- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Dan Peterson, a recognized Apologist for the Church wrote an article about the three views of Church history: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (or in popular vernacular, sanitized correlated manuals , anti-Mormon publications, and Church history that recognized all prophets, apostles, etc. are fallible people doing the best they can often in difficult situations.) He believes people who press forward for richer and more realistic insights gain a deeper understanding than those who are too busy to deal with the issues. The article can be read at:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700223301/The-Restoration-stands-up-to-history.html I am interested to see whether people think this article is helpful.
dash1730 wrote:Dan Peterson, a recognized Apologist for the Church wrote an article …
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700223301/The-Restoration-stands-up-to-history.html I am interested to see whether people think this article is helpful.
yes an distinctly no. i accept that there are three stages, but in the end, level C is not profoundly like level A — there is no way to put the genie back into the bottle again.and the title is profoundly wrong: the restoration does not stand up
tohistory–not at all. history becomes part of the narrative: it isn’t restoration vs history, but rather, restoration viafactual history. Good article, dash. Thanks for finding and posting! :thumbup: We have discussed much on this board about Fowlers stages of Faith theory applicable to Mormonism (a quick search using the search tool will help anyone quickly find multiple threads on this), and I believe the idea being shared by Petersen is similar to Stages 3, 4, and 5 as the conjunctive faith of stage 5 sounds like synthesis, and can provide deeper meaning to those who can apply paradoxical views to gospel teachings. The Church is hesitant to teach members to leave stage 3, but it doesn’t mean it is wrong for members pushed out of it to journey on.
To word it another way from wayfarer, once the toothpaste is squeezed, it’s not going back in the tube.
Quote:Wayfarer, Level C is not profoundly like level A — there is no way to put the genie back into the bottle again.
Nor can we put the tooth paste back in the tube.
I agree, Level A and C are quite different. But IMO I believe bridges can be built. I have clearly defined values which I am unwilling to compromise with them. But I try not to rub it in their faces. The challenge for me is to learn how to enjoy working with them contributing where I can and receiving from them where I can. That means also that I must look for the things they do which are good. There are three examples of heterodoxy from yesterday’s news that are surprisingly encouraging:
First is an excerpt from “Why I’m a Mormon” edited by Joseph A. Cannon, which includes the testimonies of 53 influential members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As an example it gives Steve Young’s testimony. I nearly fell out my chair reading the introduction of him:
Quote:”Steve Young was a San Francisco 49ers quarterback who was named Most Valuable Player in Super Bowl XXIX and in 2005 was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is currently the managing director and cofounder of Huntsman Gay Global Capital.”
I had to read that twice!
Second is Mormon.org which is including examples people who are heterodox in many aspects of their lives. Included are single parent families.
Third is example from yesterday’s Church News announcing the latest addition to the Joseph Smith Project. I am amazed that the same organization that produces the Correlation Committee also sponsors this Project. They are fully supporting an effort that publishes all known documents about Joseph Smith. It’s putting original documents out on the public domain, knowing they will not be able to control its interpretation. Don’t you know the correlation committee is having fits over that one!
I try to remind myself that the glass is half full. I also must remember that other churches have skeletons in their closets too, but they make little effort to document their foibles. In fact, the Joseph Smith Project is absolutely unmatched by any other church for presenting its unvarnished and unedited history. Read about it at
http://josephsmithpapers.org/aboutTheProject andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers I think these three examples can give folks at StayLDS reason to have hope that they can make peace with the Church, no matter what their heterodoxy is.
Heber13 wrote:To word it another way from wayfarer, once the toothpaste is squeezed, it’s not going back in the tube.
well, given how precious my american toothpaste is in some of the places i go, i can tell you that if you’re motivated enough, you can get much of the toothpaste back in the tube, but it’s messy, and can contaminate the toothpaste in the tube, should you suck in other adulterants as well. Thus, the result doesn’t always work, and sometimes you end up throwing the whole tube away.talk about being deeply symbolic…
dash1730 wrote:As an example it gives Steve Young’s testimony. I nearly fell out my chair reading the introduction of him:
Quote:”Steve Young was a San Francisco 49ers quarterback who was named Most Valuable Player in Super Bowl XXIX and in 2005 was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is currently the managing director and cofounder of Huntsman Gay Global Capital.”
I had to read that twice!
why is that so unusual? Young is a retired hall of famer who works as a partner in an investment firm named after Jon Huntsman and Robert Gay. He’s married and has two kids. there is nothing openly heterodox about steve young, notwithstanding rumors abounding before he got married at 39 in the hawaii temple.dash1730 wrote:I think these three examples can give folks at StayLDS reason to have hope that they can make peace with the Church, no matter what their heterodoxy is.
the more important thing is seeing the church unthaw a bit on the publication of JS papers. a bit… perhaps the real good stuff will never see the light of day, though. there is always the F vault. i doubt if that shall be fully emptied.I was just at a meeting for work where Colin Powell came to talk with us. he explained a conversation he had with gorbachev where gorby proclaimed how “Glasnost” (thawing) would save the soviet union. powell then explained how glasnost in fact caused the demise of the soviet union. not saying anything by this, but it is important that things be done in order, wisely, and slowly. innoculation with two many live viruses may in fact kill the patient.
wayfarer wrote:dash1730 wrote:As an example it gives Steve Young’s testimony. I nearly fell out my chair reading the introduction of him:
Quote:”Steve Young was a San Francisco 49ers quarterback who was named Most Valuable Player in Super Bowl XXIX and in 2005 was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is currently the managing director and cofounder of Huntsman Gay Global Capital.”
I had to read that twice!
why is that so unusual? Young is a retired hall of famer who works as a partner in an investment firm named after Jon Huntsman and Robert Gay. He’s married and has two kids. there is nothing openly heterodox about steve young, notwithstanding rumors abounding before he got married at 39 in the hawaii temple.There was some stuff in the news back in ’08 about SY or his wife (can’t recall which) donating relatively large sums of money to the anti-prop 8 cause. Her brother is gay.
Quote:I was just at a meeting for work where Colin Powell came to talk with us. he explained a conversation he had with gorbachev where gorby proclaimed how “Glasnost” (thawing) would save the soviet union. powell then explained how glasnost in fact caused the demise of the soviet union. not saying anything by this, but it is important that things be done in order, wisely, and slowly. innoculation with two many live viruses may in fact kill the patient.
TSM, tear down this wall!
I guess I will be DA on this one. Sometimes I miss the naivety/simplicity of not knowing things. Sometimes the whole X-Files expose takes away the aura of mystery that is shrouded within say for example the Vatican of all places. What is really Holy, if the Holy of Holies has been trampled upon by feet that aren’t worthy of holy ground. I remember seeing the map of the Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, CA after one of my half dozen visits to it. There is a holy sanctuary very far in the back, in an elevated position where only the head monk may enter. Visitors could not even enter the grounds that preceded it. And i remember a steep set of concrete stairs that led to it.
Isn’t there a line that we draw as a Church for a shroud of sanctity or mystery? Or have we left that to much of the temple, although much of those rites have been exposed to the public at large too.
I remember about two years ago I typed in Holy of Holies on wikipedia and found a photograph for the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake temple. Part of me felt wrong for looking at the photograph, because I felt as if I had violated something, or overstepped my bounds. Then I found an LDS publication of the Salt Lake Temple that had the same photograph in it. Wow, that is being pretty open, but then again we can go to the sacred grove, and even one of the four best candidates for Mount Sinai and walk, and touch, and experience such places and actually be where phenomenal miracles and appearances occurred. So, I guess my argument collapsed on itself. The lesson here is you are only prepared to accept what you are ready for. In the epic film of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones’ heart was prepared to discover the holy grail, not for vainglory but to save his father’s life. Dr. Jones Senior states the altruism, “illumination.” He had been illumined as an individual and better for it. Whereas, the opposition and evil seekers of the grail for vainglory had been ironically eliminated.
I read this when it was printed. The concept of theological history is a pipe dream, IMO. Anybody who would write it is either anti or an apologist, aka not objective, and anybody’s who’s objective wouldn’t write it. That counts both for the original materials (which Bushman points out quite nicely, IMO) as well as the so-called modern interpretations of them. I’m not saying I don’t have my own opinions about church history. Just that it’s biased based on my own views, and that the information I’ve seen was never unbiased in the first place. Like the former soviet union, some of this stuff is a riddle wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce. Tear down that wall, indeed. But when you do, you’ll see secrets that were already subjective and biased when written.
I’ve been reading a book about ancient Israelite religion, and the author (who is an archaeologist) points out the fact that everything that’s ever been written about Bible history is slanted because all those interested in writing about it were Christian, so it’s apologetic in nature. Nobody Jewish has written about it because they disdain even the very premise. He’s ex-Jewish now atheist, so that’s where he’s coming from. Maybe that’s the type of historian who could get Mormon history right. Someone with interest but no dog in the fight. Even so, every historian develops a pet theory and then goes down the path to proving it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.