I've only read one page so far - and I leaped ahead into the hundreds to read about the Double Bind.

This is going to be a long read and a heavy undertaking. How long does it take to deconstruct a behemoth like Mormonism? And look at how many branches of discussion will lead off from it, especially if we're going to parse words.

Grab a tall cool one, kick off your shoes and settle back, this is going to be a long, long ride.

What's amazing, and intriguing, and helpful, and fun, and therapeutic, is that "deconstructing Mormonism" is kind of the underpinning of this entire board. It's what we do here. Every topic we post about is "deconstructing" some aspect of Mormonism if you think about it. I've often said that every topic in the world relates back to Mormonism, even if only in the objective or abstract.

In the deconstructing we get to know more about ourselves, and others, and how the world works, and what JS did and where it went, and we grow and change, even if it hurts and we suffer more wounds in the process and obtain a few more scars. But scars indicate healing. Healing, with marks left over to tell the tale of where we've been. And we can live with scars. It's what recovery is all about.

Hopefully we can communicate well and be gentle with ourselves and others who may be only one step along the "recovery" pathway. But yeah, sometimes we get some rough seas around here. Maybe then we get hit upside the head with a piece of errant driftwood and it hurts and it scars, another one to add to our collection. That seems unavoidable, by definition of the ebb and flow of our discussions. It's not all bad, so we can be brave and dive in and see where we wash up. It's the quickest way to learn to swim well, I've found, or at least to dog paddle, whatever it takes to stay afloat, which is the important thing.

I hope we take short passages at a time in our deconstruction of Tom's Tome. I don't foresee getting through it very quickly, either the reading of it or the discussion. This book is not a candidate for Reader's Digest Condensed Version - not surprisingly, as with Mormonism there is a lot to dissect. How did JS, a simple farmboy (as he's billed by the Mormon Church) do that?

Stay tuned...

(This post is all about me wanting to be the first one to start a thread on this new board). :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 02:39AM by Nightingale.

I don't have a copy of the book or else this could be fun. I'll just have to be satisfied reading what everyone else has to say.

I just ordered a used copy for $30. Looking forward to it.

Got through most of it, but I didn't read many of the
footnotes as carefully as I should have -- and I didn't
consult any of the external sources citated by the author.

UD

NG,

Congrats on getting through p. 1. :)

I think you're wise to take it slow. There is no speed-reading this book. I've read it cover to cover several times, and am reading it again with all of you...and still learning...and I wrote it!

And I expect to learn from all of you.

Deconstructing Mormonism, as I conceive of the term "deconstructing", is not about kabitzing -- or sharing experiences, opinions and meta-beliefs -- about the faith. To me it is much more fundamental, as you will no doubt come to better appreciate in reading Ch. 1.

Nor is "deconstruction", as I conceive of the term, about imaginatively and creatively/innovatively synthesizing existing meta-physical beliefs and superstitions into another system of beliefs in a way that critically differentiates it from other like belief systems, i.e. rearranging non-sense into more non-sense and selling it as the "Only true Truth," as JS did.

Finally, deconstructing non-sense into deeper, more profound, or even simpler, layers of non-sense is not the deconstruction advocated and used in this book. This would be the work of the likes of B.H. Roberts, John Widtsoe and certain progressive Mormon apologists like Blake Ostler, et al.

The way I use and advocate the word "deconstruction" in this book is in an analytical context, as rigorous analytical deconstruction from the perspective of a reasonably skeptical outsider to the faith.

The paradigm application of such deconstruction applied interpersonally (and "intra"-personally) is some version of the "Instructive Deconstructive Conversation" found in Chapter 1. And the metaphor I like to use for such deconstruction, when applied to Mormon and other theistic beliefs, is the taking apart of an "object of great price" piece by piece, as also presented in Ch. 1.

One parting thought for now NG. To you and others (like UD), the substantibe footnotes are crucial. They are, in one sense, a book within the book providing additional perspective and I think, in many cases, invaluable information and insight into the author's thinking. Reading footnotes can admittedly break the train of thought and the continuity of reading the text, so one way to approach this might be to read the text of each section or chapter first, and then go back to read the substantive notes before moving on to the next section or chapter.

Tom

For what it's worth, I think you offer a compact yet precise definition of deconstruction toward the bottom of page xl :)

..."the process of taking something apart and examining it analytically in order to determine what it is or is not, or to expose biases, flaws, or inconsistencies pertaining to its claim of existence...".

And I must add that I'm a footnote lover!

Well done DF! Thanks!

>And I expect to learn from all of you....

I doubt that "we" (if that term is even applicable) have
much to add to the core portion of your thinking and methods.
So far as I can see, all of that is solid and it will take
a disinterested, objective peer to offer much in the way of
constructive critique. Who that might be, I do not know.

But, leaving aside the rationale and methodology, there
remains the vast field of individual human experience and
perception. In that domain the practicality of the proposed
deconstruction may well be applied, tested and mulled over
by folks who have been taken "into the thick of it."

That is enough to keep the reflective/analytic process
ongoing for decades, among Latter Day Saints and their
close counterparts in the Judeo-Christian world.

It is in the possible expansion outward from those realms,
that I sense greater difficulties -- in any attempts to
seriously impact structured belief systems outside religion.

Take the imagined scientist-inventor, who is motivated by a
whole intertwined set of personal beliefs -- some rational
and some of other origins -- who, despite a dozen failures,
keeps on trying to successfully assemble his envisioned
invention. Perhaps he will succeed, or perhaps he will fail.
His acceptance and application of scientific theory may be
colored (even distorted) by personal fancies and whims that
have very little to do with reality. Perhaps he could
benefit from a thorough deconstruction of his belief system;
or, perhaps it will be the very motivation that eventually
enables him to succeed, despite evident errors and contradictions

That sort of scenario runs far afield of the ground you have
chosen to cover, and I do not expect for us to get sidetracked
into all the possible peripheral issues. In my own way, I'm
just trying to picture the plausible boundaries of reasonable
application in the common consensus reality we all live in.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my own
> way, I'm
> just trying to picture the plausible boundaries of
> reasonable
> application in the common consensus reality we all
> live in.

Dale,

With respect, I do not know what specifically you're referring to here when you write of "picturing the plausible boundaries of reasonable application in the commom consensus of reality we all live in."

If, as a guess, given the context of this thread (which is, as I understand it, the only context we're presumably working with in this Forum and thread), you're alluding to the "application" of conceptual analysis as an analytical method of deconstructing beliefs within any given belief system (in this case Mormonism/Theism) to arrive at the best justified beliefs we can reasonably hold and responsibly assert as knowledge about some putative aspect of reality, then the "reasonable boundaries of application" would be the language being used in trying to achieve what would amount to as "wide common consensus".

Simply put, while the material reality of the world and universe, as well as personally experienced ineffable encounters with it, exists independent of any thoughts or language used to conceive of and describe it, there can nevertheless be no knowledge about such reality without language. It is only through language that truth or facts about reality exist.

Consequently, and as specified in the FP and C1 of the book, if there is a problem with the language, i.e. if statements or truth claims are made where the referenced reality or existent has no reference range, or if its referents (or primary, secondary and relational attributes) are unintelligible, incoherent or, in principle, lack confirmable or disconfirmable truth conditions, then there is a serious problem with the truth claims.

If this is so, then it is pointless (or worse, incoherent), it seems to me, to speak of "common consensus" (presumably "Wide Reflective Equilibrium"), or any form of justification, if you are. That which is unjustifiable cannot, in principle, be justified, i.e. cannot possibly be found to be true (or probably true) or false (or probably false). And unjustifiable (and unjustified) truth claims are factual non-realities as stated or asserted.

Does this mean that "something", "somewhere", "somehow" might "possibly" exist that we know nothing about? Of course. But to argue for the present, actual existence of stated realites on this basis is not only question-begging, but invalid on the basis of the "evasive possibility strategies" and the "parity argument" enumerated and addressed in C2 (pp. 70-80), as well as in footnotes 3 and 4 on pp. xxi and xxii. Moreover, the status of "possibility" certainly holds no currency with those theists or religionists, like me while in the faith, who claim with conviction to "know" with "certainty" of the actual "Truth" of their beliefs, and who require such a Meta-belief (the belief that what we believe is "Truth") to even remain in the faith, much less practice the faith "faithfully".

At this last, extreme level of human functioning, we are not, or so I argue, dealing with imaginative or creative, fictional visionaries in literature or the arts or sciences who are merely speculating on the basis of what is known as common knowledge. Nothing factual is being seriously proposed here. Nor are we dealing with innovators of future technologies built on a foundation of known truths about what works, or might work, given existing knowledge about the world and how it works.

Rather, what we are instead dealing with are so-called "spiritual" or "theistic" visionaries, spiritualists and prophets allegedly in direct contact with some higher "spiritual"or "transcendent" being, reality or power (without intelligle referents with specified, verifiable truth-conditions), who are professing the possession of some "sublime," "transcendent" knowledge or Truth (too wonderful to describe because ineffable or beyond human understanding). In other words, we seem to be dealing with misdirected confusion or a bad "trip" at least, or fraud or mental illness at worst, but not factual reality.

Perhaps none of this pertains to "that sort of scenario" you had in mind. If so, and if what you did have in mind pertains to DM, and to the deconstruction of theistic belief, please feel free to clarify.

Otherwise, I hope my reply was in someway helpful.

Thanks.

Tom



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 08:50PM by tomriskas.

>Otherwise, I hope my reply was in someway helpful.

Oh, yes. Very helpful, as before as well.

By common consensus reality, I mean that description of
the world that most of us share: A universe in which gravity
pulls objects together, and we all agree that we are standing
on the surface of a planet we have decided to call earth.

That agreed upon reality -- not what the universe is prior
to human beings communicating with one another.

The world in which, when we come out of operative anesthetic
the doctor asks us if we know what day of the week it is
and what our home address is.

Away from human conventions, it is not "really" Sunday the
first of May. I do not "really" live at certain coordinates.

But in common consensus reality, it is a certain day and
I do live at a certain address, and the doctor deems me
rational enough to leave the recovery room when I can
provide communications which agree with his mental list.

In THAT mutually agreed upon life, what are the probable
limits of applying deconstruction in such a way that actual
human beings are relieved of their beliefs in significant
numbers? I am not looking for an answer, I'm exploring
an idea -- considering probable limitations.

I doubt that any of us will make the attempt at practical
mass-testing in Mecca during the hadj. That might fall within
the theoretical boundaries, but would be an impractical
endeavor, due to known circumstances.

UD

HELLO TOM RISKAS! I am the infamous (or famous) reviewer of your book out on Amazon. May I just say I am looking very forward to discussing this book with all of you and with you Tom. I hope we can all get mileage out of the discussion. Oh by the way, did I tell you I read your book Tom? LOL!

Tom noted to Unka Dale: "Does this mean that "something", "somewhere", "somehow" might "possibly" exist that we know nothing about? Of course. But to argue for the present existence of stated realites on this basis is not only question-begging, but invalid on the basis of the "evasive possibility strategies" and the "parity argument""

I thinks this is one of the points that I realized as an apologist this was one of the strategies I used. I know other apologists use it as well. I used to argue from the realm of possibility, but now I see how that is simply short sighted, and invalid. THe issue is probability, not possibility. That makes all the difference.
And I think that arguing about something that might be real somewhere so we can obviously have faith in it is, indeed, quite silly now. It reminds me of what many of the atheists say, religion appears to be based more on fear than knowledge. We fear the unknown, and punishment in yet another life beyond this (which can be punishment enough!) keeps us believing in the highly improbable, but if there is even a mere 0.000000000009% chance that there MIGHT be something to it, then by all means, ACCEPT Pascal's Wager!!!!
And by the way, I truly after studying it and about it, do not find Pascal's Wager to be the best way to go. There are seriously powerful arguments against it.

Hello Kerry!

Nice to hear from you and finally connect. Thank you for so respectfully reading my book, and reviewing it as you have. That you have done so as a once "defender of the faith" of some renown is I think a testament to you as a person.

I too look forward to exchanging thoughts with you (and others)on the book, and perhaps exploring unchartered territory together. Our paths through Mormonism seem to intersect in similar ways, as I'm sure you've noted in reading my personal disclosures in the book.

As an aside, one area you might be interested in exploring was addressed to you by an "Elder Berry" (I believe) on a different thread that is located with the subject:"Conceptually, where is your head space." You might have read it. He and I exchanged words on this topic. I think its a good question for all who are not active in the faith, and who have "real" doubts, to grapple with, even if not in a public forum.

Tom

Hello all,

Let me also add my thanks to Tom for taking the time to explore this with us. And Kerry, I will say, your review on Amazon is what sold the book for me.

I hope to finish the Introduction tonight (I have nine pages to go). I am deliberately reading in the prescribed manner despite the massive temptation to jump ahead. I especially like the Intro to Logic course that the Introduction gives. I took a Logic course in College and am appreciative of the review.

I look forward to further reading and discussion!

SD

SD,

Welcome! Good for you in focusing on the "Common Reasoning Fallicies" and "Last Defense" in the Introduction. These sections, together with the sections on "Mormon Apologetics" and the "Evasive Possibility Strategies" in Ch. 2 are critical. They are, from my perspective, the "Achilles Heel" of Mormon and Theistic apologetics.

Learn them well, as well as the therapeutic methodology of deconstruction introduced in the Preface, presented in Ch. 1, and applied in Chs. 3-6.

If you're not free of the 'god virus' after working through all this ON YOURSELF (if you are still a theistis believer), then you've been seriously infected and might first need, as I did, an unconsciously orchestrated crisis of faith, followed perhaps by psychotherapy with a non-religious psychotherapist.

I'll share that story at the end, if you're interested. but for now, hit the book! ;)

T

Well it looks like Tom owes me a paycheck then - LOL! Kidding Tom, relax, put yer wallet back man. The chapter Beyond the Betrayal of Doubt is a really good intro to the whole subject. The next chapter was quite difficult, but we can make it easier to understand now that we have the two seer stones (Tom and Steve Benson - GRIN!) hanging out around here to translate for us......

I owe you more than a paycheck my friend. Your review seems to have created a ground-swell of interest in a demographic I didn't even consider; the demographic represented by the RfM Forums.

Thank you again for having the courage to read and review the book as you did. Your review alone has made the 4 year sacrifice in writing it worth while.

My hope is that other notable apologists will read the book. One person who requested the book was a BYU professor of ancient scriptures. The sciptures won't help him much, I'm afraid.

Cheers!

Hi everybody. I'm still reading, too. Am about halfway through, but have to go back every so often to clarify, check, and recheck.

Tom, thanks so much for participating. I feel privileged to have your perspective and guidance.

And it's wonderful that RfM Admin have opened up this playground for us. Thanks, Susan/IS and EricK!

Fasten your seat belts, everybody-- deconstruction is driving!

Hello all.

My first post and a subject dear to my heart.

I obtained a copy recently and I am midway through the chapter 3.

Something amazing has happened to me as I read this book. It speaks to my heart!!! Funny how a book on religious deconstructionism comes across to me as intuitively true. Sort of an oxymoron I suppose.

Over and over again the author is posing questions that have bothered me for years. Questions I have asked other members and friends, though never quite so precisely.

This book is a tremendous help for me in better formulating these issues in my mind and in the questions I ask others on how they deal with them. In the past, I would usually just ask, "What does that even mean?" in relation to the nature of God or how we will spend eternal life or some other statement of God talk. Now I find I am able to not only ask a more focused question, but point out the difficulties inherent in the responses.
Like others I want to rush ahead but find myself going back all too often.

It is great to see Kerry and UD here, both of whom I respect greatly. I found the book through Kerry’s review at another board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2013 02:23PM by internetmormon.

internetmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>... Funny how a
> book on religious deconstructionism comes across
> to me as intuitively true. Sort of an oxymoron I
> suppose.
>....

Hi there, I think an RfM "first" -- or, at least a first in
my limited knowledge of new posters introducing themselves
in a brand-new sub-forum, and not on the general board.

But, getting back to the book -- I'm not sure it is exactly
a volume dedicated to "religious deconstructionism." If
it were that, precisely -- then maybe we could take it
into a Unitarian-Universalist Sunday meeting and convince
everybody there to just go home. Instead, I'd predict
that we'd see considerable head-nodding, in agreement
with Riskas, and then they'd continue to practice their
religion, just as they were doing before we came along.

I can imagine more or less the same reaction from the
Dali Lama, if he took the trouble to read and ponder
the topic. Certainly the late Krishnamurti would have agreed
with much of what we read in Deconstructing Mormonism,
and then would have continued his lectures and study
groups without implementing any corrective changes.

If we back up a step or two, and say "99% of all religions"
or expressions of religious thought, then perhaps the idea
could be argued as a valid one.

But I'd guess that we can come up with a simpler and more
elegant description than "religious deconstructionism."

Anybody care to offer suggestions?

UD

UD, I laughed at the visual of taking the book into the UU meeting or to the DL and getting the head nodding. Yes, indeed, and that is what makes atheists shake their heads at how impossible it seems to break through to true believers. (It's because it's not about 'information'!)

As for new names (haha) for the book, if you want elegant, I'll be sure to disappoint. I thought of "Investigating Mormonism" but that only tells half the story. I'll have to read more before I can come up with a title that encompasses the book's entirety. What I'm thinking even before I start it is that the book seems to do more than deconstruct only Mormonism. I wonder if future editions will change the title to reflect that. It may attract a far wider audience, who knows. But I'm getting ahead of myself (and falling behind in the reading).

Tom makes a point throughout the book to say that pretty much *all* theistic persuasions, not just Mormonism, are deconstructed.

Deconstructing Theism

Then at least we believers would be forewarned before we get to the 'nonsense' charges by the non-theists (meaning: it ain't just about deconstructing Mormonism).

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom makes a point throughout the book to say that
> pretty much *all* theistic persuasions, not just
> Mormonism, are deconstructed.
>
> Deconstructing Theism

Anybody here have the software application necessary to
construct a Venn diagram and post it on the web?

The four overlapping circles would be:

religious
non-religious
theist
atheist


There are hermits and theistic individualists who profess
no particular religious denomination and who participate
in no organized religious group activities. Make it maroon.

I suppose that Tom's target audience would also be people
participating in (or philosophically supporting) theistic
religion. So we can color that overlap portion red.

But he also makes occasional mention of atheistic religion,
and I suppose that would be a secondary target. Make it pink.

Then there are atheistic thinkers who are non-religious but
who offer controversial belief systems -- Confucius, Marx, etc.
Color that part of the overlap a very light pink.

I don't think Tom intends to take his book to Korea and there
try to convince Confucian proponents of their belief errors.
But somebody, someday might try that sort of evangelism --
so I suggest including the non-religious atheists as offering
in themselves at least a potential future target.

UD

Hello UD,

I wondered where you had wandered off to. I have missed your participation on other boards that I frequent. You are always a must read for me.

I apologize if I committed a social gaffe in not introducing myself. I tend to minimize my RL info online to protect my identity. While I have long since left belief in Mormonism behind, I have not left the Mormon social circle, either with my friends or family and prefer that they are not exposed to my unorthodox views, they are , after all, my friends and family.

I suppose I inadvertently expressed the limits of my religious box by referring to Tom's book as a religious deconstructionism. Though I am not sure that the examples you quoted to me qualify as what I consider religion or merely a social club. Nor am I sure the purpose of Tom’s book is to get people to stop attending services.



Since his book, seems to focus on a critical examination of Mormonism in particular and of religions in general, I think I might stick with ‘religious deconstructionism' as the way I describe the book. You may prefer theistic deconstructionism. In any case it seems to be a side bar and not all that critical to his discussion of Mormonism itself.

I am looking forward to reading more from you.

IM

internetmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> I am not sure
> that the examples you quoted to me qualify as what
> I consider religion or merely a social club. Nor
> am I sure the purpose of Tom’s book is to get
> people to stop attending services.

Every generation has its super-book, that will destroy the
Mormon Church, and each of them is doomed to failure. Sandra
Tanner once said that all her efforts would be worthwhile if
only a single soul left the cult and came to Christ. Perhaps
in his own way, Tom is like Sandra -- it does not matter how
many members leave, or even how many members disbelieve and
elect not to leave. None of which interests me much, either way.

I am much more interested in what, exactly constitutes
religious activity. Can it be as little as a single
sentence agreed to by like-mind people? Or must it
involve some social interaction, some group activity?

I'd say that Greenpeace falls within the very broad
limits of what we might well call religion. But I'm not
convinced that a non-aligned theistic hermit, spending
his or her life meditating in a cave creates a religion.

The reason I dwell upon this point, is because the answer
to the question may help supply a plan of action -- the
practical testing of the deconstruction theory.

If a handful of folks like yourself offer testimonies of
the process, that is anecdotal news -- interesting, but
not exactly conclusive. If the methodology is tested on
a pre-selected group and the results quantified and
analyzed, then that is something more important -- more
worth dissemination and support, perhaps.

I do not expect to ever find the super-book, that will
destroy the Mormon Church. But, as a Reorganized LDS,
the impulse to destroy Mormonism itself is a strong one.
Since the days of Joseph Smith III, it's been in our blood.

UD

Thanks UD.

Books do not destroy religions, they create them.

Religions are destroyed (changed?) from within.

Maybe Tom has a suggestion or definition for 'Religion' as it applies to his book.

IM

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am much more interested in what, exactly
> constitutes
> religious activity. Can it be as little as a
> single
> sentence agreed to by like-mind people? Or must it
>
> involve some social interaction, some group
> activity?
>
> I'm not
> convinced that a non-aligned theistic hermit,
> spending
> his or her life meditating in a cave creates a
> religion.
>
> The reason I dwell upon this point, is because the
> answer
> to the question may help supply a plan of action
> -- the
> practical testing of the deconstruction theory.


Dale,

I'm curious what any of this has to do with Deconstructing Mormonism. This is not to say your queries and musings aren't interesting or even provocative at times, but I'm confused about where you're going with this line of inquiry. It seems to me to be curiously evasive.

Regardless, here is my reply:

First, "deconstruction" is not a "theory", as I use and apply the term in DM.

It is, rather, a critical, analytical form of inquiry utilized to determine if stated existents (e.g. gods, angels, spirits, intelligences, spirit, etc.) used in theistic language-games, and believed to actually exist, have, as referring expressions, specifiable referents that are factually meaningful, not merely familiar or imaginable. That is to say, referents that have specifiable truth conditions that can, in principle, be confirmed or disconfirmed as true (or probably true) or false (or probably false), so as to be "a priori" justifiable as truth claims.

One would clearly not employ such a form of inquiry to post-modernist theological characterizations of 'God' as love, for example. For the Jungians, as another example, 'God' is a term used to denote Jung's psychological construct of the 'Self.' Jungians also use 'gods' as denotive of archetypes or complexes of the psyche. They also regard "religion" as, among other things, primal love or fusion of the masculine and feminine aspects of the psyche. These are not literal truth claims subject to critical, analytical deconstruction. They are merely analogues or metaphors or similies. Only if they are believed and asserted to be factual realities do we have a potential problem worthy of analysis and assessment.

The "hermit" you mention was likely not born and raised a hermit. He or she was born and raised within a social group, and learned language and acquired concepts and beliefs and knowledge that enabled him or her to create his or her own "religious" belief system.

But whatever "religion" as a life-form (not a metaphor) means to anyone is only relevant to the strong Atheism I've employed in DM, and Kai Nielsen and others have employed in Judeo-Christianity "if and when" those who practice it employ a language-game consisting of certain primary "truth claims" believed and asserted to be true, or to be The Truth.

I hope this helps clear things up a bit.

On another, related subject, perhaps, as a suggestion, we might consider starting other threads in the other RfM forums to explore other areas of interest not directly germane or pertinent to the particular topic at hand. This suggestion might be counter-cultural to the way you all do things in other forums, but I'm truly concerned -- and this in not with anyone in particular, except when cited, and includes me as well -- that these diversions will derail what I at least thought the purpose of this forum to be. They will certainly lose my interest.

Thanks in advance for hearing me out on this.


Thoughts?

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Dale,
>
> I'm curious what any of this has to do with
> Deconstructing Mormonism.

Well, having never been a member of the Utah Church, I'm
finding it difficult to get my thoughts in gear with those
who have been, and those who have actually believed such
things, to the point of risking their entire futures on
those beliefs being true.

I was raised and educated by those people, in what was for
some years almost an exclusively LDS environment and have
attended LDS seminary and institute classes. But, still, it
is so foreign to my own view of life that I'm literally
forced to "pick around the edges" to find something that is
germane enough to my experience, to even try to contribute.

> This is not to say your
> queries and musings aren't interesting or even
> provocative at times, but I'm confused about where
> you're going with this line of inquiry. It seems
> to me to be curiously evasive.

I thought I'd begin by finding the edges of your methodology
as applied successfully. Where are the limits -- at what
point does it all fade into irrelevancy? When the limits
are thus fathomed, then to what extent is the "meat" of
the subject relevant? Euclidean geometry is relevant to
most of what I can understand of the universe, I do not
need to go past its limits, but I understand that higher
mathematics might be required for doing that. The same
thought occurs to me in examining your book. If that makes
any sense as an analogy.

>
> Regardless, here is my reply:
>
> First, "deconstruction" is not a "theory", as I
> use and apply the term in DM.
>

I do not know how I can approach it as anything other than
a possibility, until I can see it in action in front of me
or somehow apply it to my own situation. If it does not
begin as a theory, then it is an established process. But at
the moment I do not know that. It is at this point that it
might be helpful to hear from your editor and those who
have reviewed your work, to try and establish in my own
mind why others acknowledge it as fact/process and have
not first looked at it in terms of theory.


> It is, rather, a critical, analytical form of
> inquiry utilized to determine if stated existents
> (e.g. gods, angels, spirits, intelligences,
> spirit, etc.) used in theistic language-games, and
> believed to actually exist, have, as referring
> expressions, specifiable referents that are
> factually meaningful, not merely familiar or
> imaginable.

OK -- that much I understand. I do not see how I can argue
against any of that. We have already discussed what you
mean by "actually exist," and I have attempted to keep
that in mind, (in terms of what is real).

> That is to say, referents that have
> specifiable truth conditions that can, in
> principle, be confirmed or disconfirmed as true
> (or probably true) or false (or probably false),
> so as to be "a priori" justifiable as truth
> claims.

Once again, I see nothing in that statement that causes
me to try and argue against it. I merely wish to see it
in operation with a believer whose claims are being
subjected to inquiry, in real time -- or, as close to
real time as we can approach in this forum. I'm patient
in that regard. Next week, next month, or whatever will
be fine with me. But in the meantime I'll settle for
reading testimonies from those who have gone through the
process and have something interesting to report.


> One would clearly not employ such a form of
> inquiry to post-modernist theological
> characterizations of 'God' as love, for example.
> For the Jungians, as another example, 'God' is a
> term used to denote Jung's psychological construct
> of the 'Self.' Jungians also use 'gods' as
> denotive of archetypes or complexes of the psyche.
> They also regard "religion" as, among other
> things, primal love or fusion of the masculine and
> feminine aspects of the psyche. These are not
> literal truth claims subject to critical,
> analytical deconstruction. They are merely
> analogues or metaphors or similies. Only if they
> are believed and asserted to be factual realities
> do we have a potential problem worthy of analysis
> and assessment.

OK -- I'm not sure that I ever said anything that seemed
to venture into those topics. But perhaps I gave that
impression in my less than precise questioning.

>
> The "hermit" you mention was likely not born and
> raised a hermit. He or she was born and raised
> within a social group, and learned language and
> acquired concepts and beliefs and knowledge that
> enabled him or her to create his or her own
> "religious" belief system.
>

Here is where you and I apparently diverge, in that you
seem to define religion as being comprised primarily of
beliefs inside a person's mind, and my experience of
religion has been group activity by like-minded people.

I do not think we are using the word in anything like the
same way, respectively. And so the only way out of that
dilemma, for me, is to translate your terminology into
some sort of vocabulary that corresponds with my own
experience. That, or perhaps some compelling lexicon
demonstrations to show that I'm misusing the word.


> But whatever "religion" as a life-form (not a
> metaphor) means to anyone is only relevant to the
> strong Atheism I've employed in DM, and Kai
> Nielsen and others have employed in
> Judeo-Christianity "if and when" those who
> practice it employ a language-game consisting of
> certain primary "truth claims" believed and
> asserted to be true, or to be The Truth.

I'm sorry, but you just lost me. If you can give me a
paragraph on how strong atheism differs from weak atheism,
perhaps I can get back on board with your train of thought.

>
> I hope this helps clear things up a bit.
>
> On another, related subject, perhaps, as a
> suggestion, we might consider starting other
> threads in the other RfM forums to explore other
> areas of interest not directly germane or
> pertinent to the particular topic at hand.

No doubt I could do that. And if you're comfortable with
my having questions that go unanswered here, then I can
be comfortable with that as well. I had hoped to learn
something beyond what the book provides. But that may be
hoping for more than what is easily accomplished here.


> This
> suggestion might be counter-cultural to the way
> you all do things in other forums, but I'm truly
> concerned -- and this in not with anyone in
> particular, except when cited, and includes me as
> well -- that these diversions will derail what I
> at least thought the purpose of this forum to be.
> They will certainly lose my interest.
>
> Thanks in advance for hearing me out on this.
>
>
> Thoughts?

I'm always happy to hear folks out. Doing that generally
gets past superficial fluff and may even ferret out some
very interesting realizations. At least I'm open to that.

I think I pretty much understand the limits of where your
method is most applicable. That has been useful to me,
even if it might be exasperating for you.

Which leaves me wondering what is left to explore.

As I said, I'd be very much interested in seeing this
variety of deconstruction implemented in real time, with
a "true believer." I once watched a few hours of what
was termed "cult deprogramming" in video tapes during my
seminary studies. It was very instructive, to see a real
person in the process of relinquishing beliefs and changing
right before my (our) eyes.

But if that is unlikely, or impossible to predict. I can
still offer myself as a candidate for whatever process seems
relevant under these circumstances. Perhaps I could benefit
by undergoing whatever changes are possible, that were not
sparked as a non-Mormon, reading a book mainly written for
my Mormon Latter Day Saint co-religionists. Or, maybe not.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I thought I'd begin by finding the edges of your
> methodology
> as applied successfully. Where are the limits --
> at what
> point does it all fade into irrelevancy? When the
> limits
> are thus fathomed, then to what extent is the
> "meat" of
> the subject relevant? > >

The "edges" of the deconstructive practice used are the various ways the terms'God', 'revelation', and 'faith' are used by Mormons (and/or by the Mormon Church) in making statements of fact, or assertions of Truth (or a certain knowledge of Truth).

What else, I wonder, could be the source of confusion here, given what was painstakingly presented and demonstrated in the Foundational Preface, Ch. 1, and Chs. 3-6, and recapitulated in Ch. 8?


> First, "deconstruction" is not a "theory", as I
> > use and apply the term in DM.
> >
>
> I do not know how I can approach it as anything
> other than
> a possibility, until I can see it in action in
> front of me
> or somehow apply it to my own situation. If it
> does not
> begin as a theory, then it is an established
> process. But at
> the moment I do not know that. It is at this point
> that it
> might be helpful to hear from your editor and
> those who
> have reviewed your work, to try and establish in
> my own
> mind why others acknowledge it as fact/process and
> have
> not first looked at it in terms of theory.

The theoretical underpinnings of the practice presented, advocated and demonstrated are set forth in the FP and Ch. 1, together with relevant and extensive notes (which you earlier admitted to having not read) and references.

> > That is to say, referents that have
> > specifiable truth conditions that can, in
> > principle, be confirmed or disconfirmed as true
> > (or probably true) or false (or probably
> false),
> > so as to be "a priori" justifiable as truth
> > claims.
>
> Once again, I see nothing in that statement that
> causes
> me to try and argue against it. I merely wish to
> see it
> in operation with a believer whose claims are
> being
> subjected to inquiry, in real time -- or, as close
> to
> real time as we can approach in this forum. I'm
> patient
> in that regard. Next week, next month, or whatever
> will
> be fine with me. But in the meantime I'll settle
> for
> reading testimonies from those who have gone
> through the
> process and have something interesting to report.

The numerous examples provided in the book, including the lengthy "Instructive Deconstructive Conversation" presented as an example and a suggested exercise for Mormon readers to apply to themselves provide, I think, a good sense of the theory and practice in action.

To see it in real time action you might want to construct your own conversation with an objective outsider from another world who has engaged you in a conversation about your own personal religious or theistic beliefs or experiences, if you have any. This is what I did in writing the Conversation in the book. I played both parts. By doing so, as suggested in Ch. 1, you too would play both parts to experience the process firsthand for yourself, as I did. Then, if you would like further assessment you could provide your own "Instructive Deconstructive Conversation" to me, and I will be glad to review it and take it to another level if need be. Hopefully that will give you "something interesting to report."

But again, Dale, and forgive the surfacing once more my Freudian hermeneutic of suspicion (a royal pain and annoyance to those who want their stated motives to be accepted as stated), I'm really not sure what you're looking for here beyond experience with the process of analysis being presented and used in the book.

You say you'll "settle for reading testimonies from those who have gone through the process and have something interesting to report," but "settle" to what end exactly, and why the need to "settle" at all? Is there something here that is "unsettling" to you about this process of deconstruction? If so, what is it exactly, and why not share it directly?

You say you'll settle for "something interesting to report," but what exactly would count for or against something being "interesting" to report? Are you looking for a test of some sort to convince you that the process actually works? Then what specifically would count for or against the nature and adequacy of such a test, and why the need for a "test" at all? If you're wondering if submitting every believer's faith to such a process will result in deconversion or an abondonment of their faith, the answer to that question should be obvious, for a variety of psychological factors independent of the process itself. Moreover, that is not the purpose of engaging in this process, as I allude to in the Introduction.

No claims are being made about the process that require independent testing. Its theoretical underpinnings are plain for those who carefully read the book, or reread it as might be required, and the utility and efficasy of the process can, I think, be sufficiently convincing through self-engagement using the OTF. Moreover, the premises justifying its use are plainly presented and argued for in Ch.1 and its relevant footnotes. If that's not sufficient, your curiosity would, I should think, naturally take you to the references and further study.

But I'm not so sure you're merely looking for more information.
You seem to be looking for evidence. But again, evidence to what end exactly? And what would constitute "evidence" for the use of such a Socratic process? If you're looking for rebuttals to Nielsen's Atheistic approach, you can find them in his own works, as well as mine on pp. 58-60. There are no air tight, irrefutable arguments that can "prove" your or others religio-spiritual or theistic beliefs to be wrong or false. But that's not we're looking for here, is it? But you know that already. So what are you looking for exactly?

> > The "hermit" you mention was likely not born
> and
> > raised a hermit. He or she was born and raised
> > within a social group, and learned language and
> > acquired concepts and beliefs and knowledge
> that
> > enabled him or her to create his or her own
> > "religious" belief system.
> >
>
> Here is where you and I apparently diverge, in
> that you
> seem to define religion as being comprised
> primarily of
> beliefs inside a person's mind, and my experience
> of
> religion has been group activity by like-minded
> people.
>
> I do not think we are using the word in anything
> like the
> same way, respectively. And so the only way out of
> that
> dilemma, for me, is to translate your terminology
> into
> some sort of vocabulary that corresponds with my
> own
> experience. That, or perhaps some compelling
> lexicon
> demonstrations to show that I'm misusing the
> word.

I have no problem with referring to religion as a language-game within a particular life-form (or community of like-minded people using language in a way that parallels how they live their lives.

Still, I would argue that religion-as-belief-and-practice within that community extends to each individual living and practicing the religion as taught and lived within that community.

I don't see religion as being unhinged from belief, as Eller suggests, and as I address in footnote 75, p. 101. (Those damn footnotes again, Dale.) ;) Nor is religion or belief unhinged from language.

> > But whatever "religion" as a life-form (not a
> > metaphor) means to anyone is only relevant to
> the
> > strong Atheism I've employed in DM, and Kai
> > Nielsen and others have employed in
> > Judeo-Christianity "if and when" those who
> > practice it employ a language-game consisting
> of
> > certain primary "truth claims" believed and
> > asserted to be true, or to be The Truth.
>
> I'm sorry, but you just lost me. If you can give
> me a
> paragraph on how strong atheism differs from weak
> atheism,
> perhaps I can get back on board with your train of
> thought.

See note 46, p. 15 and note 74, p. 96-8. ;)


> On another, related subject, perhaps, as a
> > suggestion, we might consider starting other
> > threads in the other RfM forums to explore
> other
> > areas of interest not directly germane or
> > pertinent to the particular topic at hand.
>
> No doubt I could do that. And if you're
> comfortable with
> my having questions that go unanswered here, then
> I can
> be comfortable with that as well. I had hoped to
> learn
> something beyond what the book provides. But that
> may be
> hoping for more than what is easily accomplished
> here.

I truly welcome your participation Dale, as I do everyones's. My concern is, again, in taking the conversation off topic, which, as I understand it, is the designated section or chapter of the book, or in anyone trying, if they do, to covertly torpedo the book without grounds as a defense by derailing the conversation with red herrings. If you or others can make a cogent case of relevancy for your comments, questions or concerns to the Chapter being discussed (where such comments, questions and concerns are at least not obviously relevant and might seem irrelevant), then by all means do so. I just frankly didn't and don't see the relevancy of some of your apparent diversions, and think they take us off topic. I might be wrong, and will certainly defer to the group, but I am interested in participating to answer questions and listen and respond to reactions and concerns about the book with those who have carefully read it, including the substantive footnotes. I am personally not interested in straying off topic or chasing red herrings, at least not in this dedicated forum.

I think there are numerous opportunities to ask questions and provide insights and reactions that will foster a greater understanding and appreciation for the book, as well provide different perspectives that might enhance or even modify or bring into question what has been written.

Maybe your excursion into the creation of a Venn diagram or the meaning of religion pertained to the subject matter included in the Introduction, but I could not see the connection.

Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2013 03:10AM by tomriskas.

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> The "edges" of the deconstructive practice used
> are the various ways the terms'God', 'revelation',
> and 'faith' are used by Mormons (and/or by the
> Mormon Church) in making statements of fact, or
> assertions of Truth (or a certain knowledge of
> Truth).
>
> What else, I wonder, could be the source of
> confusion here, given what was painstakingly
> presented and demonstrated in the Foundational
> Preface, Ch. 1, and Chs. 3-6, and recapitulated in
> Ch. 8?

The source of confusion lies not within the application of
such methodology to Mormons and similar believing people
(the FLDS, for example), but in the proposed extension to
theists and theism as whole, and beyond those bounds, to
religionists as a whole. I did not know how far you intended
to reach, with potentially successful deconstruction. At
one point, I surmised that Confucianism would lie outside
those limits. That is just one example.
...

> The theoretical underpinnings of the practice
> presented, advocated and demonstrated are set
> forth in the FP and Ch. 1, together with relevant
> and extensive notes (which you earlier admitted to
> having not read) and references.

I did not read the notes in full, though I did speed read
them and recollect enough of the jist of the material to
find my way back to some of the presentation. Without
endnotes and an index, I still read and re-read, from page
to page, attempting to re-locate paragraphs that only
lightly stick in my memory.

Yes, there are "theoretical underpinnings" but when the
methodology is presumably extended to all theists, or to
religionists in general, I do not comprehend how the
success of that application can be initially viewed in
any terms other than theoretical -- until tested.

>
> The numerous examples provided in the book,
> including the lengthy "Instructive Deconstructive
> Conversation" presented as an example and a
> suggested exercise for Mormon readers to apply to
> themselves provide, I think, a good sense of the
> practice in action.

Yes, that is a good start, but the examples involve
accepting your reporting at face value, without objective
confirmation from external authorities. I can only try
to apply any particular "exercise" designed for Mormons
to myself with limited relevance -- so that part has
not been so useful.

>
> To see it in real time action you might want to
> construct your own conversation with an objective
> outsider from another world who has engaged you in
> a conversation about your own personal religious
> or theistic beliefs or experiences, if you have
> any.

As I have mentioned by beliefs are few and most of them
subject to change with new information. For example, I
have changed my belief regarding the age of the earth
several times in the past, and if the geologic consensus
is adjusted in the future, I'll probably be compelled
to once again alter the precise content of that belief.

But you do bring up a very good suggestion in regard to
my "religious beliefs," which would mean re-examining how
I look at comparative religion. For example, I might go
back and re-read Campbell's writings, or even Herman
Melville's Mardi, which is a fictional exploration in
comparative religion set right here in my own back yard.
So, thank you for that suggestion.

I generally hesitate to attach the word "experience" to
theism -- it tends to overlap far too easily with what
people call "spiritual experience." And I'm not at all
imaginative at how I might begin to construct a conversation
with an extraterrestrial regarding transcendental realization.
There is no self to reference and no experience to relate.
It would have to be something other than conversation.



> This is what I did in writing the
> Conversation in the book. I played both parts. By
> doing so, as suggested in Ch. 1, you too would
> play both parts to experience the process
> firsthand for yourself, as I did. Then, if you
> would like further assessment you could provide
> your own "Instructive Deconstructive Conversation"
> to me, and I will be glad to review it and take it
> to another level if need be. Hopefully that will
> give you "something interesting to report."
>

Yes, I skipped over all of that too quickly. I did not
stop to consider how it might be applicable to comparative
religion and realization other than spiritual experience.
That is a very good suggestion, and one that I will pursue.

> But again, Dale, and forgive the surfacing once
> more my Freudian hermeneutic of suspicion (a royal
> pain and annoyance to those who want their stated
> motives to be accepted as stated), I'm really not
> sure what you're looking for here beyond
> experience with the process of analysis being
> presented and used in the book.

Successful application. How is all of this applied to
a Mormon relative or friend who will never read the book,
but who is susceptible to self-examination, at least on
a small scale at an elementary level? That would be one
example. I'm sure you are familiar with the old tension
between the RLDS and LDS when it comes to attempts at
successful application of methods designed to change
Mormon thinking. That is my heritage. I am not ruled
by that dynamic, but it was my starting point more than
three decades ago, as a missionary in Utah.

>
> You say you'll "settle for reading testimonies
> from those who have gone through the process and
> have something interesting to report," but
> "settle" to what end exactly, and why the need to
> "settle" at all? Is there something here that is
> "unsettling" to you about this process of
> deconstruction? If so, what is it exactly, and why
> not share it directly?

"Settle" just means wait patiently, without many future
complaints. If your method is widely applicable, then
this forum is a good place to sit back and see what
happens. De-conversion (slow and rapid) is a daily
phenomenon, and participants looking for ways to "free"
their friends and relatives are as common as sand on a beach.

>
> You say you'll settle for "something interesting
> to report," but what exactly would count for or
> against something being "interesting" to report?

A better life, for one thing? Doesn't have to be better
by any external standards I might try to impose, but a
testimony from one real person who describes life after
deconstruction, in terms of high recommendation and in
terms of personal liberation/evolution/peak experience.

> Are you looking for a test of some sort to
> convince you that the process actually works? Then
> what specifically would count for or against the
> nature and adequacy of such a test, and why the
> need for a "test" at all?

Why test any scientific or presumed logical discovery?
If you work is eventually going to find its place in
the professional peer-reviewed scientific literature, it
will be examined, re-created, tested, etc., no matter
what you and I converse about here. Perhaps I'm wrong
to anticipate that future development; but perhaps not.


> If you're wondering if
> submitting every believer's faith to such a
> process will result in deconversion or an
> abondonment of their faith, the answer to that
> question should be obvious, for a variety of
> psychological factors independent of the process
> itself. Moreover, that is not the purpose of
> engaging in this process, as I allude to in the
> Introduction.

Once again you are mixing faith and belief in ways that
slow down my reflection terribly. I would never want to
see an infant's faith in his loving mother destroyed;
nor would I anticipate any viable crusade to destroy
the false beliefs of people across the board. I thought
I touched upon that when I spoke of limits, but perhaps
not. No -- I'm content to begin with Mormonism, and
with the small sub-population of Mormons who are actually
willing to submit beliefs to examination.


>
> No claims are being made about the process that
> require independent testing. Its theoretical
> underpinnings are plain for those who carefully
> read the book, or reread it as might be required,
> and the utility and efficasy of the process can, I
> think, be sufficiently convincing through
> self-engagement using the OTF. Moreover, the
> premises justifying its use are plainly presented
> and argued for in Ch.1 and its relevant footnotes.
> If that's not sufficient, your curiosity would, I
> should think, naturally take you to the references
> and further study.

OK -- But you do realize that your methodology will be
picked up and applied by persons you do not know and
have no control over. Once you published your discovery
you relinquished ownership, no matter any copyright. It
will evolve and spread in various and sundry ways.

>
> But I'm not so sure you're merely looking for more
> information.
> You seem to be looking for evidence. But again,
> evidence to what end exactly? And what would
> constitute "evidence" for the use of such a
> Socratic process?

No. I think you are giving me too much credit. My thoughts
do not run that deep, nor are they that concentrated. I am
curious, but I do not need evidence for any particular
purpose, beyond satisfying some of that curiosity. The
future will no doubt present far more evidence than I can
easily examine. I'm patient. A month or a year or ten
years are all about the same to me nowadays.


> If you're looking for rebuttals
> to Nielsen's Atheistic approach, you can find them
> in his own works, as well as mine on pp. 58-60.

Thank you for that suggestion. When time permits I'll
look into it. I have a nearby page open right now, so
the material is close at hand.

> There are no air tight, irrefutable arguments that
> can "prove" your or others religio-spiritual or
> theistic beliefs to be wrong or false. But that's
> not we're looking for here, is it? But you know
> that already. So what are you looking for exactly?

Consensus, perhaps. Looking to see what something like
the vocal majority of RfM will say -- looking to see how
close or how far afield my own reactions match with that.

>
> I have no problem with referring to religion as a
> language-game within a particular life-form (or
> community of like-minded people using language in
> a way that parallels how they live their lives.

I'm not sure how "language game" fits into the study of
comparative religion. I've only had a few classes in that
discipline, and the literature has probably advanced far
beyond what my profs were presenting thirty years ago.
But even back then, a group like Greenpeace or Save the
Whales was included in the comparisons -- as outliers,
yes, but as peripherally religious; while a group like
the Unitarian-Universalists were placed near the apex
of religion, in terms of post-Enlightenment evolution.

No doubt "religion" can be generalized and stereotyped
to conform to the concept of beliefs inside of a single
person's head. But I have a very, very difficult time
in adopting that view as a replacement.

>
> Still, I would argue that
> religion-as-belief-and-practice within that
> community extends to each individual living and
> practicing the religion as taught and lived.
>
> I don't see religion as being unhinged from
> belief, as Eller suggests, and I address in
> footnote 75, p. 101. (Those damn footnotes again,
> Dale.) ;) Nor is religion or belief unhinged from
> language.

Nor from community, I'd add.

> See note 46, p. 15 and note 74, p. 96-8. ;)

OK -- and I'll add that to my growing penciled-in index.

>
> I truly welcome your participation Dale, as I do
> everyones's. My concern is, again, in taking the
> conversation off topic, which, as I understand it,
> is the designated section or chapter of the book.

I apologize for that. This initial experimental thread
is probably coming to near the end of its life and in
future threads I can try to follow your lead. I have
started one thread of my own here, but the topic is so
esoteric that I do not anticipate much discussion.

> If you can make a cogent case of relevancy of your
> comments or questions to the Chapter being
> discussed (where such comments or questions are at
> least not obviously relevant and might seem
> irrelevant, then by all meansgo for it.

Maybe that will happen in the future. If you see me doing
well on that score, just insert a small smiley face.

> I just frankly didn't and don't see the relevancy of some
> of your apparent diversions, and think they take
> us off topic. I might be wrong, and will certainly
> defer to the group, but I am interested in
> participating to answer questions and listen and
> respond to reactions about the book with those who
> have carefully read it, including the substantive
> footnotes. I am personally not interested in
> straying off topic, at least not in this dedicated
> forum.

As you gain more experience at RfM, you'll make useful
adjustments in how you shepherd a thread. Don't presume
that the initial chaos has to always remain that way.
Much of the burden will fall upon your shoulders, and
it is probably unfair to thrust you into a leadership
position -- but I'm sure you are familiar with callings.
They are not always announced by the Bishop from the podium.

>
> I think there are numerous opportunities to ask
> questions and provide insights and reactions that
> will foster a greater understanding and
> appreciation for the book, as well provide
> different perspectives that might enhance or even
> modify or bring into question what has been
> written.

That's encouraging.

>
> Maybe your excursion into the creation of a Venn
> diagram or the meaning of religion pertained to
> the subject matter included in the Introduction,
> but I could not see the connection.

Just looking for limits again. My cat does the same
thing when I turn her loose outside the garden fence.
In the end she always seems to figure out what ground
is worth defending and when she has strayed too far.

>
> Thanks.

And thank you for taking the time to communicate. In a
way, it is a validation -- of something or another --
like when I stumbled upon the Nauvoo Expositor URL in
your book, linking back to one of my web-sites. A happy
discovery, that.

UD

The Venn-diagram that I proposed as an insert placed the deconstruction and assessment of Mormonism at the intersection of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but evn that didn't quite capture it. Finally I settled on the last two paragraphs of the General Information section in the Introduction on p. lxiii.

This work pertains to any and all concepts of god, i.e. the way the term 'God' -- by name ("Elohim," "Jehovah," "Jesus the Christ," "Allah," etc.) or as used generically -- is used in any theistic or religious language-game or life-form.

The focus on Mormonism was personal, and much needed I think, since Mormonism has managed to slip beneath the radar of all major Atheistic authors, considered by them as relatively insignificant and obviously false simply on the basis of its origins and extreme, non-mainstream beliefs.

This view, I thought, was and is a big mistake.

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Anybody here have the software application
> necessary to
> construct a Venn diagram and post it on the web?
>
> The four overlapping circles would be:
>
> religious
> non-religious
> theist
> atheist
>


Knock yourself out! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27022178/4CircleVennDiagram.png

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Knock yourself out!
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27022178/4Circ
> leVennDiagram.png


Gee! that's purdy.

We now have a map!
We will find the enemy and he is us... er, ours.

UD