Jump to content

clarkgoble

Contributor
  • Content count

    3,405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,566 Excellent

About clarkgoble

Recent Profile Visitors

1,802 profile views
  1. clarkgoble

    The DNA Issue again.

    I think the issue of the 116 pages looms large here. Although to be fair to the counterview, if the 116 pages had discussion of others in the land then wouldn't Joseph and Oliver (or other scribes) have knowledge of that? Wouldn't, in turn, that affect how they discuss native Americans in the region they lived in from the 1820's through Joseph's death? Yet we don't see a lot of evidence of that. While I'm extremely dubious of the great lakes geography model, one thing they do raise is the assumption about how early Saints including Joseph viewed natives of the region. My guess is that discussion of Others also wasn't on the 116 pages. However we should note that the 116 pages aren't Nephi's writing but Mormon's summation of Nephi's historical records. It's quite reasonable that Mormon just didn't mention it, much like Moroni didn't mention it in Ether. As you note in your #2, it's quite plausible Mormon just didn't care. Why wouldn't he care? Presumably because the empty hemisphere model was so alien he didn't even consider it as a possibility. The empty land model of course presupposes a type of "literalist" interpretation that only really arose in the modern era. (Here meaning roughly the post-Cartesian period through the beginning of the 20th century) That in turn arises as Protestant hermeneutics develop in lockstep with hermeneutics of science and hermeneutics of legal texts. Yet all those assumptions about reading texts are novel in the modern era and for the most part alien to the ancient world. It's just that they've become such a part of our culture people don't realize the ways they are reading texts. These could also plausibly be additions at the time of translation as Blake Ostler has suggested. What's most interesting is that this logic presupposes that the text isn't authentically ancient since it demands it accord to how a modern text would be written. So there's a really interesting and obscured element of circular logic to many claims of achronisms.
  2. Nothing in that verse says the unity is ontological. It could just as easily be read nominalistically. Indeed historically that's how it's typically been read. Even Pratt's more Stoic view of the ousia really isn't an ontological unity ala the Trinity but a kind of shared material fluid. Thus it's a common physical substance but not an ontological unity. Now personally I think there is some kind of ontological unity - although I'd favor the Nothing of say Duns Scotus for various reasons. (Mainly dealing with Levinas' view of how God is absolutely other but so too are other minds and thus our own ontological ground) However there's really no textual reason to take that interpretation. I'd not you're misusing hypostasis when you say One God. The traditional formulation, which shifted the normal Roman sense of the terms somewhat, is that there's one ousia but three hypostasis. The hypostasis is thus not shared. My suggestion would be that whenever you read a passage don't assume the way you read it is correct. Rather consider the range of ways that passage could be read. Typically, especially with difficult passages, the text is somewhat vague and thus open to many competing readings.
  3. clarkgoble

    The Church Has Spoken on Immigration Policy

    It's much more common among the poor in my experience. Particularly in certain communities like inner cities or the like. But yeah, in this day and age it's so hard to function without one it's not that common. But it definitely happens. Nearly every Church has come out against it. This is definitely more than status quo issues. And of course the Church does come out on some moral based political issues like gay marriage, gambling, prostitution, and drugs. People might not appreciate it. But it's hardly uncommon.
  4. clarkgoble

    Don Bradley's Book on the 116 Pages

    I got the impression from that LDS Perspectives interview that most of it was essentially done. I'd imagine the difficulty at this stage is making the main body easy to read while still conveying all the information. That's non-trivial even for very good writers.
  5. That's what Canadians have been doing for decades. Most wards I was in had Oh Canada glued in.
  6. They dropped national anthems. I'm mixed on that although I completely understand why they did it. The Hymnal simply has to work in more countries. However singing O Canada or The Star Spangled Banner on Canada Day or the 4th of July was nice. I'm curious if they keep Battle Hymn of the Republic. It's pretty violent and was composed for the northern troops in the Civil War. Still it's a great song. The Atlantic podcast did an interesting episode on the history of the song a few months back.
  7. If they are doing a new one I'd love variant music for particular hymns. While I love the current Hie to Kolob tune borrowed from the old Star of the Country Down (technically Kingsfold - but that drinking song is the one everyone recognizes) I would love to have the more difficult original music available.
  8. clarkgoble

    Korach and Korihor

    All I can think of is Cartman and hippie infestations. (No I've not watched South Park in ages - but that was a funny episode)
  9. I think Reynolds himself has admitted to conflicting feelings and appears to have testimony issues. However going shirtless in a show says nothing about that. I'd note that polynesian dancers usually go shirtless too at BYU. I don't think anyone thinks those performances are problematic. (Well OK there are some - but they're also railing at the Cougarettes for not wearing garments during their routines too)
  10. The Children's hymnal needed a lot of work. A lot of those songs just aren't easy to sing and more importantly aren't terribly catchy. The adult one seemed fine so I'm surprised they're revising that one.
  11. clarkgoble

    The DNA Issue again.

    Again a bit of a false dichotomy and most based upon an argument from silence. That is rather than simply see them as corrupted accounts with a ground in history they assume they're purely myth. That's completely understandable of course but not really much of an argument against Jaredites. I suspect they were only sealed in storms. Also we know the trip took that long according to Moroni but we don't know if they made stops during that time. (Most likely they did) In which case we're just talking about a typical polynesian craft with a part that was sealed for dealing with storms. The polynesians regularly crossed the pacific. While quite speculative I wrote up one way to think about the Jaredites in terms of polynesian voyages. It's still miraculous they survived but shows a way that it's not a completely unfathomable miracle. I think it's incorrect to assume that they spent all of those 344 days in a sealed chamber. The text simply doesn't state that but suggests the chamber was primarily for storms.
  12. As others noted those are pretty weak parallels. Most significantly though the key ontological aspects of the Nicean Creed aren't in section 20. As Mark noted there's no discussion of ousia or hypostasis. Beyond that though the link claims a parallel in "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." That's a key theological point in the doctrine of the Trinity. However the purported parallel given is "prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost." That's not just a non-parallel syntactically but completely avoids the ontological claim. That said, I actually do think Mormonism is compatible with the Nicean Creed proper. The big divergences are over the embodiment of the Father and creation ex nihilo. But those, while often tied to the Trinitarian doctrine aren't formally part of the creeds. Now of course most Mormons tend to adopt a more nominalist conception of the unity of the Godhead. So they think the only unity is having similar desires and thoughts along with the same knowledge. That is there's nothing real shared they just think similarly with similar powers. However there's certainly more substantial conceptions of the Godhead in Mormon thought. Orson Pratt for instance effectively created a Stoic version of the Trinity in his theology - largely by following Tertullians views combined with Priestly's then popular conceptions of atoms. (The Stoics had interpenetrating fluids rather than atoms) But effectively the shared ousia of the Trinity becomes a shared divine spirit that all divine beings share in and that gives them their power. The hyperousia is the atom representing the soul of each divine being. While Orson's view never really caught on in Mormon thought it indirectly did influence a lot of other thinkers. Personally while I think Orson wrong, I do think he's right in that there's something substantial between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that goes beyond mere similar thoughts. Many others do as well even if it's a minority position.
  13. clarkgoble

    Korach and Korihor

    That's my understanding too. Although honestly grooming standards had mostly changed back in the 30's through 40's. But codifying them was, as I understand it, a reaction to counterculture from the late 60's onward. Ditto the request to avoid excessive piercings and tattoos by Pres. Hinkley in the 90's as those became popular.
  14. clarkgoble

    The DNA Issue again.

    Isn’t that a false dichotomy? What if it were an oral tradition only written down around 800-700 BC and this inaccurate yet based in history. Moroni who is writing centuries after the Jaredites as a people ended summarizes those records in terms of the Genesis 11 passages in the form they took in the brass plates - likely different from the form we have in Genesis. The “it’s completely accurate or completely myth/fiction” dichotomy always struck me as odd.
  15. clarkgoble

    The Maxwell Institute and the Honor Code

    I think in this case they end up being the same for practical purposes. If God's message is clearly from God and clear enough rhetorically that it can't easily be misunderstood, then given God's knowledge and power it ends up as infallibility. Now you could quibble over the inherent limits of language and particular short generalities. But that's a pretty narrow area where it wouldn't be infallible. More to the point given the idea of this life as a training ground where we don't inherently know what God wants, such clarity would go against the plan of salvation.
×