We just had a very fruitful discussion (in my opinion anyhow) about many subjects near and dear to my heart that address certain deep concerns I hold.
I really appreciate everyone that participated and, amazingly, I don’t feel any of the frequent posters in that thread lost control or did anything but add productively to the conversation.
I was just reading Popper in Myth of the Framework that it’s a fallacy that you have to hold the same framework to have a fruitful discussion. But what really impressed me was his thoughts that the “Myth of the Framework” came into existence because people misunderstood the difference between “pleasant” and “fruitful.” True fruitful discussions are never pleasant. They are an attempt to bridge gaps between frameworks that seems unbridgeable at first, and may never be fully bridgeable, but can be substantially bridged for those that try.
I learned numerous extremely important things in the discussion and I want to underscore one of them.
I am going to again publicly apologize to John Dehlin for mischaracterizing his stance on the Church.
This was a mistake made in good faith, but as I tell my kids, even mistakes must be apologized for.
I was perplex at first, because I have recollections of what was said and they didn’t, at first, seem to match what John was saying in his post. But that got me thinking and I realized something: John’s recollection is right and mine is wrong.
The reason this must be true is because I didn’t, prior to John’s post, understand the difference between “minimally invested” and “not believing.”
Now that I know there is a difference and that difference matters to John, I’m beginning to see the real beauty, power, and usefulness of this difference.
That is not say that there isn’t responsibility that comes with this power, but I’ll address that in a future post. For now, I’m extremely convinced that John gave me a more nuanced answer and that I am remembering it wrong because I didn’t fully understand the difference between the connotations of “not believing” vs. “minimally invested.”
I also want to publicly apologize to Todd Compton. Once he showed up and explained himself, it is clear that my original concerns with him were only half correct and that I had jumped to conclusions prematurely.
Specifically, I now believe Todd was probably quoted out of context somewhat (though I believe it was done in good faith by Greg) and so I am adjusting my point of view based on further clarification. (You can read the full discussion if you want to understand the full nuance, including what I am still concerned over in this case. Todd has graciously offered to explain himself fully in private to me, which I’m going to take him up on.)
Let’s not make this a continuation of the previous thread. For those that want to continue that discussion, there will be future opportunities, I promise.
Update: As suggested, I did email Todd and talk to him. He was unwilling to answer any questions about his beliefs about the LDS Church’s truth claims. He initially said that the reason why was because they are complicated and he didn’t have time. I then asked him to simply tell me if he honestly believed that the people in the Book of Mormon were real people or if they were not real people. This is, obviously, not a time consuming question to answer. He declined to give an answer.