Wear Pants to Church Day

[Sullyute]

But then how would that be a tithing of my first 2 decades? That sounds more like a tithing on net, not gross. Do you want net or gross blessings?

[pellegrino]

If both sides are merely looking for an echo chamber, then what's the point of trying to discuss things at all?

If the "progressives" (or whatever they call themselves) explain stuff away as FAIR apologist bullshit, and the "TBMS" (or whatever they are called) explain anything contrary away as "anti" then aren't we at a significant impasse?

Certainly there is room for discussion no?

I'm fine with the label heretic, but I don't know how other like minded souls want to be called.

The problem with introducing FAIR stuff into any argument here (between friends who espouse varying approaches to Mormonism) is that it is disingenuous. That is to say that FAIR approaches topics already knowing the answer (in their opinion) and so any "discussion" that FAIR gives a topic isn't really a discussion at all. There is no other possible answer than the one they put forth and all they're doing is giving lip service to the idea of discussion because whatever arguments the adversary puts forth will be summarily dismissed with either poor logic or vicious ad hominem attacks. That is how FAIR was conceived (Hello, Dan Peterson!) and that is their culture has developed. Frankly, it has no place here, among friends.

[LA Ute]

LA, I am curious as to what you thought was sloppy thinking. Is it simply because I reject her premises, or is it the mullah comment, Cardiac made? If it's the latter then I would suggest that the word choice was sloppy, not the reasoning behind it.

You said:

the whole purpose of her "cooperative paradigm" was just an effort to reinforce the patriarchy of the status quo.

That left me a tad exasperated. If one of your students wrote that (or one of my associates wrote it in a brief) I think both you and I would ask them to convert it into a more supportable statement and not to assume such a heavy burden of proof; or, if they insist on sticking with the statement, to support it. You did explain it in your later post, in response to my question, which really wasn't an angry one, just a challenge to your first claim. Maybe I am just in a nit-picky mood today.

As for Cardiac, I consider him a friend and we have battled before over word choice. I think he has stopped calling believers "delusional," which I think is a sign of progress! And I was always taught (and believe) that writing is just thinking expressed, so sloppy word choice is sloppy thinking.

You also said:

That is how FAIR was conceived (Hello, Dan Peterson!)

I am a FAIR newbie, but in my occasional forays there I haven't seen Dan Peterson at all. Do you feel the same way about Michael Ash? If so, why?

This smug response underscores the entire point better than anything I could have argued. You are FAIR on this board, which is unfortunate - I think pellegrino summarized the issue well. I don't you to accept my criticism of FAIR, but you can't expect me to take you seriously when you use them or argue as they do or in the methods pointed out by others.

Why do you think my response is smug? And how do you defend a sweeping dismissal of the work of dozens of people based solely on the website where their work appears? (Heck, I am a conservative politically but I read and enjoy much of The New Republic.) I don't like everything I see at the FAIR site, but I have to go someplace to get the other side of arguments I see here that seem to be advanced as the unquestionable truth. Where do you want me to go? Or should I just fall in line here?

OK, I know I am giving you a hard time. I like this board because it's interesting and stimulating and I learn a lot. I like the people here. Anyone who knows me knows I am no "mullah;" they'd find the idea laughable. I am just a convinced and committed Mormon who likes to challenge ideas about the church that I don't think have been thought through well. This does not mean that I am never guilty of making the same mistake; far from it. But I thought that testing and refining one's views is what discussions are all about. Isn't it?

[pellegrino]

You said:



That left me a tad exasperated. If one of your students wrote that (or one of my associates wrote it in a brief) I think both you and I would ask them to convert it into a more supportable statement and not to assume such a heavy burden of proof; or, if they insist on sticking with the statement, to support it. You did explain it in your later post, in response to my question, which really wasn't an angry one, just a challenge to your first claim. Maybe I am just in a nit-picky mood today.

If you like I can go through and pick it apart, but I think if you were to read it in detail you'd probably agree that it's a fair analysis.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I read through it all. She gives and excellent summary of the pain that women feel, and idenifying where that pain comes from, and then concludes by giving excellent suggestions about how to improve the current position of women without actually giving them the priesthood.

However, I found the middle section and her "cooperative paradigm" to be a complete load of manure, the dark stinky kind. She builds up an elaborate, and rickety framework differentiating between the church and "fallen world institutions" thus creating a silly dichotomy between "the world" and "God's Kingdom" when in reality "God's Kingdom" is every bit as fallen and imperfect as all of the "fallen world institutions" that she doesn't think we should be compared to because our paradigm is different than the world's.

I grow so tired of this false dichotomy of "the world" and "the church" and I wish Mormons would wake up and realize that WE ARE THE WORLD! WE POPULATE IT! The church is not exempt from the human condition.

Just finished it.

Yeah, that middle part was pretty weak. But I agree that the first and last parts were good.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Reading through the comments here, I bet if this exact same article had been published on FMH rather than FAIR, the reception here would have been entirely different.

[Pheidippides]

I'm fine with the label heretic, but I don't know how other like minded souls want to be called.

The problem with introducing FAIR stuff into any argument here (between friends who espouse varying approaches to Mormonism) is that it is disingenuous. That is to say that FAIR approaches topics already knowing the answer (in their opinion) and so any "discussion" that FAIR gives a topic isn't really a discussion at all. There is no other possible answer than the one they put forth and all they're doing is giving lip service to the idea of discussion because whatever arguments the adversary puts forth will be summarily dismissed with either poor logic or vicious ad hominem attacks. That is how FAIR was conceived (Hello, Dan Peterson!) and that is their culture has developed. Frankly, it has no place here, among friends.

Bingo. LA, this sums it up exactly, and since I consider you a friend, I get a little miffed and (frankly) offended whenever FAIR appears. It insults my intelligence and our friendship.

I do not mean to paint all apologists with this same brush. As I've said earlier, there are good intelligent ones out there. Bushman is my chief example and I very much respect his opinion. Admittedly part of that is because I've interacted with him personally.

[Pheidippides]

Reading through the comments here, I bet if this exact same article had been published on FMH rather than FAIR, the reception here would have been entirely different.

I haven't read the article yet but you are almost certainly correct. I think that says a lot about both the view of FAIR many of us have and FAIR itself.

[pellegrino]

Reading through the comments here, I bet if this exact same article had been published on FMH rather than FAIR, the reception here would have been entirely different.

sorry, not for me, but I will admit that venues do color the opinions of readers. I, like you do find this a refreshing article for FAIR. It's good that things like this are getting an audience there, as at least it's being discussed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I haven't read the article yet but you are almost certainly correct. I think that says a lot about both the view of FAIR many of us have and FAIR itself.

sorry, not for me, but I will admit that venues do color the opinions of readers. I, like you do find this a refreshing article for FAIR. It's good that things like this are getting an audience there, as at least it's being discussed.

Yes, in spite of the criticisms, I think it is a fairly progressive article for FAIR.

In fact, had the article been published on FMH, I am 100% confident that it would have been ripped to shreds by the FAIR crowd. Ha.

[pellegrino]

Yes, in spite of the criticisms, I think it is a fairly progressive article for FAIR.

In fact, had the article been published on FMH, I am 100% confident that it would have been ripped to shreds by the FAIR crowd. Ha.

Which makes it all the more important that it was published by FAIR.

[Bo Diddley]

Yes, in spite of the criticisms, I think it is a fairly progressive article for FAIR.

In fact, had the article been published on FMH, I am 100% confident that it would have been ripped to shreds by the FAIR crowd. Ha.

Human nature is interesting to me. How do people come to be so close minded? You see it in all facets of life, and in all major debates.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Human nature is interesting to me. How do people come to be so close minded? You see it in all facets of life, and in all major debates.

Tribalism is in our DNA.

[Bo Diddley]

Tribalism is in our DNA.

Can a knowledge of this predisposition overcome the predisposition itself? If so, preach on brother!

[Joe Public]

The problem with introducing FAIR stuff into any argument here (between friends who espouse varying approaches to Mormonism) is that it is disingenuous. That is to say that FAIR approaches topics already knowing the answer (in their opinion) and so any "discussion" that FAIR gives a topic isn't really a discussion at all. There is no other possible answer than the one they put forth and all they're doing is giving lip service to the idea of discussion because whatever arguments the adversary puts forth will be summarily dismissed with either poor logic or vicious ad hominem attacks. That is how FAIR was conceived (Hello, Dan Peterson!) and that is their culture has developed. Frankly, it has no place here, among friends.

I don't view the FAIR approach, in general, as disingenuous. Instead, I imagine most FAIR folks view their answers to a topic, as you say, in much the same way G. E. Moore viewed his hands. That can quickly turn into a debate over the plausibility of those answers - and thus their fitness for use as a premise in a modus tollens kind of argument - in light of our knowledge of the world around us.