- rogerdhansen on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “My point is: it’s seriously bizarre to try and decide which parts of a flawed artist’s life is inspired and what part should be ignored. So we Mormons want to believe that Christopher Columbus was inspired to “discover” the Americas. From the point of view of Native Americans who suffered extreme genicide had their civilizations destroyed, this act was hardly inspired. Many creative people suffer from mental illness. How do you decide what part of their work is inspired and want part is a function of their unique neurology? An excellent example of this is Vincent Van Gogh. Are we going to argue that God somehow inspired his mental illness? I suspect a disproportionately high number of creative individuals are gay. Think ballet. Are we going to argue that God creates gays so that certain artistic endeavors can be progress and thrive. I prefer to think that God is not stirring pots. Randomly inspiring certain individuals. Each individual has it within themselves to be exceptionally creative. An individual’s accomplishments are his own. Think free agency.” Jul 19, 10:13
- on Spiritually Inspirational Art by Not-So-Inspirational Artists: “@rogerdhansen: Yes, that’s all true. That’s why I think it probably took divine intervention for such a man to write such true and inspiring words about equality that they became part of our national creed, but that’s a minor point. The real question is, what are we to do with those words? If we discard them because the man who wrote them also did horrible things, we dismiss all the good they have done–including Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King using them to call our nation to repentance–and can yet do. At a time when our President and Vice President have both advocated for abandoning the classical liberalism of the founders, we can’t afford that. And yet we mustn’t whitewash the sins of the founders either, lest we ignore the ongoing consequences of those sins. That’s why I land on “judge not, that ye be not judged.” We don’t need to judge Thomas Jefferson, the man. We can judge his actions individually, keep the good, and reject the bad. And to bring it back to the topic of the post, I think we can do the same with art created by flawed artists.” Jul 19, 06:12
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Kendall, I wrote up my thoughts a few years ago. Part 9 sums things up pretty well.” Jul 18, 15:53
- on A Preposterously Complimentary Review of the Book of Abraham: “Kendell, I don’t know what Jonathan had in mind about the BofA, but I agree about it being interesting and important. The Book of Mormon is important because it exists. It’s actual message is mostly fairly standard Christian. Our unique doctrinal beliefs mostly come from the books of Abraham and Moses.” Jul 18, 14:27
- 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
