- rogerdhansen on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “RLD It is difficult to overstate the problems Jefferson had as a human being. His longtime mistress was one of his slaves. She bore him 3 children. She went to Paris with him while he was serving as Ambassador to France. His mistress planned to stay in France because she could live free there. She finally agreed to return to the US after Jefferson agreed to free THEIR children. He never did free his mistress. This is the man who wrote that all men are created equal. Jefferson’s relationship with his slave was first publicized by Faun Brody. The historian who also wrote “No Man Knows My History.” She was the niece of DOM. When you visit Jefferson’s Monticello, the Park Service is very open about his relationship with his slave. (Unless Trump has deleted it.) Clearly Jefferson cared for his significant other. She was an important part of his life. Whether it was some primitive form of love or an emotional dependence we will never know. But clearly the man whose image is on Mt Rushmore was a seriously flawed individual. From a Christian religious perspective, Jefferson had interesting beliefs. He was for the most part a Deist. He developed his own version of the NT by deleting all Christ’s miracles. This doesn’t play well with Christian Nationalists. This all leads up to the issue of God’s role in Jefferson’s life. Was he divinely inspired to be the principal author of the Declaration? I think not. Was he important in the founding of America? Obviously, Yes. Was America born a Christian nation? Clearly, not.” Jul 18, 03:33
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: ““Latter-day Saints are prone to reject this line of reasoning from outsiders, because rewards are not so much the point of Mormonism as the byproduct of living according to Truth.” So I think his synthesis of why our faith works is pretty good. The problem is a similar construct can be built around every other faith. Maybe not exactly the same, but you could build a framework that justifies why all the other faiths work too. And he might reply, that’s right, which is why they have some utility. Which brings me to a couple points. None of us are thinking about F=mA when we avoid getting too close to a cliff. But that truth informs our reasoning at a very fundamental level we aren’t even aware of. That’s how I imagine his argument can be framed to apply to the success of Mormonism. But another thought, which is worth considering, is that if our faith has brought us to the lived sociological equivalent of F=mA, then is that not truth? Must one possess the specific God equation in order to be on the path to become like God? What if that equation literally consisted of covenants to do and not do things he would do and not do? What if when we are on that path, our lives, and the lives of those around us are improved? Isn’t that what God himself does? Make things better for his children? This is no spaghetti monster argument because that belief system isn’t yielding results, as the author says.” Jul 18, 00:08
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Jonathan, Do you mind explaining more? I’m curious to hear what you mean about BoA.” Jul 17, 20:48
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Thanks for this post, Kendall. I’ve occasionally seen references to Scott Alexander but I wasn’t aware of the book review. For what it’s worth, I continue to think that the Book of Abraham is one our more interesting and important books of scripture, and that questioning the accuracy of the Egyptian translation gets everything backwards – not that anyone here is doing that. I’m looking forward to your next post.” Jul 17, 19:10
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Would not be surprised if the author is a former member or has family that are members.” Jul 17, 19:05
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Stephen C, Stephen F, Yeah, I think he was being more generous than the South Park quote suggests. In a follow-up post I’d like to touch on another theme the reviewer implicitly grapples with: when Mormonism is so “obviously incorrect”, how does it stay so resilient and continue to thrive?” Jul 17, 15:58
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “My sense is that the reviewer is engaging in a more sophisticated grappling with a similar question that the South Park episode seemed to ask in a more crass way. Is there something about Mormonism that produces the outcome of it’s very nice people? I think that’s an interesting question too and am glad the reviewer is interested in the topic.” Jul 17, 14:11
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “I’m a big Scott Alexander fan, so I read this Substack when I saw it in my Inbox. One thing I’ll add is that, while he’s not going to be joining the Church anytime soon, Alexander’s take on the apologetics arguments is actually more generous and sophisticated than most online rationalist’s responses to the BoA (which is usually just some version of “Lol, John Gee is dumb and Robert Ritner is cool.”) So it’s a little more generous than the South Park angle of “this is patently dumb but Mormons are nice and that’s what matters.”” Jul 17, 13:35
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “Adam F: Good example. RLD: WRT the King of Assyria, I do think the idea of God using bad people to, say, punish his chosen people (Assyria is going to Assyria after all) is less complicated than God using somebody *to create an inspired work of art.*” Jul 17, 13:26
