Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

DBMORMON wrote:I have spent a ton of time with Thomas. I consider him a dear friend. I find him to be a deep thinker and I find him to be aware of the issues and have deep care and concern for those who have a struggle with Mormonism. He is a great human being. I simply want to be on record here expressing that his story from the outside is confusing. But once you know him and understand his perspective it makes sense. He is a Buddhist at heart and going back into Mormonism was an extension of his eastern spiritual walk.

while folks here have applied negative labels to him without knowing him, such says way more about those folks here than The Wicker Man


DBMORMON,

Thanks. I've always highly respected your opinion.

I apologize if any of my posts seemed to cast Thomas in a bad light. It wasn't my intention. I was trying to highlight mg's bad logic, which isn't that difficult.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote: Most of the thread was being critical of MG's thinking...


Actually, I would like to think that a good portion of the thread did not focus on 'bad logic'. I don't think that it did. Earlier in the thread I did say this to honor:

I realize that your views are going to vary. Your views in regards to Grant Hardy's work and others demonstrates that you have a particular bias that is in favor or leans towards the evidence that you see as 'proof' of the Book of Mormon's fraudulent nature.


Others then made hay over whether I understood what bias even meant.

In the post right after the one in which I said honor had a predisposition and/or bias towards negative evidence in regards to the Book of Mormon I said this to Themis:
I'd hate to think that reality has a set point and that "all the thinking has been done" as one reaches a particular end point of investigation/learning. Is it not possible that there is another "reality" waiting in the wings as one is patient and pursues further light and knowledge...


My point is that as we grow older typically we become set in our ways. We become less flexible. We approach things with a certain predisposition or bias whether it be political views or views in regards to religious texts. In this case, the Book of Mormon.

I would suggest, and did, that we ought to always try and have a certain degree of flexibility in thought.

When the conversation ended up going the direction of 'MG's lack of logical thinking' I lost interest. It was heading down a fairly predictable path which usually ends up in a derail from the original topic.

Regards,
MG
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
I would suggest, and did, that we ought to always try and have a certain degree of flexibility in thought.

When the conversation ended up going the direction of 'MG's lack of logical thinking' I lost interest. It was heading down a fairly predictable path which usually ends up in a derail from the original topic.

Regards,
MG


The problem is you do not have flexibility in thought in regards to LDS truth claims, so It's not surprising you would lose interest in discussing the problem. When you have poor incoherent arguments you should expect people to discuss the problem. Like wanting tight and loose translation when ever to avoid good evidence. I'm open to any evidence someone wants to bring up, but so far new evidence in support of LDS truth claims has been lacking.
42
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:The problem is you do not have flexibility in thought in regards to LDS truth claims...


I think the only way I could muster a, "Hey, you are flexible in regards to LDS truth claims" is if I disassociated myself from those truth claims and made some sort of admission that they were false. So if I can't meet your standard, I am therefore inflexible.

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _Lemmie »

Themis wrote:The problem is you do not have flexibility in thought in regards to LDS truth claims...

mg wrote:I think the only way I could muster a, "Hey, you are flexible in regards to LDS truth claims" is if I disassociated myself from those truth claims and made some sort of admission that they were false. So if I can't meet your standard, I am therefore inflexible.

mg, previously, wrote:I would suggest, and did, that we ought to always try and have a certain degree of flexibility in thought.

:rolleyes:
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Themis wrote:The problem is you do not have flexibility in thought in regards to LDS truth claims...


I think the only way I could muster a, "Hey, you are flexible in regards to LDS truth claims" is if I disassociated myself from those truth claims and made some sort of admission that they were false. So if I can't meet your standard, I am therefore inflexible.

Regards,
MG


It's not about disassociating yourself from LDS truth claims. It's about being open to them being incorrect and wanting to know if they are wrong. You are the one who admits to being ignorant of a number of areas relevant to those truth claims. I can sympathize since I did the same for decades. I was very inflexible in my thinking and closed to wanting to know the truth if it didn't support what I already believed. Questioning our heartfelt beliefs is maybe one of the hardest things people can do.
42
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _I have a question »

DBMORMON wrote:I have spent a ton of time with Thomas. I consider him a dear friend. I find him to be a deep thinker and I find him to be aware of the issues and have deep care and concern for those who have a struggle with Mormonism. He is a great human being. I simply want to be on record here expressing that his story from the outside is confusing. But once you know him and understand his perspective it makes sense. He is a Buddhist at heart and going back into Mormonism was an extension of his eastern spiritual walk.

while folks here have applied negative labels to him without knowing him, such says way more about those folks here than The Wicker Man

Thank you for making me reconsider some of my comments on this thread.

My point that self awareness groups like The Wicker Man’s are explicitly counselled against by the Brethren still stands. I don’t see how TMW or mentalgymnast can vote to sustain the Brethren, be involved with self awareness groups and claim to be intellectually honest. I’m open to suggestions as to how to make those three things fit.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _I have a question »

mentalgymnast wrote:
I have a question wrote:Is this man coining a living out of unsettled members by playing on his Mormon roots really the kind of guy the Church would want promoted?


The Wicker Man fills a niche that a number of folks find useful and productive to their spiritual faith journey.



As I said earlier, I am not one that would subscribe to and dole out money for the services offered by Lower Lights, but if there is a certain sub segment of the LDS population that can benefit from the community and they can still remain active members of the church, I see that as a progressive opportunity for those that might otherwise feel as thought there is no place for them within the church.

It would be interesting to know just what the institutional church's stance is in regards to Lower Lights and the work that they...in particular...are doing.

My reason in starting the thread was to bring to fore the podcast series and the conversation which I found to be very interesting.

Regards,
MG

Now that I’ve shown you that the institutional Church’s stance is - that members should stay away from self awareness groups, will you be dropping your interest in TMW?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

Post by _mentalgymnast »

DBMORMON wrote:...Thomas...is a great human being... once you know him and understand his perspective it makes sense. He is a Buddhist at heart and going back into Mormonism was an extension of his eastern spiritual walk.


That is exactly what I realized as I listened to the seven part podcast.

I think it is important to repost this contribution from Kevin Christensen:

I’ve always thought it interesting that Alma 32 refers to his listeners taking even a portion of his words, and starting with that. He doesn’t specify which portion. And I find it important that in discussing the different harvests from the same seeds [words] Jesus in Mark says, “Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?” So yes, individuals are going to pick and choose which portion upon which to nurture, experiment upon, and there will be differences in the harvest, ranging from nothing to a hundred fold. So soil, nurture, time and patience matter in the long run even more than selection, assuming that we select the good seeds and do not cast them out, or let them succumb to predation or the cares of the word, and plant them in good soil.

I’ve observed that the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth notes that in the first four of of the nine positions pole “feel abandonment in unstructured learning environments.” From position 6 on, “people feel frustration in too structured of an environment.” Personally, once I started looking for information on my own initiative, rather than passively waiting to be fed on Sunday, personally “seeking out of the best books, words of wisdom” (something very different than seeking out of “approved books words of orthodoxy” and also very different than “seeking out of critical books words of self-justification”), I’ve had an ongoing positive experience, a constantly deepening faith, and the kinds of enlightenment, fruitfulness, and soul-enlargement that Alma promised.

So, for instance, I’ve found inspiration in the LDS scriptures, LDS scholars, and from a wide range of non-LDS writers, including Eliade, Girard, Campbell, Smart, Frye, Barker, Alter, Moody, Zaleski, Kuhn and many others, from whom I learned to see things in LDS scriptures that I did not know was there. I’ve even managed to contribute now and then. I’ve noticed the LDS scripture that said that all things that are given from him are “the typifying of Christ” and noticed such typifying going on in Harry Potter, and even Buffy, giving me license and encouragement to grow spiritually there. (I once commented to you on that at an Salt Lake City Sunstone panel years ago.)

It’s important, when dealing with the LDS community as a whole, and the various subgroups and streams, and temperaments, and Perry Positions within, to look up “sustain” in a good dictionary. It means a lot more than we may suppose, unless we give it a closer look. And what it actually means is something that any community requires to survive and thrive, and corresponds with what Brigham Young was thinking about when he asked the Saints to “understand people as they are, and not as you are.”
https://religionnews.com/2018/07/31/for ... -lifeline/


Regards,
MG
Post Reply