Why Can’t We Be Friends?

Smackdown

Posted March 27th, 2017

UPDATE: When Mormon Stories took this episode down, our site experienced a spike in traffic which caused our website to crash. The only solution was to remove the file. We will re-release the episode in three smaller parts later today.

Do facts matter? Is validation possible when faith conflicts with reason? Is Jeremy Runnells really the leader of the Anti-Mormon religion? What about the Book of Abraham? Book of Mormon Geography? The role of prophets? The Proclamation on the Family? So many tits and tats, but can’t believers and non-believers just get along? Can’t we all be friends?

Glenn and John Hamer join Lindsay Hansen Park and John Dehlin for an Infants on Mormon Stories smackdown of a recorded conversation between Trevor (a doubting Mormon) and an LDS General Authority and an LDS church historian as they attempt to address Trevor’s mounting concerns with Mormon history and doctrine.

Glenn

John

  • Dehlin pulled this from Mormon Stories – did you guys have a disagreement or something? Give us the gossip 🙂

    • Yeah, that was weird. That and the fact that I couldn’t play or download the Infants version for a few hours after it was posted. I thought it had to be a multilevel conspiracy. Then all of a sudden the Infants version would play and download so I guess the intrigue is only one level deep, but it’s still deep.

  • A very interesting, if interminable, discussion. Thanks to everyone for the effort involved in putting it together.

  • steve

    I’m only through the first section, but Lindsay’s comments that led to the discussion of “facts” caught my ear.

    In physics (I’m a physicist) we have a few deep principals that we use as metaphors as a guide.. relativity, invariance, symmetry and complementarity. The last one is a name coined by Bohr and basically says there can be multiple views on of a subject that can be equally valid, but when you observe you must pick one (hopefully the right one for your task) as it can destroy the other. The simplest example being the position and momentum of a particle. But it can be extended more generally, You can have different frameworks that are valid for your purpose – wave and particle duality for example. Or Newtonian mechanics vs Relativity. In both are stories that are valid in a particular set of circumstances. Most of what we do on Earth is easily covered by Newton, but when things speed up or you need to really think about gravity deeply, Relativity comes to play.

    The domains of validity can overlap or not … but locally each has to be supported by careful observation.

    My mother’s belief in the afterlife, prophecy, folk medicine and dreams may have been valid to her given her set of measurements and I have to respect that. It formed her worldview and she navigated Mormonism even though she hated patriarchy,. I have my own set of measurements and would claim religion is invalid for them. I believe my view is consistent with the physics and science in general, so I’ll stick with that.

    • Leslie North

      Awesome comment. Very interesting. I vote the infants bring you on for a more in depth exploration of this. Thanks