Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Argos]

Please tell me that Tal isn't so mind-numbingly dim as to actually believe that.

Pahoran:

I responded, above, to complaints about Tal Bachman's condescension. Now we've received a complaint about insults from you such as that quoted.

Let's keep it on a higher level. Okay?

-- Argos, Moderator

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tal wrote:

Some of your claims about Mormonism - for example, that Mormonism doesn't claim to be the only true religion - are blatantly untrue.

No, I don't think so. And I can justify my position (I will ignore for the moment my difficulties with the notion of "true religion"). First, Moses had "true religion" as you are using the term here. Adam had "true religion". At least this is taugh to Mormons as core beliefs. Jesus Christ brought "true religion". Some Mormons may attempt (due to what I view as an unnecessary notion) to harmonize this by claiming that it is the same religion. I don't agree with this idea or with the notion of its necessity. At the same, if we move away from the idea of structured belief, all LDS are also taught (or at least the church attempts to teach them) the notion of the "Light of Christ" - an idea that there is a spark of divinity within each of us that helps us recognize God. And this is "true religion" that isn't particularly connected to Mormonism in Mormon thought. So, just about anyone can be practitioners of true religion. At the same time, while the LDS church talks about salvific ordinances, they don't attempt to make any guarantee of the salvificness of their ordinances, nor does the church claim to be the sole or final arbiter of salvation. And finally, the Church makes no pretensions about being the only source of truth or of even having a fulness of truth. So, in this sense, while Mormonism claims to be a "true religion" (which I note is only marginally connected to your earlier comments), they don't claim exclusivity in the realm of truth or true religion or salvation.

You strike me as a confused man, Benjamin - you are on here defending a religion which from the get-go has claimed to be the only true religion, and more, a religion which can be known to be so through the Holy Ghost, and yet at the same time you cast doubt on anyone's ability to know anything. You see, I find that self-contradictory. Perhaps you don't; perhaps a few of your ideological comrades don't; but I do, and my guess is that most others, Mormon and non-Mormon, would find it so as well.

I tend to separate the notion of church from the notion of gospel. What clearly sets me apart from many Mormons is the fact that I don't priviledge the leaders of the church in their interpretations. I prefer more direct communication with deity as a preferred model of arriving at the truth (filtered as it may be). Further, I think its easy enough for you to talk about my beliefs (which I have tried to be quote open with here, and to explain as best I can), but you yourself haven't really given us much to go on in terms of your own epistemological beliefs - other than to let us know that they are quite subjective. This use of the term "religion" in your comments here carries with it a sense of ambiguity. What exactly does it mean when you use it? Are you referring to the Mormon religion as a sum total of it parts (of its members)? Are you talking about the formal organization? Are you referring to a collection of doctrines and theologies?

No as to knowing things, I don't actually strike doubt on our ability to know things. Unless of course we follow the useless definitions of knowledge which requires that knowledge be an absolutely accurate external description of something. What I suggest is that what we call knowledge is already filtered by who and where we are. And that knowledge changes as our situation changes. What I provide is a destabilization of what many believe is the foundation of truth. I challenge authority - particularly authority which makes universal claims (even the LDS church). And despite your suggestion, I am not confused. I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. My philosophical views work quite well with my faith, and within the idea that knowledge of deity ultimately cannot come from others but must be gained by ourselves individually.

So I find myself in the position of discussing how we know things, with someone who is already committed to the proposition that we don't know things, even though he belongs to a church which sponsors monthly testimony meetings in every single branch and ward on earth (by the way, I guess all that choking up when "feeling the spirit" has nothing to do with feelings, right?).

The spirit moves people in different ways.

So what am I doing really, other than making myself look like an idiot in discussing this with you? If you don't believe that anything can be known, at least according to the usual definition of the verb "to know", then I think it is completely pointless for us to be discussing this.

But I don't think you actually understand my position. What is the "usual definition" of the verb "to know"? From Merriam-Webster.com, we get:

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

(I skipped the definition involving sex). You see, "knowing" something is really quite independant of its theoretical factual accuracy. To use a really bad example, if we were colorblind (but unaware of it) we might "know" that the red ball is really green. We know this because we have direct cognition of it - we see it. We might "know" that George Washingto chopped down a cherry tree. We might know that our wife has a headache. Whatever we know may well be subject to change. Any "knowledge" that we have - the direct result of cognisitions - comes as a result of our interaction with our environment, and is therefore unreliable in any external objective sort of way. Someone has to tell us the ball is green and then probably convince us that there is something wrong with our eyesight before our knowledge of the color of that ball will change. But it can change. And what we know does change. And on a regular basis, I find people changing what they knew to something else that they know. And to be honest, this seems to be the usual definition of the word.

And I suppose if anyone might be considered disingenuous, it might be someone who at the same time defends a certain epistemic claim (whatever it might consist of), who at the same time gives away his opinion that "epistemology" is really in the end, nothing but nonsense.

And here is where most polemicists tend to lose sight of what is happening. Do you think that because I embrace uncertainty that I cannot make judgement calls? That I would find jury duty impossible? That I couldn't value one set of options over another? The answer is no. It isn't just nonsense because I don't reject knowledge (as you suggest). I simply embrace from the get go that my knowledge isn't necessarily reflective of any external reality. I embrace the notion that a God who is external from my world can be approached, and can be a source of truth external to the world (even if my knowledge of this truth is limited or restricted by my being in the world). Does my recognition of plurality somehow prevent me from valuing the different claims hierarchically using some criteria of my choice?

By the way, I doubt even you would argue that Brigham Young's claim equals in authority the canonical claims about the Lord not allowing the prophet to lead the church astray found after the WW Manifesto in D&C.

I would actually. First, WW does not indicate in the sermon that is quoted following the manifesto that he is speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Second, the attached sermon was not voted on by the church, and isn't actually canonized material. You will note that the text explicitly delineates the difference between what was voted on and what wasn't. It is contained within the volume that comprises our standard works, but then, so are explanatory footnotes and so on. Third, there is in fact no scriptural justification for this idea (which is why you you have to go here). No prophet has ever claimed infalibility. In fact most have gone out of their way to express just the opposite sentiment. It is members of the church who tend to elevate their leaders in this fashion - perhaps because it is easier to be blindly obedient than it is to seek for personal knowledge through revelation. On the other hand, we do have Section 107, referring specifically to the prophet:

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church. 82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

So, even the President of the Church is subject to censure. I think that you want to focus on a single issue here, but in fact, like the notion of an LDS epistemology, there is a range of beliefs within the church and its leaders, and your focusing on this specific point of view (which isn't canonized) doesn't really do justice to the fact that there are other views which can be seen as conflicting. Nor do we suggest that there isn't precedence. What happened when Joseph Smith thought to sell the Copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada? ...

One more thing - saying that "as far as you know, it is absolutely true that Jesus is the Savior", is totally pathetic for someone in your position!

No it isn't. And in fact, everything I know points to the absolute truth that Jesus is the Savior. But I am willing to accept the idea that God could tell me something differently. You see, (and I had this issue with another person not too long ago), you want to make an absurd argument here. Its kind of like the idea that you put enough monkeys in front of typewriters for a long enough period of time, and one of them will produce the complete works of shakespeare. We could even assign a mathematical probability to this event. (It is very small, but still quite possible). In fact, any book you pick up could have been produced in the same fashion - the probability exists. But do you seriously consider this a possibility every time you pick up a book? You see, my knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Savior is cause by experiences I have had (direct cognitive awareness), and so I would suggest that for me, the likelihood that God will disconfirm my belief is miniscule. So could God do so? I suspect that God could, I am led to believe that God could, and I do not expect that God ever will. Unlike myself though, God as external to the world, can know absolutely the world.

And your claim of ignorance about whether the Day of Pentecost was an exercise in mass delusion or not pretty much says more about where you're coming from than anything I could say.

Not really. The question is why it is of significance. Which is more important? The accuracy of a text written by people describing God, or my own encounter with the divine? Clearly the text (and even the present prophet) take a back seat every time.

What is the point of discussing "how we know", with someone whose comments all boil down to, "we cannot know, because knowing is impossible"? It's like being sucked into some weird mindgame or something...

But I am not saying that knowing is impossible. I have never asserted this. What I have asserted is that knowing something doesn't provide us with some foundation of meaning. That what we know changes as we change. And so the pursuit of an intimate relationship with deity cannot be one in which we find it and we are done. Knowledge of God (perhaps testimony) isn't something we obtain and keep forever and cherish and hold dear. It is something that we must renew, that we must re-encounter all the time as we keep wandering.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way Tal, you haven't answered one question I really want to see you answer.

Assuming that there is a real God someplace - would the appearance of that God to you (ala Joseph Smith) form the basis for a rational belief in the existence of that God?

Ben

[wenglund]

Hi Ben,

I have very much enjoyed the exchanges that you have had with both Tal and Beastie, not only because you more elloquently and informedly give voice to a point of view I have long held and have unsuccessfully attempted to communicate to the Church's antagonist, and not only because your comments have been enlightening, but also because those exchanges draw into stark contrast the rigid, narrow, closed-minded, and fundamentalist thinking on the one hand, and the somewhat maluable, broad, open-minded, and mature thinking on the other hand, which contrast may, in itself, give explanation for why some people may leave the Church and become antagonistic against it, and why others may remain faithful. But, that may just be my biased perception.

Anyway, I have a question for you of my own. You said: "What clearly sets me apart from many Mormons is the fact that I don't priviledge the leaders of the church in their interpretations. I prefer more direct communication with deity as a preferred model of arriving at the truth (filtered as it may be)." You also stated: "Which is more important? The accuracy of a text written by people describing God, or my own encounter with the divine? Clearly the text (and even the present prophet) take a back seat every time."

I see it somewhat differently in that I believe that there are some in the Church (prophets in particular) who may have had more intimate and extensive interactions with God, and who may be far more advanced in their spiritual epistemology than me, that it may be appropriate at times to privilege what they say over my own understandings and interactions, leaving of course the decision when to do so with me. In other words, I think it prudent to, on occasion or even as a general practice, to privilige the understanding of the teacher over that of the student.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

No as to knowing things, I don't actually strike doubt on our ability to know things. Unless of course we follow the useless definitions of knowledge which requires that knowledge be an absolutely accurate external description of something. What I suggest is that what we call knowledge is already filtered by who and where we are. And that knowledge changes as our situation changes. What I provide is a destabilization of what many believe is the foundation of truth. I challenge authority - particularly authority which makes universal claims (even the LDS church). And despite your suggestion, I am not confused. I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. My philosophical views work quite well with my faith, and within the idea that knowledge of deity ultimately cannot come from others but must be gained by ourselves individually.The spirit moves people in different ways.But I don't think you actually understand my position. What is the "usual definition" of the verb "to know"? From Merriam-Webster.com, we get:

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

(I skipped the definition involving sex). You see, "knowing" something is really quite independant of its theoretical factual accuracy. To use a really bad example, if we were colorblind (but unaware of it) we might "know" that the red ball is really green. We know this because we have direct cognition of it - we see it. We might "know" that George Washingto chopped down a cherry tree. We might know that our wife has a headache. Whatever we know may well be subject to change. Any "knowledge" that we have - the direct result of cognisitions - comes as a result of our interaction with our environment, and is therefore unreliable in any external objective sort of way. Someone has to tell us the ball is green and then probably convince us that there is something wrong with our eyesight before our knowledge of the color of that ball will change. But it can change. And what we know does change. And on a regular basis, I find people changing what they knew to something else that they know. And to be honest, this seems to be the usual definition of the word.And here is where most polemicists tend to lose sight of what is happening. Do you think that because I embrace uncertainty that I cannot make judgement calls? That I would find jury duty impossible? That I couldn't value one set of options over another? The answer is no. It isn't just nonsense because I don't reject knowledge (as you suggest). I simply embrace from the get go that my knowledge isn't necessarily reflective of any external reality. I embrace the notion that a God who is external from my world can be approached, and can be a source of truth external to the world (even if my knowledge of this truth is limited or restricted by my being in the world). Does my recognition of plurality somehow prevent me from valuing the different claims hierarchically using some criteria of my choice?I would actually. First, WW does not indicate in the sermon that is quoted following the manifesto that he is speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Second, the attached sermon was not voted on by the church, and isn't actually canonized material. You will note that the text explicitly delineates the difference between what was voted on and what wasn't. It is contained within the volume that comprises our standard works, but then, so are explanatory footnotes and so on. Third, there is in fact no scriptural justification for this idea (which is why you you have to go here). No prophet has ever claimed infalibility. In fact most have gone out of their way to express just the opposite sentiment. It is members of the church who tend to elevate their leaders in this fashion - perhaps because it is easier to be blindly obedient than it is to seek for personal knowledge through revelation. On the other hand, we do have Section 107, referring specifically to the prophet:So, even the President of the Church is subject to censure. I think that you want to focus on a single issue here, but in fact, like the notion of an LDS epistemology, there is a range of beliefs within the church and its leaders, and your focusing on this specific point of view (which isn't canonized) doesn't really do justice to the fact that there are other views which can be seen as conflicting. Nor do we suggest that there isn't precedence. What happened when Joseph Smith thought to sell the Copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada? ...No it isn't. And in fact, everything I know points to the absolute truth that Jesus is the Savior. But I am willing to accept the idea that God could tell me something differently. You see, (and I had this issue with another person not too long ago), you want to make an absurd argument here. Its kind of like the idea that you put enough monkeys in front of typewriters for a long enough period of time, and one of them will produce the complete works of shakespeare. We could even assign a mathematical probability to this event. (It is very small, but still quite possible). In fact, any book you pick up could have been produced in the same fashion - the probability exists. But do you seriously consider this a possibility every time you pick up a book? You see, my knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Savior is cause by experiences I have had (direct cognitive awareness), and so I would suggest that for me, the likelihood that God will disconfirm my belief is miniscule. So could God do so? I suspect that God could, I am led to believe that God could, and I do not expect that God ever will. Unlike myself though, God as external to the world, can know absolutely the world.Not really. The question is why it is of significance. Which is more important? The accuracy of a text written by people describing God, or my own encounter with the divine? Clearly the text (and even the present prophet) take a back seat every time.But I am not saying that knowing is impossible. I have never asserted this. What I have asserted is that knowing something doesn't provide us with some foundation of meaning. That what we know changes as we change. And so the pursuit of an intimate relationship with deity cannot be one in which we find it and we are done. Knowledge of God (perhaps testimony) isn't something we obtain and keep forever and cherish and hold dear. It is something that we must renew, that we must re-encounter all the time as we keep wandering.

Ben

That's pretty much how I always saw the church, Ben. I do think that the decision to accept the divinity of the church has its rational basis, but the "evidence" one weighs is always going to be subjective. Of course, the problem with such a subjective view of Truth is that the church cannot claim to be true in any sense except "true to me." I do disagree with this statement:

And finally, the Church makes no pretensions about being the only source of truth or of even having a fulness of truth. So, in this sense, while Mormonism claims to be a "true religion" (which I note is only marginally connected to your earlier comments), they don't claim exclusivity in the realm of truth or true religion or salvation.

I think the church would most definitely object to being called "a" true religion rather than God's true and living church on earth. I understand where you're coming from, and it's not a bad approach (as I said, it was my approach when I was a believer), but it simply doesn't square with what the church teaches about itself.

Finally, what I find interesting is that Wade's post on the difference between his enlightened epistemology and the fundies who believe in truth illustrates the same false dichotomy you have pointed out in Tal's posts.

[wenglund]

Finally, what I find interesting is that Wade's post on the difference between his enlightened epistemology and the fundies who believe in truth illustrates the same false dichotomy you have pointed out in Tal's posts.

I just ran a quick search of the thread, and the only mention of false dichotomy that I could find was in relation to the false dichotomy between emotions and other cognitions. If that is what you had in mind, I would like to know how my brief comment about the "contrast" illustrates the same false dichotomy. If it is not what you had in mind, could you please clarify.

Also, it may be helpful to recall that my comments were specific to the few individuals involved in the noted exchanges, and also included the very important "some people" qualifier.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Wade writes:

I see it somewhat differently in that I believe that there are some in the Church (prophets in particular) who may have had more intimate and extensive interactions with God, and who may be far more advanced in their spiritual epistemology than me, that it may be appropriate at times to privilege what they say over my own understandings and interactions, leaving of course the decision when to do so with me. In other words, I think it prudent to, on occasion or even as a general practice, to privilige the understanding of the teacher over that of the student.

The issue here however is one of understanding. The classic scriptural corollary is the vision of the Tree of Life given to Lehi in the Book of Mormon. (This serves as one of two major issues for an article I am writing on this idea of depriviledging authority in the Book of Mormon). Lehi has a dream, and his sons respond to it in two fundamentally different ways. Nephi, wanting to know what it means, goes to God, receives the vision himself (and we not in passing that as an experiential revelation, Nephi is aware and explicitly points out that his experience which is ostensibly the same as his fathers) has a different outcome at points - as when Nephi notes that his father never noticed the filthiness of the river of water. The second response is for Laman and Lemuel to approach Nephi and ask for an interpretation (Nephi is now the oracle). Which is the preferred model?

When we deal with revelation, we might classify it into two kinds of revelation - for the prophet. The personal kind where God is instructing him personally (just as we are instructed). And the public kind where God provides revelation for a group. The public kind seems to be more what we are interested in here. And one of two things could happen. The Book of Mormon provides a couple of different options for this (which may be too general but which works). The first fascinating example is Lehi in his first vision when he goes to preach in Jerusalem. An angel brings him a book. And he reads it. Reading implies interpretation, and then Lehi takes the meaning he has devined from the texts, and in a second act of interpretation gives it voice, and preaches to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The assumption should not be that if we read the book, that we would understand it in the same way. Nor should we be left with the assumption that there is only one meaning then that can come from such a revelation. The second notion is when God tells the prophet say XXXXXXX to the people. And even provides the XXXXXX. A rather simple but useful lillustration is God telling Moses, say unto the Israelites that "I am that I am" sent you. When God provides a complete speech act - an utterance (and for those who favor a tight translation of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon might also fall under this category), the prophet becomes a member of the audience - with no more special knoweldge of the utterance than any other audience member. Thus, Joseph (in a tight model) is a reader of the text just as you or I are, and no better equipped to interpret it perhaps than you or I are. And in fact, if the text is an authentic ancient history, Joseph Smith would be a far more incompetent reader than anyone who has spent a lifetime studying ancient texts. So, the point of all of this is that any attempt to priviledge what the prophet says about a revelation is in fact merely priviledging his intepretation, which isn't necessarily reflective of God's intent, nor would it be reflective of the meaning that you would get were you to have been the recipient of that revelation. So, to get the meaning which God intends for you to get, the objective is not to be a Laman or a Lemuel and approach the oracle with a request for meaning, but to skip the middle man and approach God. Recognizing at the same time, that what God reveals to you may not be at all identical with what God reveals to someone else.

Of course, if we are forced to respond as Laman and Lemuel did, we have no choice - "God doesn't speak to me" - well then we are left reliant on those whom God does speak to. But this isn't the plan. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness, he selected seventy of the elders and took them to the mountain. Meanwhile back in the camp, two men began to prophesy, and the people dragged them before Moses and suggested that he tell them to stop. And his response was profound. God, he told them, wanted all Israel to be prophets. God doesn't want a middle man to stand between Himself and us. He wants us all to approach Him and learn His will directly.

And so, I continue to state that there is no need (or even a good reason) to priviledge any intepretation as Truth. Is the Prophet our teacher? Or is he just like us, learning from God, from the Holy Spirit, and so on.

I always sense a certain irony on the Sunday where we get the lesson on the vision of the Tree of Life where instead of talking about how we ask for and receive our own revelation, we discuss our interpretations (as we read) of an intepretation (the translation of the text into English) of an interpretation (Nephi's writing the text) of an interpretation (Nephi's mature recollections years after the events occured), of an interpretation (Nephi's experiencing the revelation) of a revelation from God.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Not quite me writes:

I think the church would most definitely object to being called "a" true religion rather than God's true and living church on earth.

I am not sure that the terms are incompatible. One seems to imply that the church has more authority than the other. But that's as far as it goes. The notion that becomes a problem is the idea of it being "the only" such institution.

I understand where you're coming from, and it's not a bad approach (as I said, it was my approach when I was a believer), but it simply doesn't square with what the church teaches about itself.

I am not sure that I agree with you. What the church teaches about itself is at times contradictory. Which side you go with can determine your outlook.

It is an interesting thoguht to ponder. We like naturalist arguments because nature can resist our assertions. If the assertion is made that the earth is flat, or that gravity moves things up, we can test them and see that nature resists these assertions. Can God in his communication with us also resist assertions about ethics and morality and truth?

Ben

[Not quite me]

I am not sure that the terms are incompatible. One seems to imply that the church has more authority than the other. But that's as far as it goes. The notion that becomes a problem is the idea of it being "the only" such institution.I am not sure that I agree with you.

I would submit that yours is a decidedly nonstandard reading of what the church teaches about itself. But then that's what works for you. Ultimately, that is what we are about: finding 'readings' of life that work for us.

What the church teaches about itself is at times contradictory. Which side you go with can determine your outlook.

It is an interesting thoguht to ponder. We like naturalist arguments because nature can resist our assertions. If the assertion is made that the earth is flat, or that gravity moves things up, we can test them and see that nature resists these assertions. Can God in his communication with us also resist assertions about ethics and morality and truth?

Ben

That is indeed an interesting thought to ponder. Assuming that God is the ultimate holder of truth, then of course, he is free in his revelation to us to disabuse us of institutional notions of such things.

[Not quite me]

I just ran a quick search of the thread, and the only mention of false dichotomy that I could find was in relation to the false dichotomy between emotions and other cognitions. If that is what you had in mind, I would like to know how my brief comment about the "contrast" illustrates the same false dichotomy. If it is not what you had in mind, could you please clarify.

Sure, Wade. Your post was quite similar to Tal's OP in that it posited a "right" way of thinking (or in your words "somewhat maluable [sic], broad, open-minded, and mature thinking," characterizing those who remain faithful) and a "wrong" way of thinking ("rigid, narrow, closed-minded, and fundamentalist thinking" characteristic of some who leave the church and become antagonistic). Unless I'm reading Ben incorrectly, he posits no correct way of approaching truth, rightly recognizing that one's experience with "truth" is subjective, filtered through social constructs, language, and experience, among other things.

What this means is that what you see as openminded and mature may appear to others as rigid and narrowminded--and neither of you would be wrong.

Also, it may be helpful to recall that my comments were specific to the few individuals involved in the noted exchanges, and also included the very important "some people" qualifier.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

They became less specific when you broadly applied these definitions as explaining why some leave and some don't.

I hope this helps clarify what I meant.

[Calm]

I would submit that yours is a decidedly nonstandard reading of what the church teaches about itself.

Whether or not it is a "nonstandard" reading is unimportant as long as it can be a logical result of what the church teaches about itself...and I most definitely believe this view fits in as well with those teachings as any so-called "standard" reading.

[Not quite me]

Whether or not it is a "nonstandard" reading is unimportant as long as it can be a logical result of what the church teaches about itself...and I most definitely believe this view fits in as well with those teachings as any so-called "standard" reading.

Of course. That's exactly why I used the word "nonstandard," instead of "wrong." It was the way I looked at the church, as well. His reading might not sit well with the Brethren, but it is not wrong or invalid in any sense.

[noel00]

Hi Ben

I may be wrong but did you not say somewhere you felt the Book of Abraham should not have been canonized? I know Kevin Graham does not accept the BOA and Van Hale believes the BOM is not history. What happened to their testimony?

[wenglund]

Sure, Wade. Your post was quite similar to Tal's OP in that it posited a "right" way of thinking (or in your words "somewhat maluable [sic], broad, open-minded, and mature thinking," characterizing those who remain faithful) and a "wrong" way of thinking ("rigid, narrow, closed-minded, and fundamentalist thinking" characteristic of some who leave the church and become antagonistic). Unless I'm reading Ben incorrectly, he posits no correct way of approaching truth, rightly recognizing that one's experience with "truth" is subjective, filtered through social constructs, language, and experience, among other things.

You read the "rightness" and "wrongness" into what I said. I purposely refrained from making such moralistic judgements, and confined myself to observations, so as to avoid the charge of false dichotomy. Apparently, I wasn't successful in my efforts, though I am not sure what else I could have done to prevent that misperception. ;-)

The fact of the matter is (which I purposely did not state in my previous post, but will do so here because it seems more warranted), I don't so much look at the "contrast" in terms of "right" and "wrong", but rather in terms of what makes sense and is most valued and workable both for self and others. I see fundamentalistic thinking (at least for those who have aged beyond, but in some ways haven't developed emotionally, mentally, spiritually, or psychologically, beyond the fundamental stages of life) as unecessarily limiting and unhealthy. An overly rigid, narrow, and closed mind, is more apt than its opposite, to break and get blown away, rather than bend and be strenghtened and made more resilient through resistence when the winds of diverse beliefs and epistemic challenges are want to blow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

His reading might not sit well with the Brethren

I somehow doubt this. From what I've seen of the "Brethren," most...if not all...would be gratified that he put so much thought and effort into his understanding of what his 'testimony', the gospel and the Church were all about and as long as his emphasis was on seeking God--which is the core of Ben's comments in my view--and his behaviour manifested this, they would be encouraging him along that path.

[wenglund]

Hi Ben,

You make some excellent points, and I agree that what you propose is the ideal that we all should stive towards.

However, I happen to think that God has established the foundation of apostles and prophets and evangelists and teachers for more reasons than just because the saints may fail to observe or strive for the ideal you speak of. And, I think that God has given certain spiritual gifts to some and not others for the same reasons.

I think it has somewhat to do with some of us being less developed than others. People who are children in the gospel may lack the capacity to understand the divine interactions much at all, let alone on an adult level. They may be struggling to understand the notion "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam", and it may be advised for that spiritual child to lean for understanding on those in the Church who have not hid their light under a bushel, but have shown the light of the gospel to others, and in that way privilege the higher perspective and experience of the teacher over that of the humble student. Think of it like people at different levels on the spiritual epistemic mountain. Those close to the top have a more vast view and broader perspective than those at lower elevations. Wouldn't it make sense to, at times, privilege that higher perspective? A good example of this is when Oliver Cowdrey desired to have the gift of translation (D&C sec's 8 & 9) and required a revelation through the more experienced Joseph.

I think it has somewhat to do with some of us being more susceptible to desception than others. Take as an example the experience of Hiram Page (see History of the Church vol. 1, pp. 109-111, and D&C 28), who received revelation throught a stone which conflicted with revelation from Joseph. When speaking of coming to a unity of the faith, I think it advised, if not scriptural, to privilage the revelations of some over those of others.

I think it has somewhat to do with our spiritual progression being about more than just each of us as individuals, but we collectively as a "body" and bride of Christ. The body, of necessity, has a head and a heart, and while arms and legs may have their value and function in connection with the body, a unity of the faith, and avoiding the body being tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine, may require the arms and legs priviliging (even on certain spiritual epistemic issues) the head and the heart (i.e. the leadership of the Church).

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MorningStar]

----Wow....you got me, honey! I hate all black people because I hazarded an imitation of Rodney King. Boy, am I embarrassed...

---WHAT? ARE YOU JOKING?

Listen, my friend - YOU NEED MY HELP. As it happens, I have a soft spot for damsels in distress, so you are in some serious luck. But speaking of serious, let me address your MLK comment.

I'm into facts, okay? You may not be, but I am. And THE FACT is, that MLK was a Christian minister with a huge appetite for adultery. Didn't you know? I recommend you read David Garrow's "MLK and the FBI" if you didn't. Garrow is very sympathetic to King, while acknowledging his poor choice of comrades (some with ties to the US communist party during the Cold War), and his weakness for the ladies. And it is also a fact that MLK plagiarized his dissertation.

But here is where you need help my chivalrous help: For you to say that the mere acknowledgement of those facts - which, by the way, all of his closest friends acknowledge, his wife Coretta, every person who reads a biography of MLK, everyone who studies the man black or white - necessarily betrays "disdain for blacks", I submit, makes you look makes you look unfair and unreasonable.

I might also point out that you didn't repeat on here the last part of my MLK RFM post, where I suggested why MLK could still be considered a hero. Why not? Was it incompatible with the latest guilty verdict you've hoped to stick on me, and for that reason had to be left out? But my friend, you are not a very fair judge if you don't include all the evidence, are you?

Edited to add:

[Not quite me]

You read the "rightness" and "wrongness" into what I said. I purposely refrained from making such moralistic judgements, and confined myself to observations, so as to avoid the charge of false dichotomy. Apparently, I wasn't successful in my efforts, though I am not sure what else I could have done to prevent that misperception. ;-)

Keep telling yourself that, and you might believe it.

To recap, you associate several negative thought processes with exmormons and several positive ones with those who stay, and then you tell us you're refraining from making moralistic judgments. Thanks for a good laugh, anyway.

The fact of the matter is (which I purposely did not state in my previous post, but will do so here because it seems more warranted), I don't so much look at the "contrast" in terms of "right" and "wrong", but rather in terms of what makes sense and is most valued and workable both for self and others. I see fundamentalistic thinking (at least for those who have aged beyond, but in some ways haven't developed emotionally, mentally, spiritually, or psychologically, beyond the fundamental stages of life) as unecessarily limiting and unhealthy. An overly rigid, narrow, and closed mind, is more apt than its opposite, to break and get blown away, rather than bend and be strenghtened and made more resilient through resistence when the winds of diverse beliefs and epistemic challenges are want to blow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm. You focus on what works, and not surprisingly, what works is what keeps people in the church. Funny how that happens.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Hi Ben

I may be wrong but did you not say somewhere you felt the Book of Abraham should not have been canonized? I know Kevin Graham does not accept the BOA and Van Hale believes the BOM is not history. What happened to their testimony?

So first, yes. I don't think there was any need to canonize the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean that I don't think it was inspired.

Second, I think that we need to consider Kevin and Van as different situations. I have spoken with Van Hale on more than one occaision, and have had consisderable conversation with him through email and other medias. I wouldn't say that Van Hale doesn't think the BoM is not history. Rather he is indifferent to the question of its historicity and claims that it is an inspired text. By that, the question of whether or not it is an ancient text for him takes a second seat to the issues of its doctrinal and theological claims, and its role in changing peoples lives. He doesn't think it is an ancient text, but, nothing about his approach requires that it be either ancient or modern. For many of us, this is an odd position and difficult to understand.

Kevin Graham on the other hand believes very firmly that for the Book of Abraham, the apologists are presented bad arguments in the name of apologetics. And in some ways, like Van, he believes that the church's presentation of the Book of Abraham (and the approach taken by FARMS and others - including to some extent myself I suspect) is wrong, an unsupportable. I don't think I know whether or not he believes that the text of the Book of Abraham is inspired or not - I certainly (in my many years of communication with him) have never gotten the impression that he rejects the doctrinal contents of the BoA, or the theology which it contains. But unlike Van, fo Kevin, the arguments about the Book of Abraham matter very much.

In any case both of them are viewed by some LDS as fringe in their beliefs.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Wade writes:

I think it has somewhat to do with our spiritual progression being about more than just each of us as individuals, but we collectively as a "body" and bride of Christ. The body, of necessity, has a head and a heart, and while arms and legs may have their value and function in connection with the body, a unity of the faith, and avoiding the body being tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine, may require the arms and legs priviliging (even on certain spiritual epistemic issues) the head and the heart (i.e. the leadership of the Church).

I think that on some level you are right. I really like Bruce Hafen's discussion in his book the Believing Heart. Certainly what I suggest is not for everyone. And perhaps I come out too strongly looking like I am advocating that.

What I do think is that there is more emphasis on "Follow the Prophet" than there is on the notion of personal revelation and personal responsibility to God. And it is too easy for us to say that we can best understand the scriptures by seeing what the brethren have to say about them, when in fact, we best understand the scriptures (and by extension the mind of God) by approaching God.

I also (when I teach lessons in my unit) don't get up and preach this, because it simply isn't reflective of where everybody is at in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And for the people who choose to avoid ambiguity by making everything black and white, my objective is never to abuse them of that notion or to attempt to force them into my views of reality. People do not have to move beyond where they are on a spectrum of belief and faith, but for those who have become confronted by the ambiguities that exist, my way of looking at it might provide a useful perspective in trying to deal with the gap between what is and what we think should be.

Ben

[MAsh]

So first, yes. I don't think there was any need to canonize the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean that I don't think it was inspired.

Mind sharing a little more info? Why don't you think there was any need to have the BoA canonized?

Mike Ash

[Benjamin McGuire]

Mind sharing a little more info? Why don't you think there was any need to have the BoA canonized?

Mike Ash

I think the issue for me is wrapped up in the notions of completeness, in its intention as scripture and so on. Unlike most of the rest of modern LDS scripture, the Book of Abraham was canonized quite some time after its production (1880), and unlike most of the modern canon, Joseph Smith was not party to its canonization. Despite the fact that a good portion of what we have today was available in Kirtland, Joseph Smith had not taken steps to canonize this material nearly a decade later. The exact nature of the text is unclear from the text itself. And the way it is presented is somewhat problematic. I think that there are indicators within the text for expansions made by Joseph Smith. And so on. Aside from which, canon itself is not really an indicator of the nature or content of a text as far as we can tell.

So, I don't have problems with its being canonized. I am just not sure it was necessary. And the canonization process has tended to give more authority to certain discussion about the text (as opposed to just the text itself).

Ben

[Tal Bachman]

Where's Juliann? Come back to me, sister...

Argus, point out to me which parts you find condescending so I know what to stay away from. Was it the dictionary part? You can hardly blame me for that! I've never seen such a fuss made over fairly normal words as I have on here. And what's more, now I have Juliann claiming that my (however lousy) eight word imitation of Rodney King signals "racism"! (See what I'm saying about the hug?)

I was just thinking...I haven't confessed anything for some time, and in the last two days, in various conversations, I've tried imitating a Greek guy that I met, an (East) Indian, and the guy who tuned my piano in Japan. I just wanted to be upfront so people following this threat could add Greeks, Indians, and Japanese people to the list of people I hate (that's a JOKE).

I've also imitated a Lancashire accent (where my wife's from), Australian, Irish, gay fashionista, southern US, Canadian, cockney, Cuban...I've even tried imitating myself. So all those too can be added...

By the way, I think the MLK book I mentioned is actually entitled "The FBI and Martin Luther King", rather than the other way round.

Hoping to see Juliann sometime soon,

See ya

Tal

[wenglund]

Keep telling yourself that, and you might believe it.

To recap, you associate several negative thought processes with exmormons and several positive ones with those who stay, and then you tell us you're refraining from making moralistic judgments. Thanks for a good laugh, anyway.

Hmmm. You focus on what works, and not surprisingly, what works is what keeps people in the church. Funny how that happens.

Perhaps the obvious distinction between moralistic judgements and observations about workability is a bit too subtle for you. And/Or, perhaps you have a vested interest in engaging straw men rather than the real thing. Whatever the case, it makes having a reasonable and rational discussion with you somewhat less workable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

Perhaps the obvious disctinction between moralistic judgements and observations about workability is a bit too subtle for you. And/Or, perhaps you have a vested interest in engaging straw men rather than the real thing. Whatever the case, it makes having a reasonable and rational discussion with you somewhat less workable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or my comments could indeed have reflected your post. Just a thought.