On today’s episode of the “Mormon News Review,” we discuss:
- Pope Francis’ recent interview in “America: The National Catholic Review” — and possible implications for the LDS church.
- Two articles written by Peggy Fletcher Stack on the 20th anniversary of the September Six.
- Elder D. Todd Christofferson‘s devotional delivered on September 24th at BYU Idaho entitled “The Prophet Joseph Smith.” Video can be found here. Audio can be found here. Transcript can be found here.
Joining us are three panelists:
- Right: Ralph Hancock is the President of the John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs. He is also a professor of Political Science at Brigham Young University, and a former intramural basketball teammate.
- Center: Mark Phillips is an active member of the LDS church in Los Angeles, and a former bishop. He is a husband, a father, an attorney, a musician, and he promises not to agree with everyone.
- Left: Lindsay Hansen Park is a Mormon Feminist and a work-from-home mother of two in Stansbury Park. She works as Social Media director for Sunstone, hosts and founded the feministmormonhousewives podcast, and is engaged in women’s issues and global activism.
41 Responses
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)
The Lord’s prophecies concerning The Prophet and Seer Joseph Smith continue to be fulfilled:
“The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; / While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand. / And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors.” (D&C 122:1-3)
What a mature, impressive discussion all around. I really liked all three participants and enjoyed hearing their perspectives. I think it’s easy to discuss and even debate in the right spirit with folks like these. Bravo for your selections & connections, John.
Totally loved the comment that orthodox intellectuals are not intellectuals. I have heard orthodox scholars viewed as dogmatic and not scholarly. I have seen that come across in the blogosphere. Smart for Lindsay to try to distance from that. However, even if Lindsay rejects it, many progressives have that view of orthodox intellectuals = dogmatic.
Awesome dialogue all around. A great example of how verbal discourse can encourage so much love and respect (not to overlook the maturity and restraint of the participants). This is sometimes lost in written communication where it is easier to disrespect opposing viewpoints.
This type of dialogue is why members of the church want to have discussions about ideas and concerns…not just given edicts. Can’t we even be given a comment box in our meeting house to be boxed up and sent to…someone? I agree that the church leaders aren’t naive to what faces the most humble church member. But its a customer service no brainer that making people feel like their opinions matter is a good thing. I am not advocating changing church policies by popular vote.
I am puzzled that just about every organization in the world wants to know what the average Joe’s comments are and seeks out his opinion, but the Church already knows everything. Passing comments to an overworked Bishop or Stk President promotes just being quiet. Would a simple survey about…anything…be offensive to God’s government on earth? I have never seen one in the Church.
I loved the 3 discussants. Awesome job. Thank you for all of your perspectives on the podcast.
Jo (and others): you might enjoy Hancock’s article “What is a Mormon Intellectual?” at https://www.mormonmomma.com/mind/intell.html.
I was disappointing to have Lindsay dominate this podcast. Her continual input diminished her argument and she came off completely stifling. John, I feel you could do a better job in steering the discussion to provide a fair argument.
Funny. My impression was that Ralph dominated the podcast. He came across quite dogmatic. But that is probably because I can relate to Lindsay and not to Ralph. I thought John did an excellent job of letting both points of view come through.
PJ, I’m actually relieved to read that, since I felt like I spoke too much!
I have really enjoyed both episodes of these Mormon news reviews. I have been impressed with all of the panelists and the moderation. I hope this series continues.
I also appreciated that you discussed Pope Francis’ recent interview and its implications for Mormonism. I would like to add that I was really moved when Pope Francis was asked about the role of women in the Catholic church, and he said, “Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed.” I cannot tell you how much it would mean to me to just have General Authorities validate those in the LDS church who are questioning women’s roles in the church. (Maybe it’s happened, and I missed it.)
I loved the discussion around Pope Francis. As much as I admire many General Authorities and Prophets, I’ve long felt queasy about posting photos of the First Presidency and Apostles around our buildings, focusing on admiring them rather than the mission of the gospel.
I thought it was wonderful that the four of you could lead a discussion about Pope Francis and the simple humility we’d love to see of our leaders.
For some reason, this podcast left me feeling very frustrated. At the least I can pinpoint that I felt it was very shallow to blithely assent that the end of Brother Christofferson’s talk was a positive, including assenting to the assertion that Joseph Smith was a great revelation of Jesus Christ. The legacy of Joseph Smith’s teaching is a religion that is not significantly faithful to any of the core distinctive teachings of the gospels. No pacifism, no voluntary poverty, no non-resistance, none of those venerable traditions of the master teachings that Jesus expounded so well.
Good discussion John and I like the new format, or at least this type of format and panel on current mormon issues. Although I don’t necessarily always agree with Ralph’s side of things I think its absolutely essentially to have his viewpoints well elucidated and represented. Seems like a true middle ground rep is hard to get though…
I first listened to elder Todd’s talk. I then listened to the last 30 min of the discussion. Loved it all. I’m glad this discution is taking place.
Another good discussion, thanks John.
I want to stick up for Lindsey. I thought she was very gracious and looked for common ground along with voicing her own opinions. I appreciated Lindsey’s comments about the church discipline process. I know of incident where the incoming new bishop encouraged a recently excommunicated member to write a letter to SLC and file a complaint about what transpired–because he didn’t think it appropriate what happened. It was very damaging–resulting in not just the member cutting ties with the church but most of the children as well. I also appreciate Lindsey bringing out that too often people who struggle with controversial church history are framed as wanting to find fault/criticism or are being swayed by “anti’s.” I believe a large majority of people in the church know very little of the “real” history of the church. I certainly didn’t go out seeking controversy and specifically avoided anti-Mormon literature, but nonetheless have learned much. I hope the church moves toward making peace (not drawing battle lines) and reaching out to all–building bridges everywhere, not just with other religions/churches.
I appreciated all the participants comments.
Great discussion, I like Mormon Newsroom. I will have to go back and listen to all your prior episodes.
From my experience, I agree with Lindsay that it is toxic for leaders of the church to paint a black and white picture of the mormon experience. When I bring up historical facts I have learned about our history to my family and loved ones it makes them upset. They think that Satan is somehow deceiving me and has my soul. I was told by a ward member (outside of church) to either leave the church or be in it, but to not talk about those sorts of things. No joke, my wife wrote “What are your thoughts about the kinderhook plates” on her facebook wall and I was the one personally attacked and told that. It is very hard when you have family and friends pushing you away because you have questions about the historicity of what I was taught in church. Even if Elder Christofferson’s talk was subtle in its portrayal, I feel Lindsay’s aggravation because of the damage it has caused to my relationships. I can assure you I am not trying to bring the church down or that I am against the church. If anything I feel hurt, confused and lonely. I digress.
Can anyone tell me more about Mark Hoffman? I was under the impression that when he forged those documents (about Joseph the 3rd being called to lead the church) that the church tried to conceal it. But somehow they were forced to reveal it. I have a hard time knowing that the church is trying to hide its history, that really makes me feel like I am being lied to. I am grateful that they appear to be moving away from that, but I didn’t appreciate Elder Christofferson’s snide way of saying that they are hardly trying to hide anything with this 24 volume (or whatever it was) series of the Joseph Smith Papers available.
Once again thanks!
I have a couple points to make regarding Elder Todd’s talk.
Didn’t the church actually own one of Mark Hoffman’s forgeries? Elder Todd made it a point to say we should drink deeply from the history of the church, but his remarks regarding his mentioned topics where rather shallow and did not go into any depth.
He said that not having evidence is not proof of something. Like wise just because there is no evidence that there might be a teacup circling mars does not give evidence to believe such a thing ether. It would be ok with me if the church had maybe one or two blemishes they couldn’t answer. But there are so many that there are entire books covering contrary evidence. There begins to be formed a pattern. Arrays are things that can be measured.
Why does the church not have answers to the hard questions? Don’t they have a direct link to God? Are they not prophets, seers, and revelators? Why do they have to wait for science or archeology to dig up evidence? Cant one of the prophets go to central America or where ever and produce evidence for Iron in the book of Mormon? Is it the Lords plan to leave people with lingering doubts while the 15 prophets on the earth try to figure out how to side step the hard questions or to put members with questions to the side? Or even worse to suggest division?
If you where to be one of the members in my ward you would see me as your average faithful LDS member. You would see one who is active at church. Some one who holds leader ship roles. Some one who pays tithing and some one who does their home teaching. On a personal note, I feel the spirit and receive personal revelation. The spirit has whispered to me that some of the stuff me and average members of the church are fed is a bunch of bunk. There is also a lot of good things said in the church, so its not all bad. But its also not all true. I pray regularly and strive to use the Lords atonement in my life regularly. I’m doing my best to hold up my side of the deal. I wish there would be more compassion for those members like my self who do have questions. I wish there where more answers and frankly expect them when they make clams that they are prophets, seers and revelators.
Maybe I am expecting to much of them.
I feel the same way and don’t understand why more members don’t wake up. They live in Disneyland, the happiest place on earth!
My biggest gripe is aren’t we supposed to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. I want the church to give more instead of building bigger barns, expanding the corporation, to hold the money. Didn’t one of the general authorities say “you can’t give a crust of bread to The Lord without receiving a loaf in return? Well give them the whole loaf!
This really disappoints me.
The other thing is I was reading in the Old Testament about prophetesses. Even the wife is called a prophetess when she is married to the Prophet. Why don’t we call Sister Monson a Prophetess then? Oh that’s right we are a patriarchy and it would take a revelation to the whole church to change it. Just where is the revelation?
I took a bit more critical view of Christofferson’s talk. He made the point that if we are going to drink from the well of church history that we drink more rather than little sips. OK….his example of steel killed this point. As John pointed out the steel issue would gain no ground in the new world. Why make the point of drinking deeply from the tank of church history and then make such a weak argument? Anyone who has listened, studied and searched for answers will tell you that they continue to obfuscate and spin. I gave a little “hoorah” when he used the work anachronism. The talk should have expounded upon 10 of the key anachronisms that make the BOM a work of fiction. Yeah, little tiny baby steps.
“Wrought iron heated in contact with charcoal (carbon) at high temperature produces carbonized iron or steel, which is more malleable than cast iron. Steel can be hardened by quenching (practiced as early as the tenth century B.C.E.), that is, cooling off the red-hot steel by sudden immersion into a vat of cold liquid. . . . At Har Adir in Upper Galilee, a remarkably well-preserved “steel pick” with an oak handle within the socket was found in an eleventh-century B.C.E. fortress. It was made of carburized iron (steel) that had been quenched and then tempered. This extraodinary artifact, one of the earliest known examples of steel tools, is a tribute to the skill (or luck) of the artisans of ancient Palestine.”
Philip J. King and Lawerence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 169.
I just want to thank Professor Hancock for coming on the podcast again. Sometimes Mormon Stories becomes a progressive echo room and it’s nice to hear other perspectives. I wish more Mormons like him would come on. Really like this left, right center format as well.
Big time. I very much appreciated Professor Hancock’s interview with John on MS earlier this year, too. Thank you for your willingness to participate in such dialogue. Very much enjoyed your article “What is a Mormon Intellectual” as well.
My faith has been sinking for some time. As I recall, this started by simply reading the Brigham Young page on Wikipedia, asking more questions and seeking more answers. I understood the imperfection of men leading the Church previously and shelved certain concerns. Now the once beautiful tapestry seems too soiled. Most things I once held dear, I feel are improbable. I don’t feel like I can ask questions of my local leaders. As I have tested the water…I get confused looks. And, I am not out to hurt anyone else’s faith. These podcasts are a strength to me at a time when I feel inclined to leave religion all together. I am hanging on and trying to find balance. This feels especially urgent when I have young children to raise with my wife. We need more like you to help challenge the inclination to leave religion. Thank you Sir.
Missouri. Thanks for your post. Your not alone. Hang in there and keep taking it slowly. I am confident your kids will be ok what ever you decide. I personally think the church still has a lot to offer even if it is not all it claims to be. It has a lot to offer family’s and children. Take care.
I do not share the confidence that passing along fraud and mysticism to children and inveatigators is the equivalent of teaching critical thinking and integrity. They fruit of deception and fantasy is much different than integrity. Perhaps you still need to decide where these attributes are most readily found, within or without Mormonism. I’ll help–investigate LDS.org on Joseph Smith polyandry, translation or inspiration of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and the multiple, significantly different versions of the First Vision, priesthood restorations, and polygamy revelations.
A specific example of purposeful fraud.
Remember the art that has been made that shows Joseph Smith with his hand on golden plates dictating word for word in plain view to Oliver Cowdery, that never happened. The Church leaders put that work of art in our missionary discussions and teaching aids. No face in hat art. Deceivers, deceive. Stop the deception of children, by starting with your own children. Children deserve a shot at a life without the mystical baggage of Mormon pioneers and their happily deceived descendents. No toil nor labor fear, Choose the Right. Truth or tradition?
I do not think your kids will be okay whatever you decide. Choosing to deceive your children will make it very difficult for them to trust your integrity and judgement. There are also social consequences in believing as Truth, provably false beliefs. Unless your live in the Mormon corridor, perhaps move if you do. You can do MLM anywhere.
I do not share the confidence of J that passing along fraud and mysticism to children and inveatigators is the equivalent of teaching critical thinking and integrity. They fruit of deception and fantasy is much different than integrity. Perhaps you still need to decide where these attributes are most readily found, within or without Mormonism. I’ll help–investigate LDS.org on Joseph Smith polyandry, translation or inspiration of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and the multiple, significantly different versions of the First Vision, priesthood restorations, and polygamy revelations.
A specific example of purposeful fraud.
Remember the art that has been made that shows Joseph Smith with his hand on golden plates dictating word for word in plain view to Oliver Cowdery, that never happened. The Church leaders put that work of art in our missionary discussions and teaching aids. No face in hat art. Deceivers, deceive. Stop the deception of children, by starting with your own children. Children deserve a shot at a life without the mystical baggage of Mormon pioneers and their happily deceived descendents. No toil nor labor fear, Choose the Right. Truth or tradition?
It’s not unusual for religious bodies to have difficulty dealing with intellectuals that question the foundations of a faith. The Seventh Day Adventists had issues with Ronald Numbers with his biography of founding prophetess, Ellen G White. When I was a young man, I was a member of a Lutheran church associated with Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. They had fired some seminary professors at Concordia Seminary in St Louise.
My leaving the LDS faith was partially though my connections with Presbyterian pastor Wesly P Walters who wrote some interesting and challenging papers in the First Vision and the 1826 trial. Walters attended meetings of the Mormon History Association. Robert Smith told me many participants avoided him like the plague. However its interesting that both Michael Quinn and Dan Vogel visited with him to access his research.
I once wrote Lowell Bennion years ago seeking his advice about the negro/priesthood issue. He responded that he did not accept it but was not going to agitate about it.He said don’t expect perfection of yourself or the church. Greg Prince in a lecture said the Joseph Fielding Smith wanted him excommunicated but David O’Mackay stopped him The same hostility was shown towards Sterling McMurrin and Jauntita Brooks. So much tolerance for any intellectuals who wanted to study the history objectively letting the chips fall where they may
I really appreciate this podcast format of “Mormon News Review” panel discussions. Please keep it up! The Dialogue/Patheos Roundtable of women is also a favorite of mine for the same reason. Last week’s news review got a little dicey at one point but I really appreciate the panelists’ willingness to share their thoughts and engage in respectful discussions and even disagreement. Thank you for showing there’s not just one way to be a thinking Mormon!
Love the podcast.
I think its a thankless and kind of hopeless task to find a balance in a discussion like this. I was classed as a liberal at BYU and later a conservative at U of Md. In both cases I was the same guy and found the real tolerance (though we didn’t use that word back then) at BYU.
I find it interesting that the Catholic Church is pointed to as a example. There are great examples of believers everywhere. I grew up in a Catholic community and thought then the Priests and Nuns were living examples of faith. There are many things to point out as different between us but their faith was/is undeniable.
The Sept 6, seemed to be asking for it. Though I liked the comment that both sides learned something from the event, I don’t think its right. Once you’ve made a covenant, breaking it has some real consequences that’s why Church courts are a very big deal.
Finally the talk? I didn’t hear it but the concepts seemed like same old stuff being talked about. When I was a student if I were to say anything about Church History there wasn’t very much there. Even now, there still isn’t very much there.
Thanks again John!
Speaking of covenents or in other words making a two way contract. If you buy a car and are told by the seller that it is a good car that will get you from point a to point b but upon getting it home the engine drops out, are you still under contract to keep that car?
Rufus thinks covenants are important. Tell us more about Mormonism and contracts–will we slip into discussions of fraud possibly? I would love to see Mormonism on trial for the way it teaches its doctrines to its children and investigators. Exhibit 1, the missionary flip charts–early 1980’s or are they still using the same stories today?
The bonds of childhood indoctrination are seen as covenants by Mormons. When an to a Mormon, accountable eight-year old believes the stories of its parents, primary teachers, grandparents, prophets, apostles, brothers, sisters, bishops, home teachers, friends, and neighbors and of their own free will choose to join Mormonism through the covenant of baptism–they are now obligated to the Mormon culture of doing things to live and pass along the deception for the rest of their life. A covenant requires mutual integrity, not enslavement. Are Mormon children born slaves?
Fresh courage take–stop passing along the deceptions to children and investigators. Tell the stories as they happened, re-writes, bigotry, denials of Truths, misogyny, dreams of Golden plates, multiple versions of seeing God and all. Maybe wait until the kids are 18 instead of eight for unbreakable covenants. If people still want to associate themselves with that hot mess of a belief system because their family has been doing it for so long, well then–you’ve got a keeper! Which version of the eternal endowment was the right one? I got the pre-1990 version, only time in my life I’ve been asked by an organization to do such gestures and make such horrible covenants. Fortunately for me, I figured out they didn’t honor their covenants of being truthful to me in their teachings, so I no longer am obligated to perform those horrible rituals anymore. Be an honest Church, the Church expects honesty of its membership, the least it can do is be honest about itself before allowing someone to become a covenanted member.
I’ve enjoyed the first two episodes of the Mormon News Review. Do continue.
For another view of excommunication as played out with the September Six and just recently with Denver Snuffer see Rock Waterman’s blog entry, “The Denver Snuffer Debacle.” https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/
Instead of questioning the ideas and beliefs of those who were forced out of the corporate church Waterman questions the justification of those doing the shoving. Excommunication as an act of love is a noble thing when it is carried out in the Savior’s way. Accounts of the September Six, however, paint a picture of coercion and bullying initiated by several of the Quorum of the Twelve and carried out, sometimes reluctantly, by the respective stake presidents. Waterman’s observation that this process is in definance of the guidelines set out by Jesus Christ himself in the D&C is to me much more troubling than folks thinking for themselves.
I’m drawn to the big-tent, inclusive example of President David O. McKay sticking up for Sterling McMurrin. In the early 1950s apostles Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee mounted an attempt to have McMurrin excommunicated for his unorthodox gospel ideas. President McKay was astonished when he learned of the plan. In a private meeing with McMurrin, President McKay clapped McMurrin on the knee and exclaimed, “They cannot put you on trial!…Well, all I can say is, that if they put you on trial for exommunication, I will be there as the first witness in your behalf.”
To me, President McKay—who didn’t agree with McMurrin’s ideas—is an example of Christ’s love. Purging members of the church for daring to think on their own is a classic Calvinist fixation on making everything either black or white. It is remarkable that Jesus allows us all—starting with his leaders—to call it like we see it. May we choose love!
interesting discussion…although elder christofferson got a bit of an unfair belting here, I mean the dude only used steel as an example and response to named critics from 1880 odd and 1957 who claimed that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years after Jesus, not the nephites or any american people. That is why he mentions today’s discovery of the steel sword, one steel sword dating back to before Lehi’s days. And he mentioned this asking us to be patient. He also named Mark Hoffman and other critics so he wasn’t talking about some relatives you have who left the church over history. To them he says be patient, things will clear up eventually in the Lords time.
As for feedback, in my opinion these weekly podcast are better off here since otherwise the site won’t have new podcast every week, as happened during most of 2013. jmho…
Totally agree. I feel that John Dehlin’s and other’s treatment of the steel sword in the talk was totally off base. They didn’t see what he was really saying, that he was addressing certain attacks against the church about Israel and steel. His point totally addresses that. Further, it reinforces the idea of being patient, as the 1800s attack were dealt with, but that not every question about steel and swords have been answered, only some of them. What did John want, him to totally solve the issue forever, or to teach the underlining principle.
I love the podcast, I like listening both points of views on several topics , we all have an opinion on how things should be done at Church , I think that’s human nature and that’s the LDS member nature.
The Church has been a blessing in my life and I hope it is a blessing for everyone I know
It all comes down to Faith
Listened to elder christoffersons talk reaffirming that apostles are men with testimonies shaped by their own understanding. For example beyond the “steel” issue, he, like many in the church assert that the mob that killed Joseph did so over his testimony of the church. When he quotes Joseph’s testimony of God and Jesus Christ he fails to mention that the testimony he was quoting was from “one” of many versions. Finally I was not impressed with his opinion of those who may have left the church over mark Hoffman documents…many of those documents duped our highest leaders!
Love the new panel format John. Good luck to all of us with difficulties
As a Catholic and descendant of Mormon pioneers, I loved the discussion of Pope Francis. I suspect there will be a lot of surprised people five years from now when they realize he is indeed a Catholic, teaching the same faith as did Popes John Paul II and Benedict. Each pope brings different emphases and gifts, and Francis’ are certainly refreshing. Lindsay and others might be interested in reading John Paul’s (long) apostolic letter about women, https://bit.ly/1ccMIsN
Christopher’s talk didn’t do it for me. His analogy of drinking to sobriety is a poor one because… that doesn’t even happen in reality… Just like it doesn’t happen when learning church history. It. Just. Keeps. Getting. Worse.
*Christofferson.
Multi-tasking right now.
I can’t believe Christofferson even made it through law school with straw-man arguments like that.
Thank you is all I can say. I have been a very sheltered and traditional mormon all my life (which I very much enjoyed) until recently. In my sincere attempt to learn more I stumbled across Bushman, which led to Compton which led to Quinn. I recently melted down completely and approached my Stake President. I figured he had to understand since he is in CES and hoped he could guide me through the faith struggle. It was not helpful at all and I came away feeling worse. I have found Mormon Stories and am healing spiritually. Just hearing believing members admit that these issues are freaky as hell and that I am not a sinner or demon for thinking that is therapeutic. Maybe I am still a little on the angry side but I thought Christofferson didn’t make a good case. I would be more inclined to think the church was making progress if they portrayed historical events more accurately in the manuals as apposed to burying it in a 24 volume set that is only going to be read by those of us who already know the history. Thank you.
John,
Thank you for having such a great format with this interview. I LOVE the left, right, center approach all in the same podcast. It provides a healthier overall perspective and allows for valuable points to be heard (and understood) on all sides; something that is often missing when an interview is all left or all right. I thought all three of these participants gave valuable perspectives and kept the whole thing open and respectful. I loved Lindsay’s closing remarks where she said that (open-minded, respectful, empathy driven) dialogue from all sides is the solution we have to get through our historical and present issues of concern. I couldn’t agree more. This podcast did a great job of that. Please consider this format with even more of your interviews. Thanks.
As I watched the dialectic of this session, it would appear that the thesis/antithesis/synthesis construct and finding common ground was alive and well. It is good to be able to listen at the heart level to either a thesis or an antithesis. Only if BOTH parties are open minded and willing to accept the possibility that they could be wrong can truth be spread around. Religion inherently establishes a hard dialectic that is most difficult to overcome. You folks did a pretty good respectful job of this. Lest we forget, confirmation bias will keep us on a track regardless of what valid facts might be brought forth. That history changes…or our uncovering new facts that could alter our thinking is true. However when sufficient evidence or sufficient pieces of a puzzle are put together so that the reality of the issue becomes apparent and clear and is describing what is; then we can know. The truthseeker does not go on feelings alone. The idea that faith can be misplaced is proven by the fact that all faith based religions and their adherents do not agree in doctrine much less the nature of God. Faith must be reasoned. We must have reasons to believe. Consider this. There is a natural progression of or process to attaining and then acting out on truth. THOUGHTS—FEELINGS—ACTIONS. This sequence is critical to the logos of finding out what is. Our thoughts must inductively describe that which is as well as to be consistent among themselves deductively. Feelings should follow thought, not the other way around. Anybody can put together a syllogistic chain of if…then reasoning that will lead to a conclusion. But, the causes of those conclusions must be tested and critically considered…not just FELT about. Otherwise our actions will follow after the unreal and the illusion rather than the real and true. Pride is ego identifying with someone or something outside of the self, turning ourselves over to that outside construct and denying our true self in favor of that exterior construct. If this happens we end up working from a framework of IGNORANCE..APATHY….COWARDICE. Wordsmithing any issue by not addressing an issue really, minimizing it or obfuscating and begging the question can be a planned act or a defense mechanism of the apologist. We have sufficient historical fact to be able to individually understand the issues discussed in this episode. I love the comment that you made regarding the steel issue John. This is a real issue. It has merit. Unless and until any evidence is available to prove the point, it will remain problematic for people like me. Darwin stated that unless the palenteontilogical record confirmed his theory of human evolution, his theory would be invalid and not a scientifically proven concept. There has been no forthcoming missing links to prove his theory. So, what evidence is there of evolution. So the steel sword. Reason and facts when placed out of order to feelings is a recipe for accepting concepts that will lead to mind prisons. The dialectic does not have to attain a synthesis. It is more often the case that either the thesis or antithesis is the correct answer just like 2+2+4. Just one man’s view.