Sayer versus the Said

Going back to the previous post, about voicing and authority…

First, in the spirit of this post, this blog is holding GENcon14, an annual semi-annual conference.  Speakers will be chosen from the General Authorities and Auxiliary leaders of Themselves.

Seriously, next week, new voices…


It would be interesting to have an entire month where the “source” of some statement was forbidden from being tied to what was said.  Maybe November could be, “I don’t care who said it month”?

How many quotes from General Conference would appear little different from daytime tv, or car commercial life-philosophy?  Moreover, what if rather than saying, “Denver Snuffer said…” or “Daymon Smith said…” (if ever that has been said to summon authority!), or “The Lord said…” or “The Book of Mormon said…” instead we were only allowed to say what was said?

How would we decide which to believe, or to disbelieve?

As folks believing in unnatural or extraordinary happenings, like the Book of Mormon being a translation of an actual, ancient record of a ruined people, we confront problems that, for instance, atheists no longer worry about: namely, what should I believe, when positivism is not sufficiently explanatory for what I’ve experienced?  Or, what should I disbelieve, given that I cannot set the limits on what is impossible (other than, say, scholastic theological conundrums like God making a boulder He cannot lift, or a married bachelor)?   If we don’t have the refuge of unbelief–proposed to be defined as: a positive believing against some belief we have no reason, logically or rationally, to decide against–how can we decide which track to follow?  A man in a white robe is to guide us?  Or an Iron Rod?  Or…


15 thoughts on “Sayer versus the Said

  1. Chuck says:

    @lemuel Yes, but only tomorrow night, of course, and only if the guys cross-dress, and the girls dress as “sexy” whatevers. And don’t forget to bring ye all ye guys (candy) into the storehouse, that there may be sweets in my house…have a happy Halloween!

  2. Edwin says:

    My new goal for Novemeber: understanding what in the hell Daymon Smith is talking about 75% of the time.
    Because the 25% that I understand (or at least, that I think I understand) is pretty good.

    ” If we don’t have the refuge [HOW IS UNBELIEF REFUGE] of unbelief–proposed [BY WHOM] to be defined as: a positive [E.G., POSITIVE/NEGATIVE OR A PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM THAT HOLDS THAT EVERY RATIONALLY JUSITIFIABLE ASSERTION CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED OR IS CAPABLE OF LOGICAL OR MATHEMATICAL PROOF, AND THAT THEREFORE REJECTS METAPHYSICS AND THEISM?] believing against some belief we have no reason, logically or rationally, to decide against [ISN’T THIS A DOUBLE NEGATIVE?]–how can we decide which track to follow [WHERE DID THESE TRACKS COME IN?]? A man in a white robe is to guide us? Or an Iron Rod? Or…”

    1. day2mon says:

      I hope the other 75% is not just rubbish, but if you get the right 25%, you might be just as well off as the full 100%. I responded through Chuck’s thread, but will add, re., refuge: You can hide from developing a good method for discerning truth from falsehood by engaging in unbelief, and thus, it may provide a refuge from deciding in error. Such are the refuges we’ve long camped in by promoting “voice” and “authority” as markers of truth and falsehood. Again, voice and authority provide refuge, but not really Zion, something permanent and thriving.

  3. Chuck says:

    @Edwin Who cares [BY WHOM], right? And that definition of “positivism” seems [TO ME, IF THAT MATTERS YOU] misplaced by a couple of sentences. I don’t see a double negative in the phrase about positively deciding against belief, nor would I [LIKE THAT MATTERS] care if I did. Your question about the tracks, however, is a good one.

    1. day2mon says:

      I guess the “tracks” metaphor is imagining that believing X leads to Y, and then believing Y leads to Z. A track. If we engage in “unbelief” we are moving along, according to our unbelief. Which is as I proposed, to be defined as active decision to not believe in something we don’t have a rational reason to not believe. It is the opposite of belief: taking just as much gumption, decision, and determination, yet decides in the negative. I’m responding to Edwin, here, through Chuck’s comment, by the way. When I say “positive,” I mean merely an existing thing, rather than a mere void; and the allusion to positivism was intentional, because it seems to be, in its dogmatic versions, to be a form of positive unbelief, rather than mere skepticism, or such.

  4. Edwin says:

    Once again I am showing my stark ignorance, but: I have another question. You proposed to define unbelief as,”a positive believing against some belief we have no reason, logically or rationally, to decide against.” If I understand it right then that means that you propose that Unbelief is -without any reason founded in positivism- choosing not to believe something. Do I understand your point then? Is there any difference between Unbelief and Disbelief?

    1. day2mon says:

      I think you understand what I’m saying. Unbelief and disbelief…yeah, I’d say there’s a difference, but probably not worth delineating. Unbelief is the opposite of belief, not the absence of it, I guess.

  5. awaketozion says:

    The Voice or “Voicing” has always been done by oneself because both the speaker AND the listener are forced to conceptualize the Voice.

    For the listener:

    The fact that one would choose to let psuedo authoritarians pacify a desire for Truth demonstrates a Telestial tendency to rely on the arm of flesh. An assertive message of authority is a good sign that God’s voice is not present. Meekness is his Voice.

    For the speaker:

    Mimicing God’s authority to support ones own pride and vain ambitions, nullifies any connection to Him. It is Anti-Christ to use his Name in an effort to compel others to believe.

  6. Phil says:

    It can certainly be tough to tease out the car salesman from the preacher – (See A. C. H. o. t. B. o. M. Volume 3 Delta Waves for more on on this swithcheroo) I know you like to give Nibley a hard time, but it always cracked me up when he would refer to Satan as The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. In the heights of irony, the live “action” endownment costumes in the SL temple have served to reinforce the notion that business-suit types are not to be confused with true messengers.

    1. day2mon says:

      Yeah, Nibley’s odd that way; it is as if his own insights weren’t applied to what he was himself seeing. As if, “those guys” are different from “our guys,” because I personally know “our guys,” and they aren’t like “those guys.” Our guys are good, right? Yet he points out how he should decide which side a man in a suit is on, just by the wearing of the suit and his mode of instruction in said suit.

  7. Tiani says:

    Daymon, thank you for your work. I’ve fairly recently come across it, so I have some catch- up to do. I’ve added you to my “truly interesting” list (deeply insightful, helpful, relevant) For whatever it’s worth, sadly, my list is very small. I have a slightly larger list of the “fairly interesting.”

Comments are closed.