Re: Mike Parker is back from his 1 day break to smear Bill Reel
Posted: Wed May 31, 2023 2:37 am
I suppose. I just don’t really connect with what the point in wrangling over these beliefs is. I mean, so much wasted breath dedicated to questions that are really not answerable with any degree of certainty. I respect Christianity more than I ever have, and I don’t think that the logic of LDS theology works, but I also don’t see where arguments of this kind get us beyond intellectual egotism. Furthermore, I think people find it too easy to be reductive when they deal with the beliefs of others. Do they really take the trouble to wrestle with the good and bad in a different tradition? I don’t think so. Blake comes along to tell people that, in his view, and according to his approach, Orthodox theology is incoherent. He makes his argument, and his interlocutors tell him he doesn’t really understand Orthodox theology. He insists he does understand it, and yet I think they have a point.But, to be honest, I kind of wish we would all make more room in our hearts for others to be critical of our beliefs. I think we should be able to level criticisms--even harsh criticisms--of theologies we dislike, and accept harsh criticisms of our own beliefs, and not lose our cool. I had a mostly cordial exchange with a Mormon on Facebook a few months ago, about the Protoevangelium of James, and at some point he accused me of disparaging his beliefs. I said, "No, I haven't done that yet, although I'm certainly not above disparaging Mormonism. But I could call Mormon theology an abomination and say everyone who professes it is corrupt, and that'd only be me being as harsh with Mormonism as Mormonism is with traditional Christianity."
I think it's fine that certain Mormons despise Calvinism, that what's-his-face calls Protestantism "Satanic" (though I think he's obviously being intentionally inflammatory), and that an Orthodox PhD student "slandered" Joseph Smith. I personally think Joseph Smith was a theological sexual predator and that Mormon theology is misogynist--and I mean those things in the politest, most respectful, most academic ways possible.
We should all be able to think and politely say those things without anyone getting their dander up and contacting advisors or employers. Leave room in your heart for holy envy. But also leave room in your heart for holy abhorrence.
I could say the same about you and Mormonism, as you could say about me about Evangelicalism. We would all probably be right. This does not mean we would not have a kind of worthwhile point that made sense from our own perspective, but it is problematic to reduce a religion to what outsiders see in it. Moreover, I don’t really feel obliged to try to explain something to others that they are unlikely to understand, so the argument will always end unsatisfactorily to one degree or another. At best we can hope to learn a little more about another religion and remain on good terms with the people we are arguing with.
What I hope for is that people’s beliefs and religions become the best they can be. I would rather there be a healthy Scientology than an unhealthy one. I am unlikely to talk all Scientologists out of being Scientologists. Same with Mormonism. We should prefer that it be better before we prefer that it disappear, because improvement is probably more likely than disappearance. I am unconvinced that Joseph Smith was a sexual predator or a misogynist. I think he was a kind of coward and susceptible to the social influence of strong people such as Brigham Young. I don’t think he was necessarily a wonderful person, certainly, and I don’t approve of a lot of what he did. In any case, Joseph Smith’s limitations as a human being do not keep LDSism from getting better. There is hope that it can get better.
That is different from me saying it will ever be for you. I don’t really care that it is for you, as I would prefer you continue to be happy where you are in the best version of Evangelicalism that you can contribute to.