Daniel Peterson wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:??? FAIR has members in Germany?
Yes indeed. Several quite active ones, as a matter of fact.
Only-in-Provo Department
-
_Buffalo
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 12064
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
-
_McKay Jones
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
As a preliminary to a big omnibus post that addresses several quotes, here is a a thought (or a couple of thoughts) that this discussion has made me ponder this week.
Dr. Peterson's quote about A,B,C history generated lots of discussion about whether anything less than C level history constitutes deception. As a high school English teacher and baseball coach of eight years, my immediate thought about comments along this line is that outside of apologetics/polemics (Mormon in particular and Christian in general), nobody, no matter how libertarian in his views about intellectual glasnost, bats an eye at the concept of targeted, planned strategic teaching. Parents don't tell their small children the C-level facts of life, and this is of course not deceptive or disingenuous. My oldest (10 years old), a precocious kid and avid reader, asked me at breakfast on a Saturday how babies get inside the mother. He knows about sperm and eggs (he earlier asked for help “getting” Far Side cartoons that show sperm dressed as Maytag repairmen, meter reader, Publisher’s Clearinghouse camera crew, etc. trying to gain entry to an ovum), but wanted to know “how the sperm gets in there.” I told him to come in with me while I shave and talk about it. And I told him matter of fact how it works. The fact that I waited until he is 10 and didn’t include the youngsters in the gnosis wasn’t deception or disingenuousness on my part.
Right about now, some will begin saying to themselves, “Ah, yes, here comes the ‘milk before meat’ bit . . .” <cue Jack Nicholson bellowing, “You can’t handle the truth!”>
Buzzwords such as “scaffolding” (targeted, planned, strategic sequencing of instruction to build on prior layers), “differentiated instruction,” “accommodations,” “modifications,” etc. are a mainstay of education, and nobody bats an eye at the deception and perfidy of it all. The fact is that no one gives their children, colleagues, students, or anyone C-Level anything indiscriminately. And this has nothing to do with deception or disingenuousness --- it would be far more ineffective and hindering to do so.
My epiphany is this: the existence of A,B, and C level history and other things is not because it’s deemed necessary to hide unpleasant or undermining details (although that happens, no doubt about it). It is more because there are A,B, C people. I am from a unique family background on both sides, in that I was exposed at a young age to extremely high levels of gospel scholarship, debate, use of references and sources to back-up arguments, etc. I have been interested in Church history and apologetics from a young age, and stand out from Church members generally (my MTC district called me lovingly “Dr. Jones,” with an affected Raider’s of the Lost Ark Nazi accent). But many, many Church members have absolutely no interest in drilling down to C level issues or history. Not because they “can’t handle the truth,” not because they have their fingers stuffed in their ears while singing hymns at the top of their lungs to avoid the “hard issues,” not because they create a safe barrier to keep them from getting too close to the edge, but simply because they are not C level people. They have no interest in it, and trying to interest them in it simply bounces off. I know people with simple but powerful testimonies who know nothing of the “hard issues,” and would be completely immune to the gnawing doubt and crisis of faith if they were. Rather than excoriate them for being simpletons, naïve, clueless, head-in-the-sand, etc., they have a simple and child-like faith and a love for the gospel that bears fruit in their daily walk and conversation.
In a worldwide church with most members living outside of North America, and with people running the spectrum between A and C level, what curriculum would you recommend. Critics and malcontents, of course, want the Church to use proceedings from the John Whitmer Historical Society, the Salt Lake City Messenger, and printouts from Mormon Discussions to be the curriculum from nursery to Gospel Doctrine (okay --- a little bit of hyperbole there . . .). In all seriousness, though, there is a balance that needs to be struck to form some sort of lowest common denominator manual material to best accommodate everybody. Where that balance is will fluctuate, and I see it slowly moving up the alphabet rather than down.
With that, here are some good quotes from my notes that this thread sent me to hunt down, specifically with regard to harmony’s response to my statement that Church members have primary responsibility for their progress and growth, not the Church:
B.H. Roberts quoted John Fiske thus:
While I’m glad to be a “disciple of the second sort,” I don’t look down on “disciples of the first sort.” Both are necessary, and both have existed in the Church whenever it has been on the earth (or, for non-believers, in whatever school or philosophy one chooses).
The title quote in the fairwiki is this from Elder Marion D. Hanks:
And, a favorite of mine from Elder John A. Widtsoe. I got this from a cowboy friend of ours, a convert (one of the strongest I’ve ever met) who lived with my family for about a month after his divorce in Texas (I was his elders quorum president when he lived in Arizona). He had it pinned up on the wall next to his bed in our spare bedroom, and I used it in a fireside the stake president asked me to do for youth conference on Book of Mormon manuscripts (Critical Text Project):
My slide caption for this was “Are you a scripture speculator, or a scripture investor” (i.e., do you pay the price and put in the time and effort, or do you give superficial and perfunctory attention to them).
The Church and the gospel are the source of knowledge, but people cannot (should not) simply rely on Church manuals or The Church™ to teach them. They are “auxiliaries” and supports, but cannot (should not) replace our own spiritual self-reliance. I think the feelings of betrayal many of those who leave the Church (or who remain, but with significantly degraded faith and confidence) have stem from bitterness that they were not spoon-fed and inoculated by the Church. They learned of new and troubling issues, perhaps/probably did not have adequate immediate help available, and percolated in doubt and a perceived lack of ability to answer until it was too late for them (B.H. Roberts’ characterization of this is poignant, and I think many here can relate to it: “Will not the hoped for proof deferred indeed make the heart sick?”). That’s the primary purpose of FAIR, NAMI, and other avenues --- offering solid responses to issues that trouble people, and responding to questions or concerns. While they may not help for some (especially those who have completely lost all trust and confidence in the Restoration), they help a great many.
And their very existence drives critics and malcontents absolutely bonkers! ;-)
Dr. Peterson's quote about A,B,C history generated lots of discussion about whether anything less than C level history constitutes deception. As a high school English teacher and baseball coach of eight years, my immediate thought about comments along this line is that outside of apologetics/polemics (Mormon in particular and Christian in general), nobody, no matter how libertarian in his views about intellectual glasnost, bats an eye at the concept of targeted, planned strategic teaching. Parents don't tell their small children the C-level facts of life, and this is of course not deceptive or disingenuous. My oldest (10 years old), a precocious kid and avid reader, asked me at breakfast on a Saturday how babies get inside the mother. He knows about sperm and eggs (he earlier asked for help “getting” Far Side cartoons that show sperm dressed as Maytag repairmen, meter reader, Publisher’s Clearinghouse camera crew, etc. trying to gain entry to an ovum), but wanted to know “how the sperm gets in there.” I told him to come in with me while I shave and talk about it. And I told him matter of fact how it works. The fact that I waited until he is 10 and didn’t include the youngsters in the gnosis wasn’t deception or disingenuousness on my part.
Right about now, some will begin saying to themselves, “Ah, yes, here comes the ‘milk before meat’ bit . . .” <cue Jack Nicholson bellowing, “You can’t handle the truth!”>
Buzzwords such as “scaffolding” (targeted, planned, strategic sequencing of instruction to build on prior layers), “differentiated instruction,” “accommodations,” “modifications,” etc. are a mainstay of education, and nobody bats an eye at the deception and perfidy of it all. The fact is that no one gives their children, colleagues, students, or anyone C-Level anything indiscriminately. And this has nothing to do with deception or disingenuousness --- it would be far more ineffective and hindering to do so.
My epiphany is this: the existence of A,B, and C level history and other things is not because it’s deemed necessary to hide unpleasant or undermining details (although that happens, no doubt about it). It is more because there are A,B, C people. I am from a unique family background on both sides, in that I was exposed at a young age to extremely high levels of gospel scholarship, debate, use of references and sources to back-up arguments, etc. I have been interested in Church history and apologetics from a young age, and stand out from Church members generally (my MTC district called me lovingly “Dr. Jones,” with an affected Raider’s of the Lost Ark Nazi accent). But many, many Church members have absolutely no interest in drilling down to C level issues or history. Not because they “can’t handle the truth,” not because they have their fingers stuffed in their ears while singing hymns at the top of their lungs to avoid the “hard issues,” not because they create a safe barrier to keep them from getting too close to the edge, but simply because they are not C level people. They have no interest in it, and trying to interest them in it simply bounces off. I know people with simple but powerful testimonies who know nothing of the “hard issues,” and would be completely immune to the gnawing doubt and crisis of faith if they were. Rather than excoriate them for being simpletons, naïve, clueless, head-in-the-sand, etc., they have a simple and child-like faith and a love for the gospel that bears fruit in their daily walk and conversation.
In a worldwide church with most members living outside of North America, and with people running the spectrum between A and C level, what curriculum would you recommend. Critics and malcontents, of course, want the Church to use proceedings from the John Whitmer Historical Society, the Salt Lake City Messenger, and printouts from Mormon Discussions to be the curriculum from nursery to Gospel Doctrine (okay --- a little bit of hyperbole there . . .). In all seriousness, though, there is a balance that needs to be struck to form some sort of lowest common denominator manual material to best accommodate everybody. Where that balance is will fluctuate, and I see it slowly moving up the alphabet rather than down.
With that, here are some good quotes from my notes that this thread sent me to hunt down, specifically with regard to harmony’s response to my statement that Church members have primary responsibility for their progress and growth, not the Church:
"Outsource" to the church is an interesting concept. Shouldn't the church be the source of accurate and complete information, not the outsource of it?
B.H. Roberts quoted John Fiske thus:
John Fiske, quoted in B.H. Roberts, “Defense of the Faith and the Saints,” originally published 1907-1912, republished [Provo: Maasai, 2002], pp. 202-203.
“Disciples and partisans, in the world of religious and philosophical opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the disciples pure and simple,—people who fall under the spell of a person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula . . . .
. . . On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort. They are men who . . . bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields springs up in their soil, and bears fruit,—thirty, sixty, an hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such, men are the disciples that it is worthwhile for a master to have. Disciples of the first sort often become, as Schopenhauer said, mere magnifying mirrors wherein one sees enlarged, all the defects of a doctrine. Disciples of the second sort cooperate in the works of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder stages of development."
I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples.
While I’m glad to be a “disciple of the second sort,” I don’t look down on “disciples of the first sort.” Both are necessary, and both have existed in the Church whenever it has been on the earth (or, for non-believers, in whatever school or philosophy one chooses).
The title quote in the fairwiki is this from Elder Marion D. Hanks:
“No one knows anything about Christ’s work simply by being born a member of the Church, and often he knows little about it after years of unmotivated exposure in meetings or classes. He must learn. And learning involves self-investment and effort. The gospel should be studied ‘as carefully as any science.’ The ‘literature of the Church’ must be ‘acquired and read.’ Our learning should be increased in our spare time ‘day by day.’ Then as we put the gospel truth to work in daily life, we will never find it wanting. We will be literate in the most important field of knowledge in the universe, knowledge for lack of which men and nations perish, in the light of which men and nations may be saved”
—Elder Marion D. Hanks, First Council of the Seventy, “Theological Illiterates”, Improvement Era (September 1969): 42
And, a favorite of mine from Elder John A. Widtsoe. I got this from a cowboy friend of ours, a convert (one of the strongest I’ve ever met) who lived with my family for about a month after his divorce in Texas (I was his elders quorum president when he lived in Arizona). He had it pinned up on the wall next to his bed in our spare bedroom, and I used it in a fireside the stake president asked me to do for youth conference on Book of Mormon manuscripts (Critical Text Project):
It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn science or art; yet expect to win a knowledge of the gospel . . . through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be more intensely studied than any school or college subject. They who give opinions on the gospel without having giving it intimate and careful study are not lovers of truth, and their opinions are worthless.
My slide caption for this was “Are you a scripture speculator, or a scripture investor” (i.e., do you pay the price and put in the time and effort, or do you give superficial and perfunctory attention to them).
The Church and the gospel are the source of knowledge, but people cannot (should not) simply rely on Church manuals or The Church™ to teach them. They are “auxiliaries” and supports, but cannot (should not) replace our own spiritual self-reliance. I think the feelings of betrayal many of those who leave the Church (or who remain, but with significantly degraded faith and confidence) have stem from bitterness that they were not spoon-fed and inoculated by the Church. They learned of new and troubling issues, perhaps/probably did not have adequate immediate help available, and percolated in doubt and a perceived lack of ability to answer until it was too late for them (B.H. Roberts’ characterization of this is poignant, and I think many here can relate to it: “Will not the hoped for proof deferred indeed make the heart sick?”). That’s the primary purpose of FAIR, NAMI, and other avenues --- offering solid responses to issues that trouble people, and responding to questions or concerns. While they may not help for some (especially those who have completely lost all trust and confidence in the Restoration), they help a great many.
And their very existence drives critics and malcontents absolutely bonkers! ;-)
-
_Kishkumen
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
McKay Jones wrote:And their very existence drives critics and malcontents absolutely bonkers! ;-)
Speaking for myself, you couldn't be more wrong here. I welcome with great joy the existence of thoughtful and informed LDS people who are able to converse in a fair and civil manner (e.g., Kevin Barney, David Bokovoy, and others). I bristle at the flagrant misbehavior of those who are either incapable or choose not to do so. To the extent that you present yourself as the former type, I will be very happy to have you around. At the same time, I make no bones about the fact that I do not condone or even well tolerate those who treat others shabbily in the name of Jesus Christ.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
_Daniel Peterson
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
At 7 PM on Friday, 25 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a fireside on "Die Offenbarungen Joseph Smiths" (The Revelations of Joseph Smith) in the Gemeindehaus Frankfurt der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Eckenheimer Landstraße 262-264, 60435 Frankfurt am Main, in Germany.
At 9:00 AM on Saturday, 26 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a lecture on "Der Islam aus mormonischer Sicht" (A Mormon Perspective on Islam) in the Gemeindehaus Offenbach der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Arthur-Zitscher-Straße 7, 63065 Offenbach, in Germany. This morning lecture is part of a German FAIR conference, to which there may be a nominal entrance fee.
At 9:00 AM on Saturday, 26 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a lecture on "Der Islam aus mormonischer Sicht" (A Mormon Perspective on Islam) in the Gemeindehaus Offenbach der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Arthur-Zitscher-Straße 7, 63065 Offenbach, in Germany. This morning lecture is part of a German FAIR conference, to which there may be a nominal entrance fee.
-
_Kishkumen
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
Daniel Peterson wrote:At 7 PM on Friday, 25 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a fireside on "Die Offenbarungen Joseph Smiths" (The Revelations of Joseph Smith) in the Gemeindehaus Frankfurt der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Eckenheimer Landstraße 262-264, 60435 Frankfurt am Main, in Germany.
At 9:00 AM on Saturday, 26 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a lecture on "Der Islam aus mormonischer Sicht" (A Mormon Perspective on Islam) in the Gemeindehaus Offenbach der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Arthur-Zitscher-Straße 7, 63065 Offenbach, in Germany. This morning lecture is part of a German FAIR conference, to which there may be a nominal entrance fee.
Try to leave a few farm animals unscathed.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
_thews
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
Daniel Peterson wrote:At 7 PM on Friday, 25 March 2011, Daniel C. Peterson will present a fireside on "Die Offenbarungen Joseph Smiths" (The Revelations of Joseph Smith) in the Gemeindehaus Frankfurt der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Eckenheimer Landstraße 262-264, 60435 Frankfurt am Main, in Germany.
Are you going to tell them about the revelation by Joseph Smith where he translated the Kinderhook plates into the story of the descendant of Ham? ... or will you leave this revelation by Joseph Smith out?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
-
_Daniel Peterson
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: Only-in-Provo Department
I thought Joey might perhaps enjoy ridiculing a little item of mine that just appeared from the section of Provo known as "Beirut":
Daniel C. Peterson, "The Tree of Life in the Qur’an," in Al-umma Washington al-dawla Washington al-tariikh Washington al-masaa’ir [Community, State, History, and Changes] (Beirut: Al-shabaka al-‘arabiyya li al-abhaath Washington al-nashr [The Arab Network for Research and Publishing], 2011), 117-136.
It's a festschrift for Professor Ridwan Al-Sayyid, a professor at the University of Lebanon with whom I've met (as part of an East/West dialogue project) over the past decade in such Provo neighborhoods as Malta, southern Spain, and, most recently, the Carter Center in Atlanta.
If Joey were ever actually to look at the volume, he would see that my article features several references to Maxwell Institute publications in its footnotes.
Daniel C. Peterson, "The Tree of Life in the Qur’an," in Al-umma Washington al-dawla Washington al-tariikh Washington al-masaa’ir [Community, State, History, and Changes] (Beirut: Al-shabaka al-‘arabiyya li al-abhaath Washington al-nashr [The Arab Network for Research and Publishing], 2011), 117-136.
It's a festschrift for Professor Ridwan Al-Sayyid, a professor at the University of Lebanon with whom I've met (as part of an East/West dialogue project) over the past decade in such Provo neighborhoods as Malta, southern Spain, and, most recently, the Carter Center in Atlanta.
If Joey were ever actually to look at the volume, he would see that my article features several references to Maxwell Institute publications in its footnotes.