Mormon Infobia...

[_Yoda]

I don't know you very well..... Obviously I was speaking of the anti-mormons here who regularily belittle and degrade LDS Apologists when they are not around, or even when some are. If my words don't apply to you, then why are you addressing them?

A favorite target of the anti's here and everywhere for that matter is Dan Peterson.

The fact that they such as Runtu now "pretends" like they don't say all kinds of bad things about LDS Apologists, just because they are actually being respectful for a change conversing with Ben, just so they can pretend to "look" better than me, and in front of Ben, doesn't make them being truthful.

I'm here every day, I see their words every day...... I know what they do, and they lie claiming otherwise.
Other than mocking Mormons and Mormonism, mocking LDS scholars and scholarship is the anti-mormons here favorite past-time. If you are going to try to tell me otherwise, then you are a liar also, or utterly clueless.

I took your words personally because you were making blanket statements to everyone who posted in this thread. I was one of those who posted stating that I respected Ben, and appreciated his posting here. You stated that EVERYONE here was simply pretending about respecting Ben. That is clearly not true.

And you are right. You don't know me that well. And why? Because you are still a fairly new member to the board. You say that you have been here every day. For someone who has been here every day for six months, you don't have that great of a read on some of the posters here, particularly folks like Runtu. I have been posting on this board for five years. I think I have a little better feel for the tamber of posting on the board.

I suggest you take a step back and study some of these individual posters' posts and demeanor before painting such broad brush strokes, and making quick judgements that everyone here is an anti-Mormon. We are all people first. Try to remember that.

[_Yoda]

Ben, since you brought up polygamy, I would like to ask a few questions.

What do you feel the situation with Fanny was? It is very confusing because Joseph had not received the sealing power, and yet, he and Fanny were supposedly "plural husband and wife".

Thoughts?

My thoughts? I try not to (only partly kidding). I really don't know what I think of the whole polygamy thing. I feel somewhat confident that polygamy was also seen as something that had to be restored (as part of a restoration of all things). I think that we have too many polarizing points of view that make it hard to take a middle ground, and that the truth is probably somewhere in that middle ground. For instance, Joseph, I am reasonably convinced, had intimate relations with some but certainly not all of the women sealed to him.

So what do I think the situation with Fanny was? I am inclined to believe that everyone involved saw it as a real marriage.

When we start talking about sealing power, and sealings, and all of that other stuff, I would add that the historical record doesn't give us something that is orderly or all at once. I think we had some experimental (for lack of a better word) things going on there, some of which worked well and some of which didn't - and over that initial period of time the practice changed a great deal evolving into the practice that later became more main stream for the LDS church until it was halted.

In more general terms, I don't view polygamy as an essentially bad institution, but, like many others, I recognize that it has built in limitations that really prevent it from becoming a normative or sustainable model of human relationships. Further, from my personal perspective, I am not sure I am too keen on giving up the monogamous notion of personal intimacy in marriage with no secrets and so on. Clearly polygamy goes hand in hand with a much more tolerant view of divorce - and requires (if it is to work well) a concerted effort to empower women (education, etc.) If I were to look at the scriptural institution, it was generally mandated in exceptional situations, and from a theological standpoint, I think we ought to see it as an exception and not the rule.

Ben M.

Thank you so much for your response here, Ben. I agree that from a theological standpoint, plural marriage should be viewed as the exception and not the rule. I think that those who feel that EVERYONE will be required to practice it in the CK are very much mistaken.

I do have a couple of other questions. How could Fanny have been married to Joseph when he had not yet received the sealing power?

Also, if polygamy was a genuine command from God, why did Joseph choose to hide some marriages from Emma, and yet tell her about others? Since he was supposed to have Emma's consent, he was going against the revelation he received in the case of the marriages he hid from her.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Doctor Scratch writes:

Books do often contain "ideas, beliefs, values, [and] emotional reactions," though. I think that was the point.

Actually, Books generally only contain aesthetic marks on paper (or whatever medium makes up the book). Books don't contain ideas, don't contain beliefs, certainly don't create values or emotional reactions. Those things occur with us as we read the book - meaning doesn't exist within a book until as a joint venture we read it and create ideas in connection with the text, we create beliefs, we see and observe values, and we experience emotional reactions.

The problem I have with a statement like that is quite simple - someone asserts that the book is full of [examples of] cognitive dissonance. They suggest that this is because the book provides conclusions that aren't rational responses to evidence provided in the book. Having met Dr. Bushman and chatted with him, I think its generally very likely that he finds his conclusions to be a rational response to the evidences that he provides. But, to conclude that there is both this gap and that this gap was caused by an irrational jump on Dr. Bushman's part caused by cognitive dissonance isn't something that you can determine from reading the book. It is more an act of pretending to be a mind reader.

It is quite possible that others would draw different conclusions than Bushman did - but without the same set of cognitions that Bushman has, to say that one person's set of responses must be the same as another's isn't itself a rational claim. Bushman, with his set of cognitions (which may include beliefs about the truthfulness of the gospel proclaimed by the LDS Church, it might include beliefs about the authoritative status of different sources, and so on) probably never encountered cognitive dissonance when he drew his conclusions because his reading of the evidence produced the conclusions that he provided.

Finally, there is something rather absurd in my opinion, of claiming that Bushman's book is a whole orgy of cognitive dissonance from someone who probably has only a tiny fraction of exposure to the original sources and historical information that Bushman has been exposed to in the process of writing this book. So I don't thinks its terribly appropriate to simply accept Steelhead as some kind of authority on the matter.

Ben M.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor Scratch writes:

Books do often contain "ideas, beliefs, values, [and] emotional reactions," though. I think that was the point.

Actually, Books generally only contain aesthetic marks on paper (or whatever medium makes up the book). Books don't contain ideas, don't contain beliefs, certainly don't create values or emotional reactions. Those things occur with us as we read the book - meaning doesn't exist within a book until as a joint venture we read it and create ideas in connection with the text, we create beliefs, we see and observe values, and we experience emotional reactions.

That's an incredibly naïve take on the reader-text "transaction," Ben, and if you were to apply this sort of view to, say, reading the Book of Mormon, it would have devastating consequences. For example, following through on Moroni's promise would, per this view, amount to little more than warm, fuzzy feelings that exist purely in the mind of the reader. There would be no "truth" in the BoM--or any text, for that matter, including RSR.

The problem I have with a statement like that is quite simple - someone asserts that the book is full of [examples of] cognitive dissonance. They suggest that this is because the book provides conclusions that aren't rational responses to evidence provided in the book. Having met Dr. Bushman and chatted with him, I think its generally very likely that he finds his conclusions to be a rational response to the evidences that he provides. But, to conclude that there is both this gap and that this gap was caused by an irrational jump on Dr. Bushman's part caused by cognitive dissonance isn't something that you can determine from reading the book. It is more an act of pretending to be a mind reader.

I disagree. I think it's simply a matter of being a reader, period. That's what interpretation of texts entails. Just as one could say that Moby Dick features themes of revenge, or that The Wasteland references The Golden Bough, you can say that there is evidence of "cognitive dissonance" in RSR. Just like you can say there is evidence of "chaismus" in The Book of Mormon. (Is it wrong of me to assume that you don't consider that "mind-reading," despite what the assumption necessarily says about the presumed intentions of the Book of Mormon author(s)?)

What I'm sensing, Ben, is that you're simply objecting to anyone saying anything about "cognitive dissonance." I would ask in response why cognitive dissonance is necessarily such a bad thing. You acknowledge here:

It is quite possible that others would draw different conclusions than Bushman did - but without the same set of cognitions that Bushman has, to say that one person's set of responses must be the same as another's isn't itself a rational claim.

...that people can disagree. Well, doesn't it follow that some people are perfectly comfortable "shelving" certain things, or overlooking certain kinds of contradictions?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

ldsfaq,

While I recognize that there can be a lot of angst and even anger here, and certainly plenty of the occasional ugliness, it is not because the group here is full of irrational people. My take on all of the proverbial pats on the back was not that it was an attempt to show you up, or to criticize you (ldsfaq) slyly for your style of communication, it was to encourage me to stick around. When the stuff I don't like gets above my threshold, I simply leave for a while. I have had on-line relationships with some of the participants for many years (some of them I have communicated with for well over a decade now). My views and their views have changed. And I am not unfamiliar with the other threads here and other communications. But I have made it a personal goal to try to avoid being critical of individuals (and I have failed in the past from time to time).

Productive questions rarely come, in my experience, from people who are happy in their faith and satisfied with the status quo. I come here because there are often issues raised which catch my attention and make me think (and it is the thinking that helps keep me engaged in my faith).

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Doctor Scratch writes:

That's an incredibly naïve take on the reader-text "transaction," Ben, and if you were to apply this sort of view to, say, reading the Book of Mormon, it would have devastating consequences. For example, following through on Moroni's promise would, per this view, amount to little more than warm, fuzzy feelings that exist purely in the mind of the reader. There would be no "truth" in the BoM--or any text, for that matter, including RSR.

But, isn't that exactly what Nephi tells us in the last chapter of 2 Nephi?

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.
2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.

What you miss is that Moroni's promise is not so much about reading the text, its the encounter with the Holy Spirit that functions both as the agent of conversion and the means of sanctification. Moroni's promise isn't about asking if the book is true - he tells us that we need to read, that we need to ponder, and to consider the relationship God has had with his creation. Something far more comprehensive than you are suggesting.

I disagree. I think it's simply a matter of being a reader, period. That's what interpretation of texts entails. Just as one could say that Moby Dick features themes of revenge, or that The Wasteland references The Golden Bough, you can say that there is evidence of "cognitive dissonance" in RSR. Just like you can say there is evidence of "chaismus" in The Book of Mormon. (Is it wrong of me to assume that you don't consider that "mind-reading," despite what the assumption necessarily says about the presumed intentions of the Book of Mormon author(s)?)

It's funny that you should mention works of fiction. To steal and example from someone else (whose name escapes me), in 1802, William Wordsworth wrote these lines:

MILTON! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.

Wordsworth in this poem has a locutionary act in which he says of England "she is a fen." Yet this locutionary act does not result in an illocutionary act of castigation. Rather Wordsworth is representing a castigation of England and isn't actually doing it. Fiction further distances the meaning of the locutionary act from the illocutionary act. But in any case there is this separation. Moby Dick does feature this theme of revenge. But, that theme reflected in Moby Dick has absolutely nothing to do with the author having a sense of revenge. The difference between claiming chiamsus in the Book of Mormon and claiming evidence of cognitive dissonance in Bushman from his book Rough Stone Rolling is quite simple. We can create rules or guidelines for determining what is or what isn't chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Cognitive Dissonance, on the other hand is (to quote the wiki article) "a discomfort cause by X". So what is the process that we define to determine what the author was feeling when he wrote a book? What is the indicator that he was experiencing discomfort (and that, of course, the discomfort was cause by cognitive dissonance instead of dinner).

On the flip side of the coin, we have the Book of Mormon - and the Book of Mormon at least in 1 and 2 Nephi has a great deal to say about intentions. Nephi tells us what his intentions are in writing the book. Then he tells us that he is really writing it for God's purposes. And he has no idea what God's purposes are or how it will play out for his eventual audience. He already knows that his intentions will go nowhere, since he saw (prophetically) the destruction of his people. And so he ends up with the realization (that I provide above) that his intentions don't amount to a whole lot. People will read his book and liken it unto themselves, and his own presumptions don't amount to a hill of beans.

So I have no problem dealing with the intentions of the Book of Mormon authors in this fashion - and I think that your portrayal of what my perspective does is largely inaccurate.

What I'm sensing, Ben, is that you're simply objecting to anyone saying anything about "cognitive dissonance." I would ask in response why cognitive dissonance is necessarily such a bad thing. You acknowledge here:

I have no problem with the topic of cognitive dissonance. Its a pet peeve of mine to see so many critics of the LDS church so badly abuse the notion. Have you read Festinger's work?

...that people can disagree. Well, doesn't it follow that some people are perfectly comfortable "shelving" certain things, or overlooking certain kinds of contradictions?

Sure - and when this happens, no cognitive dissonance occurs. Overlooking a contradiction isn't an example of cognitive dissonance. Most people don't actually experience it most of the time. We don't like it. Cognitive Dissonance only occurs when we have competing cognitions that we can't easily resolve. Take the pacifist who is drafted to go to war. This kind of issue occurs infrequently when we are dealing with simple knowledge cognitions, but far more frequently when knowledge conflicts with our actions. A person might suffer somewhat when they believe the Word of Wisdom is a principle they need to keep, and yet cannot overcome their addiction to nicotine. Every time their behavior conflicts with their belief it causes cognitive dissonance. Of course, we might experience cognitive dissonance if we have an authority tell us something that conflicts with what we see or experience. Although, if we trust our own eyes more than the authority, it gets resolved without ever rising to a level of cognitive dissonance. If there is no feeling of discomfort, there is no cognitive dissonance, and if someone can shelve something easily or be perfectly comfortable doing so, there is no cognitive dissonance. The act of shelving something isn't itself cognitive dissonance, or a symptom of it. And yet, this is often how it gets (inappropriately) used.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Liz writes:

I do have a couple of other questions. How could Fanny have been married to Joseph when he had not yet received the sealing power?

We might also ask why the complex set of actions being taken when the Aaronic Priesthood was restored? (Ordination, baptism, reordination, etc.) I think that the concept of sealing comes as part of this progression - but it doesn't start it off. So, Joseph asks about/beings polygamy as part of his view of a restoration of all things. We get told about sealings. We start doing sealings. Strange things occur at the beginning - among them, men sealed to men. Some of the women sealed to Joseph were sealed without, I believe, any expectation that it was a marriage. We have women sealed to men who are not their husbands when their husbands weren't faithful members of the church (not so much as a desire to change the marriage dynamic but to give the woman an opportunity for celestial glory without her husband). Over time, these practices went away, and the whole notion was replaced by a more consistent point of view that the church teaches today. There are still holes at the seams, parts that are not understood, and changes ongoing. The sealing of women to multiple men, for example, is one of the more recent (1990ish?) changes that has occurred, and I expect to see more over time. So, in summary, my view is that Joseph encounters the issue while producing the JST. And then, much as with the priesthood, figures out how its supposed to work.

Also, if polygamy was a genuine command from God, why did Joseph choose to hide some marriages from Emma, and yet tell her about others? Since he was supposed to have Emma's consent, he was going against the revelation he received in the case of the marriages he hid from her.

Well, whether it was a genuine command from God or not, Emma was not happy about it. Consider what happened with the first iteration of the Relief Society. I think we might allow for some human nature here. Also there may have been some difference between women married as wives and women who were sealed with no expectation of marital intimacy. I think that the ongoing DNA testing has simply helped us remain confused about how they understood it, and the secrecy of some of it seems to prevent us from clearly understanding what remains of the historical record.

Ben M.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But, isn't that exactly what Nephi tells us in the last chapter of 2 Nephi?

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.
2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.

I'm not sure how or why you think this supports your view of writing being nothing more that "aesthetic marks" that are somehow transformed into meaning by the reader's brain. If anything, I would read this passage as saying that people should *not* dismiss "things...which are written."

But I gather that you're revising your original comment.

What you miss is that Moroni's promise is not so much about reading the text, its the encounter with the Holy Spirit that functions both as the agent of conversion and the means of sanctification.

I'm not missing anything, Ben. Sans the text there is no such thing as "Moroni's Promise."

But in any case there is this separation. Moby Dick does feature this theme of revenge. But, that theme reflected in Moby Dick has absolutely nothing to do with the author having a sense of revenge.

You seem to be talking about authorial intentions rather than whatever may or may not be observed in "the text itself." And that was my original point--there can be signs of cognitive dissonance in the pages of the book even if the author himself doesn't necessariy experience the "discomfort" thereof. Know what I mean? Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment.

The difference between claiming chiamsus in the Book of Mormon and claiming evidence of cognitive dissonance in Bushman from his book Rough Stone Rolling is quite simple. We can create rules or guidelines for determining what is or what isn't chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Cognitive Dissonance, on the other hand is (to quote the wiki article) "a discomfort cause by X". So what is the process that we define to determine what the author was feeling when he wrote a book?

Why must this be only the author? Why can't it also be the reader? If someone reads RSR and notices problematic contradictions in the text that lead to cog-dis, does that not "count" as evidence of cog-dis in the text? I think you have to concede that it at least arguably does. Otherwise you're stuck saying that this interpretation is entirely in the reader's head.

I think the original "cog-dis" comment was merely saying that there were all kinds of contradictions in RSR, and that Bushman was dodging them and arriving at strange conclusions as a result. Maybe I'm wrong, though (I haven't read RSR). I just think that your dismissal of the remark was misguided and rather petty. It reminds me to some extent of your bizarre argument that Elder Packer's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" wasn't actually an admonition against reading problematic history, because of his audience, which consisted of LDS educators.

I have no problem with the topic of cognitive dissonance. Its a pet peeve of mine to see so many critics of the LDS church so badly abuse the notion.

That's pretty much what I thought.

Have you read Festinger's work?

A very, very little. And I see what you mean: I suppose it does sound a tad strange to suggest that there is evidence of cognitive dissonance in a text. Nonetheless, I think that the term has taken on a meaning in online LDS conversations, and so I don't see any problem with the way it was used in this thread. It's rather like the way that people argue about the use of "anti-Mormon" or "cult."

If there is no feeling of discomfort, there is no cognitive dissonance, and if someone can shelve something easily or be perfectly comfortable doing so, there is no cognitive dissonance. The act of shelving something isn't itself cognitive dissonance, or a symptom of it. And yet, this is often how it gets (inappropriately) used.

Ben M.

Yes: I see what you're saying, though I'd add that it seems that you are trying to totally privatize what this means--i.e., there can only be cog-dis if the person admits that s/he feels uncomfortable. Presumably, you find a relationship between a 30+ year-old man and a 14 year old girl distasteful, and yet I'm willing to be that you don't feel "uncomfortable" about Joseph Smith's celestial marriage to Helen Mar. There are probably loads of other examples that we could come up with.

Ultimately, as I've said, I think this is just about you objecting to the term, and its suggestion that LDS are glossing over things that don't add up.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Doctor Scratch writes:

If anything, I would read this passage as saying that people should *not* dismiss "things...which are written."

And I read it differently - which is perhaps illustrating the point.

I'm not missing anything, Ben. Sans the text there is no such thing as "Moroni's Promise."

Right, and until you read it, there is no such thing as "Moroni's Promise" either. A text by itself does not have meaning until it is read (and interpreted).

You seem to be talking about authorial intentions rather than whatever may or may not be observed in "the text itself." And that was my original point--there can be signs of cognitive dissonance in the pages of the book even if the author himself doesn't necessariy experience the "discomfort" thereof. Know what I mean? Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment.

I disagree with you. If the author himself hasn't necessarily experienced the discomfort then there can be no cognitive dissonance. Once again, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance is. If there are "signs" in the book, then they have to be interpreted as such (not that they exist as evidence). That is not some sort of fixed meaning embedded in the text in some sort of determinate way. How would you describe an objective process of identifying these embedded signs of cognitive dissonance? How could you understand it to be cognitive dissonance without also referring to the state of mind of the author? What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me. It suggests to me that you are relying on a misunderstood notion of what cognitive dissonance is, and using it in a way similar to others who abuse it in the same way, particularly in regard to Mormonism. Cognitive dissonance isn't something that exists apart from a mental state in a specific person. You can't refer to some sort of generic thing that is cognitive dissonance and then see it, sitting there on a park bench, or looking at you from a picture on the wall.

Why must this be only the author? Why can't it also be the reader? If someone reads RSR and notices problematic contradictions in the text that lead to cog-dis, does that not "count" as evidence of cog-dis in the text? I think you have to concede that it at least arguably does. Otherwise you're stuck saying that this interpretation is entirely in the reader's head.

No it doesn't count as cognitive dissonance in the text. Because, of course, we could find others for whom the text doesn't generate cognitive dissonance (not the least of which would be the author of the text himself). Given that, it isn't the text that is a source of cognitive dissonance, rather its the ways in which a person interacts with the texts, the interpretation that the reader produces while reading the text, and thus the cognitions created when the reader interprets the text that he is reading. This is obviously an individual issue. Two people will not read the text and arrive at the same place. Not everyone who reads RSR develops cognitive dissonance, and so we can say that the text itself is not full of cognitive dissonance.

I think the original "cog-dis" comment was merely saying that there were all kinds of contradictions in RSR, and that Bushman was dodging them and arriving at strange conclusions as a result.

I agree with you on this (that this was the intention of the original post. However, this isn't cognitive dissonance, and I was merely pointing out that it is inappropriate to call it cognitive dissonance. And of course we are right back to interpretations. This is an interpretation of the book - and it is a characterization which I suspect Dr. Bushman would oppose. And at this point, we could start talking about specific examples if we choose to, and determine whether or not we feel that the Steelhead is right in his assessment. But, it won't make it cognitive dissonance.

I just think that your dismissal of the remark was misguided and rather petty. It reminds me to some extent of your bizarre argument that Elder Packer's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" wasn't actually an admonition against reading problematic history, because of his audience, which consisted of LDS educators.

Actually, I didn't dismiss it. I was simply pointing out that Packer's talk was given to a small group of people. It was later published in BYU Studies (which is also not widely read). To suggest that this was a significant and influential talk for the membership of the church at large is a rather silly statement when you consider that most of the members of the church have never heard of it, let alone having read it. It doesn't matter whether they were educators or not (since their being educators wouldn't help give the talk any more of an elevated status or distribute it beyond the setting in which it was given). What you do, in emphasizing certain aspects to elevate the talk to an importance that it simply never had, seems wildly inappropriate to me. But that's another topic isn't it.

A very, very little. And I see what you mean: I suppose it does sound a tad strange to suggest that there is evidence of cognitive dissonance in a text. Nonetheless, I think that the term has taken on a meaning in online LDS conversations, and so I don't see any problem with the way it was used in this thread. It's rather like the way that people argue about the use of "anti-Mormon" or "cult."

I can agree with this. So, I promise to stop using the term "anti-Mormon" anymore in this forum if you promise to avoid calling what you view poor logic, contradictions and arriving at strange conclusions as "cognitive dissonance". Deal?

Yes: I see what you're saying, though I'd add that it seems that you are trying to totally privatize what this means--i.e., there can only be cog-dis if the person admits that s/he feels uncomfortable. Presumably, you find a relationship between a 30+ year-old man and a 14 year old girl distasteful, and yet I'm willing to be that you don't feel "uncomfortable" about Joseph Smith's celestial marriage to Helen Mar. There are probably loads of other examples that we could come up with.

I think that there are various ways to express this. If Joseph was having an intimate relationship with a 14 year old girl, I would find it quite disturbing.

I think that if we want to assert that LDS are glossing over things, then we should simply assert that, instead of hiding behind these kinds of terms - just as others (as you note) don't necessarily like to be called anti-mormon for raising uncomfortable questions, or as LDS don't like to be dismissed simply as a "cult".

Ben M.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor Scratch writes:

If anything, I would read this passage as saying that people should *not* dismiss "things...which are written."

And I read it differently - which is perhaps illustrating the point.

Which point is that? That you can't dismiss interpretation out of hand merely because you disagree?

I'm not missing anything, Ben. Sans the text there is no such thing as "Moroni's Promise."

Right, and until you read it, there is no such thing as "Moroni's Promise" either. A text by itself does not have meaning until it is read (and interpreted).

Yes: that was my point. Contra your original assertion, texts really can be said to "contain" feelings, ideas, etc. True: you probably cannot isolate these things from the reading/interpreting experience, but to baldly assert--as you did--that texts don't "contain" these things, is just plain silly.

I disagree with you. If the author himself hasn't necessarily experienced the discomfort then there can be no cognitive dissonance. Once again, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance is.

Are you sure about that, Ben? Or are you guessing/mind-reading?

If there are "signs" in the book, then they have to be interpreted as such (not that they exist as evidence). That is not some sort of fixed meaning embedded in the text in some sort of determinate way. How would you describe an objective process of identifying these embedded signs of cognitive dissonance?

Pretty much the same way that you identify other textual signs--by reading them and by interpreting them. That's how reading works.

How could you understand it to be cognitive dissonance without also referring to the state of mind of the author? What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yeah, I get that.

It suggests to me that you are relying on a misunderstood notion of what cognitive dissonance is, and using it in a way similar to others who abuse it in the same way, particularly in regard to Mormonism. Cognitive dissonance isn't something that exists apart from a mental state in a specific person. You can't refer to some sort of generic thing that is cognitive dissonance and then see it, sitting there on a park bench, or looking at you from a picture on the wall.

Look: I get what you are saying re: the strict, original definition of "cog-dis." You want it to be applicable only to people, and not to texts. Okay. I think that it has useful, wider applicability to things one can find in texts, but I get that you don't want to concede or budge in any way on this, so that's that.

Why must this be only the author? Why can't it also be the reader? If someone reads RSR and notices problematic contradictions in the text that lead to cog-dis, does that not "count" as evidence of cog-dis in the text? I think you have to concede that it at least arguably does. Otherwise you're stuck saying that this interpretation is entirely in the reader's head.

No it doesn't count as cognitive dissonance in the text. Because, of course, we could find others for whom the text doesn't generate cognitive dissonance (not the least of which would be the author of the text himself). Given that, it isn't the text that is a source of cognitive dissonance, rather its the ways in which a person interacts with the texts, the interpretation that the reader produces while reading the text, and thus the cognitions created when the reader interprets the text that he is reading.

None of which are possible without the text. (See above re: Moroni's Promise.) You can't have one without the other. I see nothing wrong with allowing for different reactions/interpretations. Some will see Orson Scott Card's Hamlet's Father as an interesting story; others will see it as a bigoted attack on homosexuality. This isn't purely a matter of opinion and individual interpretation--it has to do with what the text says, too.

This is obviously an individual issue. Two people will not read the text and arrive at the same place. Not everyone who reads RSR develops cognitive dissonance, and so we can say that the text itself is not full of cognitive dissonance.

*You* can say that. Someone else can say the opposite. Neither or you is necessarily right or wrong. Right?

I think the original "cog-dis" comment was merely saying that there were all kinds of contradictions in RSR, and that Bushman was dodging them and arriving at strange conclusions as a result.

I agree with you on this (that this was the intention of the original post. However, this isn't cognitive dissonance, and I was merely pointing out that it is inappropriate to call it cognitive dissonance.

Maybe, provided that we're being hyper-strict with definitions. But I'm not being that way. Your complaint is reminiscent of mainstream Christians who get bent out of shape that Mormons are inappropriately labeling themselves "Christians."

And of course we are right back to interpretations. This is an interpretation of the book - and it is a characterization which I suspect Dr. Bushman would oppose.

So what? Perhaps Ed Decker thinks The Godmakers is a truthful book. Authors aren't the final arbiters of meaning any more than individual readers are.

I just think that your dismissal of the remark was misguided and rather petty. It reminds me to some extent of your bizarre argument that Elder Packer's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" wasn't actually an admonition against reading problematic history, because of his audience, which consisted of LDS educators.

Actually, I didn't dismiss it. I was simply pointing out that Packer's talk was given to a small group of people. It was later published in BYU Studies (which is also not widely read). To suggest that this was a significant and influential talk for the membership of the church at large is a rather silly statement when you consider that most of the members of the church have never heard of it, let alone having read it. It doesn't matter whether they were educators or not (since their being educators wouldn't help give the talk any more of an elevated status or distribute it beyond the setting in which it was given).

This is worth re-hashing because it fits with the topic of the OP. And come on, Ben: it "wouldn't help...distribute it beyond the setting in which it was given"? What the? It was delivered to teachers! Even if the talk itself wasn't relayed, the educators--provided that they heeded the directions of this apostle (and how often to TR-carrying Mormons willfully go against what the Brethren say?)--would have passed the gist of it along to the people they taught. Your argument is absurd.

Earlier in the thread you said that you'd "never had any member of the church, or my leadership, tell me that what I read or look at is inappropriate."

And in response I posted this link:

viewtopic.php?p=547433#p547433

(If you responded to this, I missed it.)

You seem for some reason to think that the LDS Church has always been an institution that has encouraged free inquiry and wide exposure to a whole, broad range of materials. This just isn't true, by any measure. There is Packer's talk, and there are all those excerpts that Darth J listed off. The Church *has* been somewhat "infophobic." I was listening to the "Mormon Stories" interview with Terryl Givens recently, and even he said that people have every right to feel "betrayed" over the fact that the Church has done such a poor job of educating the Saints, and of exposing/"innoculating" them against controversial and problematic history.

Your argument just isn't sustainable, Ben.

What you do, in emphasizing certain aspects to elevate the talk to an importance that it simply never had, seems wildly inappropriate to me. But that's another topic isn't it.

No, I think it fits with the thrust of the OP. And what do you mean "elevate"? It was delivered by an apostle. I guess I can grant you that it wasn't sent out on FP letterhead to be read by the bishops of every ward. Is that what you meant? Regardless, I think there is ample, authoritative evidence to support the gist of the OP.

I can agree with this. So, I promise to stop using the term "anti-Mormon" anymore in this forum if you promise to avoid calling what you view poor logic, contradictions and arriving at strange conclusions as "cognitive dissonance". Deal?

Oh, I don't care if you want to label things "anti-Mormon." Go for it, man.

Yes: I see what you're saying, though I'd add that it seems that you are trying to totally privatize what this means--i.e., there can only be cog-dis if the person admits that s/he feels uncomfortable. Presumably, you find a relationship between a 30+ year-old man and a 14 year old girl distasteful, and yet I'm willing to be that you don't feel "uncomfortable" about Joseph Smith's celestial marriage to Helen Mar. There are probably loads of other examples that we could come up with.

I think that there are various ways to express this. If Joseph was having an intimate relationship with a 14 year old girl, I would find it quite disturbing.

I think that if we want to assert that LDS are glossing over things, then we should simply assert that, instead of hiding behind these kinds of terms - just as others (as you note) don't necessarily like to be called anti-mormon for raising uncomfortable questions, or as LDS don't like to be dismissed simply as a "cult".

Ben M.

I don't care if you call me an anti-Mormon, Ben. If you find it a useful descriptor, then by all means: use it as much as you please.