts of the first vision however. To me this is not one of those easily explainable questions. I am not aware of 7 to 9 meaningful versions of the vision, but I wouldn’t count 2nd or 3rd hand accounts as authentic versions. I think we can base our discussion around the 1832, 1835, and 1838 accounts. When we’re talking about these three we are talking about versions that Joseph Smith did have a significant part in recording, he may not have written all the words himself, but he was active in the process. Of these three accounts we can pull out significant differences, maybe not huge contradictory differences, but as you noted there are differences to discuss. One of the biggest ones is the purpose he gave for going to pray. In the earliest account he was convinced that the true church was not on the earth and he went to pray for forgiveness of his sins and the sins of the world. In the more familiar 1838 account he was wondering which of the existing churches was the right one to join “it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.”
That’s all I have time for right now, I’ll try to finish it later.
As a suggestion for a future podcast I think you should try to get an interview with Don Bradley — and focus on the causes and possible ways to prevent or mitigate the faith crisis wave that is sweeping through the church.
I would love to talk to Don, How would I get a hold of him? He would be an awesome interview on several fronts Journey out then back in, his paper on the kinderhook plates, his thinking through issues….
You could try to friend him on facebook. His profile is http://www.facebook.com/onandagus1 I thought it was okay podcast. I will listen to part 2. I would have liked to hear more commentary…and less sermon.
I thought the treatment and responses you received at MAD were despicable. I guess that is what extreme guardian apologist do when they don’t like the message and don’t have a good counter argument…attack and mock the messenger…in an attempt to discredit his character so folk won’t listen to his message.
“A lot of apostate Bishops on the internet today.” Bash on you because you misspell some words on the bloggernacle? Wow. Wow. What a bunch of a-holes. Really. That is about as ignorant as Wade’s response to my question about tithing transparency which was, “it’s none of your business how the church spends it’s tithing money.”
Bill, Bill, Bill. I’m going to be honest. I think you’re foolish to continue your mission at MAD. That place is a cesspool of hate and intolerance and cultism. It’s bad for your chi.
I have to be one of the few when the next struggler comes through, to let them see there are some who are sensitive to the struggler and his issues. If you followed my podcast thread and Grace thread in the last couple days on MDD, which it seems you have, you can easily pick those out who want to fight rather then help. My problem is I fight back, can’t just take it. They think they are God’s modern danites called to purify the church and do not realize they cause so much pain, hurt, and cause every struggler to feel worse….
I also love when I requote them, and other LDS line up to disagree with them they say “you misrepresented what I was saying” when I posted their whole statement unaltered. That same individual is who brings up my spelling and he has done that before as that seems to how he decides who to take seriously or not. Darn me for being a two finger pluck typer…
regarding my recent podcast you listened too. I too felt there was too much sermon but felt it would not be honest and objective if I picked and choose what the listener heard rather then let them hear his whole program. I didn’t want to be accused of taking him out of context or leaving an important part out.
I think you’ll find more of me talking in the other two parts as he gets into the meat of his issues.
I had another thought on 2nd hand first vision accounts. I would call Lucy Mack Smith’s account (from the rough draft manuscript of her book) and Oliver Cowdery’s account 2nd hand. It is interesting that both of these are more similar to each other than to Joseph’s 1838 account. I can see how critics use these accounts as evidence that Joseph evolved his story as time went on. Lucy and Oliver both confuse Moroni’s visit with the first vision, I believe this is why Bushman says there is no evidence that Joseph shared his first vision with anyone other than the Methodist minister. If we take the time to get into all these complexities with fellow members when they become troubled it will not be a short or easy conversation, but I feel it is necessary to validate and honor their concerns, not simply dismiss them as “something that has been dealt with thousands of times.”
orson your last point is SUPER VALID Whenever someone encounters a faith crisis we can not shrug it of because it has been raked over the coals, recited on multiple occasions, and we think….. oh boy here we go again for the 100th time. To the person with the question. It is very new and pressing to them and needs addressed in a way that helps them feel their emotions are valid as you walk them through the answers.
Orson wrote:I had another thought on 2nd hand first vision accounts. I would call Lucy Mack Smith’s account (from the rough draft manuscript of her book) and Oliver Cowdery’s account 2nd hand. It is interesting that both of these are more similar to each other than to Joseph’s 1838 account. I can see how critics use these accounts as evidence that Joseph evolved his story as time went on. Lucy and Oliver both confuse Moroni’s visit with the first vision, I believe this is why Bushman says there is no evidence that Joseph shared his first vision with anyone other than the Methodist minister.
If we take the time to get into all these complexities with fellow members when they become troubled it will not be a short or easy conversation, but I feel it is necessary to validate and honor their concerns, not simply dismiss them as “something that has been dealt with thousands of times.”
Also I think most critical concerns are really hard to get into. Like you point out, was oliver and Lucy familar with Joseph’s first vision? how much of it?
It’s like asking was Lucy’s remembrance of her husband’s dream influenced by the tree of life story or vice versa. If you asked me about a dream my wife recounted 50 years after she recounted it, Would I be influenced by other dreams she told me about, other stories I had heard.
Complicated stuff. Critics use Occam’s razor but but only after a simple surface understanding of the facts at times
Parts 2 & 3 are up on the Podcast METHODS OF THE CRITIC pt. 3/3
Sep 11th, 2012 by mormondiscussion
METHODS OF THE CRITIC pt. 3/3
This episode is a little different. This is a three part series where I take the evening program of another church and comment on it. This evening Program is about … duh duh… duhhh the Mormons. The speaker though respectful, gets a lot of information and descriptions of our beliefs wrong so here is my effort to show how one must be careful when hearing someone criticize our faith. I would love Feedback… please let me know. If you loved it or hated it. I was too nice… or too mean. Let me know. Either Comment here or send me a message via the links below.
http://www.facebook.com/LDSLeadership mormondiscussion.podbean.com
I am now on ITUNES wooooooooo hoooohttps://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/mormon-discussion-latter-day/id562296100 Downloaded it today. How did it get received at MAD? are they still pissy that it is called Mormon discussions…..
That still makes me laugh.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
The post got hits, but no one commented. Blew it off I assume, but secretly went and visited the site as it has about 300 hits to date as of yesterday and 352 as of today..
newest episode deals with Faith Crisis and begins with John Dehlin’s Panel discussion Mormonism and the internet http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/2012/09/18/faith-crisis-a-better-mormon-perspective/ Also on Itunes now
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/mormon-discussion-latter-day/id562296100 I listened to your latest episode and I appreciate many of the points you make, I think it would be a good thing for most members to listen to. I can’t help but think you could have a richer presentation with an interview or discussion format, but I realize that adds a level of complexity to the process. I had many thoughts as I listened but first I wanted to contrast a bit with a summary of my understanding of Fowler. I look at stage 3 as viewing the symbol as reality. You are correct in saying it is a very black and white stage, it is very literalistic and boxed in. Stage 4 to me sees the symbol as a symbol and calls it worthless, they are traumatized by the loss of their literal interpretation, largely because they still want to see the world in black and white. As the symbolic nature of their former reality pops out and confronts them they are offended and angry. Stage 5 is then the result of growing to appreciate the symbol as a symbol.
To say that stage 5 goes back to believing as stage 3 did would be a misinterpretation of Fowler in my view. I’m not sure what you were thinking as you discussed the topic, but from what I heard I bet it would come across to some people in that way. It also puzzled me a little that you would introduce the topic of Fowler to what could be called a stage 3 audience. In the many discussions on the topic that I’ve listened to it always seems to come across that people are simply not going to relate to it until they hit stage 4. The topic will often offend those in stage 3 because they will interpret stages 4 and 5 as higher or more valid than where they are, and that is simply not the case.
Anyway, FWIW. Those are some of the thoughts that crossed my mind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.