Jump to content

clarkgoble

Contributor
  • Content count

    2,527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,542 Excellent

About clarkgoble

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Recent Profile Visitors

1,096 profile views
  1. Baptisms for the Dead in the Second Temple?

    I’m not quite following your argument. I think Paul is referring to practice after Christ’s death. If I read Robert right he’s just referring to broader work for the dead but not baptism for the dead.
  2. Circumcision

    I missed this statement earlier. Where are you getting your statistics on this? The statistics I've seen such as at MGMBill (an activist group seeking to ban circumcision) that purportedly quotes a presentation to the CDC has Utah among the lowest. For surrounding states and Utah: State Rate Year of Reporting Arizona 16% 2013 Colorado 56% 2013 Idaho N/A Utah 33% 2013 Wyoming 73% 2013 Nevada 10% 2013 Montana 50% 2009 Nevada and Arizona are lower - perhaps due to the large hispanic population. But all the other states are considerably higher. I'd add that the main cause for the drop in circumcision appears to be whether it's covered by Medicaid for the poor.
  3. Circumcision

    That seems a false dichotomy. But certainly if the "solution" is only condoms then HIV is demonstrably going to flourish. Whether you think that is better than cutting off a relatively insignificant bit of skin that most American men already have cut off and don't mind ultimately depends upon your personal values. For my personal values it's a very good tradeoff. If you think teeth are as functionally important as foreskin of course then that's a more factual discussion. I'm not sure many would agree with you. Although again perhaps that depends upon the non-factual part tied to personal values. Maybe you personally do value foreskin as much as your teeth. That's something only you can decide. Again though I think most Americans would tend to have different value judgments in that regard. I can't really debate the value part of this as that's fairly subjective and not exactly open to evidentiary argument. The more factual parts about function and consequences I think we can debate. Again I just point people to PubMed for that.
  4. Well I'm not sure they are necessarily as opposed as you suggest. There's very Derridean and Heideggarian takes on neoPlatonism that are very interesting. Sara Rappe's Reading Neoplatonism as I recall was interesting in that regard. Although it's been long enough I'm not sure I trust my memory too well on the book. While I can understand why the non-discursive aspect of neoPlatonism seems at first glance to be at odds with hermeneutics in an other way it gets at Derrida's insight that to read a text is to make an other text. Peirce's take on truth is a bit complex, somewhat like Heidegger's is. Heidegger doesn't dispute correspondence but argues it's not fundamental. Likewise I think Peirce doesn't have trouble with certain kinds of correspondence but that the correspondence is to a future stabilization through inquiry and development. Whether one takes that as realism and a claim about an actual future or as a regulative concept based upon how we use the term truth is not really agreed upon. (Although I think the latter interpretation is more popular) But truth is what is fated to be believed eventually. Thus truth is a kind of idealized belief. Current beliefs are true to the degree they correspond to this fated truth and are determined by the real. So I don't think it's misleading to call that correspondence but it's not correspondence in a normal Kantian or Cartesian sense. I don't think we can say that without analyzing what "accurate" means. Again I can reject the Kantian or Cartesian senses without necessarily throwing out the notion of accuracy. Turning things around, I think the problem with Rorty is that he's so caught up in the present than he neglects "transcendence" in any of its many guises. That is the relation of "accuracy" in terms of being true to what is unspoken. Now of course Rorty is right that as soon as we talk of this we're then caught up in language with all of the criticisms he applies. However Rorty effectively (I think anyway - you might disagree) wants to more or less say there is no thing of language if by that we mean reference to something outside of language. Whereas I tend to think it's precisely that feature of language which is most important about language. While there's no transcendent word outside the text I'm not sure we should dismiss the notion of outside. (Or if you prefer non-being) The error of modernism as I see it is, to borrow a Nietzschean phrase, the belief there is an other world. That is a transcendent that is an other world yet somehow with the properties of this world. That is to have non-being really be a kind of being. Yet if you throw that notion off I don't think we need throw transcendence off with it. All that said I'm not sure that has much to do with theology except in more traditional Jewish, Christian or Islamic senses. I'm rather partial to Brigham Young's view that theology is much more of what I'd term anthropology. That's perhaps more compatible with a broadly Rorty project so long as we appreciate the unknown. (That is I don't think anything goes in theology anymore than it does in physics) Put an other way traditional Christianity, especially in the 20th century, tended to throw out the anthropological aspects of God such as angels, divine intervention and often the human nature of Christ as God. In preference they, like Nietzsche warned, embraced God as Being and the echoes of the neoplatonism remnant still in Christianity. (This is especially true of early 20th century figures like Tillich but I think still applies to much of the Christian intellectual class) Mormonism (and particularly Brigham Young with his anti-platonic elements added to the endowment) instead discarded God as Being and event God as attributes and focused only on God as acting person with a history one might approach hermeneutically. I appreciate that type of theology.
  5. Circumcision

    I don't think I was disagreeing with the secular origins/defenses. Rather their relevance. As to choosing it today, we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I've mentioned if you look at PubMed there are a lot of papers promoting circumcision due to its effects. One can as I said disagree with the cost/benefit analysis but I think disparaging the benefits is a lost cause. The evidence is pretty strong that as that previously linked paper notes circumcision is more effective against heterosexual HIV infection than typical condom use.
  6. Institute = the BYU

    That was true 25 years ago when I was at BYU too. I'm not sure that's new.
  7. The best part of South Park was when they announced who's view of heaven was right.
  8. Circumcision

    Well I'd be careful saying "original intent." I think it's been going on long enough that it's hard to know the original intent although I recognize you're more talking secular defenses rather than origin per se. But in any case original intent is somewhat irrelevant for why someone might choose it today.
  9. Resurrection Question

    I don't. I just remember my dad talking about it when it was eliminated. In 21.3.2 it talks about allowing cremation. The closest I can find for the old policy was the Encyclopedia of Mormonism from 1992 which states the old policy. There's also the Ensign article on it from 1991, likely written with the same involvement. I've not followed the other thread so I don't know if those were brought up. As I recall the change was in the late 90's primarily due to Asian concerns but I don't recall the date although I've not searched closely. Looking around there doesn't appear to be any papers on the subject. Sam Brown doesn't even address it in his book on Mormon death. So there's a paper for MHA ripe for the taking if someone has time to consult the special collections at BYU which I believe has old copies of the handbook.
  10. In one of my areas just prior to my being transferred in a woman who'd been raised in charismatic traditions when baptized came up speaking in tongues. It kind of shocked the ward. It makes sense that people are conditioned to behave in a particular way when feeling the spirit. I am firmly convinced the Holy Ghost will testify of truth to people earnestly seeking it even if they don't yet have the gift of the Holy Ghost. So people in all religious traditions can feel the promptings of the spirit. If when you feel that you're told to behave in a certain way people will. In a similar fashion our own services which are, outsider of the temple, part of the low church tradition (i.e. stripped down to minimalist decoration, symbolism and so forth) tend to be rather restrained in terms of music and performance. This can be pretty shocking to those raised in more exuberant services. (Whether Catholic or charismatic or even many typical Evangelical services) In a certain way it's somewhat arbitrary. Services in the very early LDS church are different from the typical sacrament meeting today - especially likely in terms of cadence of speech and other forms. Likewise I suspect all LDS services varied quite a bit from the typical early Christian service or pre-Christian synagogue.
  11. Circumcision

    There is a pretty big difference in terms of effects. Part of female "circumcision" is to eliminate feeling so as to prevent adultery. It's pretty horrible which is why it's considered illegal in the US. Male circumcision really doesn't have that effect at all typically. I doubt most circumcized people consider it a problem. I certainly don't.
  12. Resurrection Question

    Joseph had sometimes taught that children are resurrected as children. As I recall the King Follet Discourse teaches it but typically when printed by the Church that bit is excluded. "as the Child dies so shall it rise from the ded & be living in the burng. of God.--it shall be the child as it was bef it died out of your arms Children dwell & exercise power in the same form as they laid them down" As to the question about bodies - there was a long tradition that the body in the grave would be put back together but for reasons others already noted that doesn't make a lot of sense. For one thing it presupposes that the matter in a resurrected body is the same as a mortal body. There's a ton of reasons to presuppose that's not the case. More significantly we can just think of victims at ground zero of a nuclear explosion to see why the idea doesn't ultimately make a ton of sense. More to the point why bother using the same molecules or atoms? I can't see a point to it. The key idea is I think that you return to your mortality to be resurrected. There's a certain poetry to it. But I bet for those who don't want to be resurrected at their grave they don't have to be. Interestingly for a long, long time people in the Church opposed cremation precisely because it was so confusing for the resurrection if taken in terms of the dead body. Even though this never made sense (after all lots of people are cremated anyway and they still need resurrected) it was a big tradition until recently in the Church. As I recall the Church policy changed primarily due to places where buying people in the traditional American way was either not part of the culture or unfeasible. My dad has it in his will be be cremated and his ashes scattered to the wind off a particular mountain in southern Alberta. This used to cause no end of consternation at Church. LOL.
  13. I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think "tongue of angels" is the voice of revelation, as I've argued earlier. But I think the gift of tongues in literally speaking in a different language whether than be some natural language or whatever language(s) they choose to speak in heaven. I confess I don't quite understand the fascination speaking Adamaic that some have. It's worth noting that while this was an issue in the early LDS church it actually predates the Church by quite a bit. An amazing book I am continually recommending is Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language which goes through the history of this as a way of dealing with the sweep of history of Europe. He not only gets at the aspects of the dream of Adamaic in Europe but also exactly what "perfect language" was even interpreted to mean. It turns out there were two radically different approaches. One was the idea of a language perfectly able to purely reference things in an unambiguous fashion. This was seen against the goal of taxonomies for various creatures and so forth. The other move, seen especially in Kabbalism, was a perfectly metaphoric language in which words could express anything. Needless to say these two views are polar opposites. Many who talk about the language of angels or heaven as an actual language end up touching on these issues, but usually in a fashion they've not really thought through very well.
  14. Think you meant 1978. But I agree with your point completely that there are very different narratives on truth in the scripture. Typically for any passage there's numerous ways to read it. However many have noted the fairly platonic nature of D&C 93's take on truth which in some ways is very much at odds with Alma 32 although in other ways can be reconciled. (For people other than Mark, Peirce the founder of pragmatism in many ways had strong platonic & hegelian elements in his thought about truth)
  15. Circumcision

    No idea. No paper I've read really has good conclusions. But there's lots of possibilities. As you note the US is far from homogenous. Most European nations, even after recent immigration trends, are still extremely homogenous. There's also presumably very different behavioral patterns. Obviously risky sexual practices will affect the rates a great deal - swamping most other effects.
×