Quotes From Lds Senior Leaders Affirming Church Teachings About The Hill Cumorah In Ny, Nephites Living Throughout North America, And More

[cksalmon]

The modification was that BRM acknowledged that Brigham was actually correct in what he was teaching, which was on the genesis of Adam, the man, and not in the interpretation commonly laid on what he taught, which was that Adam, the man, is the same being as God the Father.

Hi Log—

Okay, but is that what BY actually believed? Or, did he believe that Adam is God? The father of our spirits? I don't think that BY could actually be right [about x] if he taught something that is not true [about x]. (He could have been right about many other things.) I think "the interpretation commonly laid on what he taught" is pretty darn close to what he actually believed and taught.

Just because BRM found a way to reconcile BY's statements with later LDS orthodoxy does not mean that what BRM interpreted BY to mean is actually what he meant, n'est-ce pas?

Best.

CKS

[Duncan]

To me unless new evidence comes out we will never know for sure what Pres. Young meant by the adam-God idea.

[cksalmon]

I appreciate your words CKSalmon.

Hi Duncanâ??

Okay, that makes me want to change my words!

Just kidding, of course.

Best to you this evening, D'Uncan.

CKS

[Log]

Hi Logâ??

To take your last point first: you say that BRM was actually a prophet. I guess I meant that BRM never served in the capacity of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator (and President) of the LDS Church. I think you mean something along the line of everyone in the Q12 is a prophet. I would be glad to know if that is your understanding.

Yes, everyone in the Q12 is a prophet, at least. So also is every true Saint, for the testimony of Christ - from the Father - is the spirit of prophecy.

Second, I did look up your blog. Kudos to you for actually creating one and posting to it. Mine is still currently blank!

You wrote in your first post (and I think this is where you addressed the matter in question):

I would like to have it spelled out for me (a committed determinist) specifically how this resolves the tension, per your view.

Best.

CKS

The nature of things - intelligences, matter, and all configurations of them - does not change. Therefore, God will not be discovering anything which alters the plan of salvation - there are not new principles to be discovered, for him, for he has complete knowledge of all that is, and complete theoretic knowledge of all that can be (speaking ontologically; this is the knowledge BRM was concerned about preserving). However, he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of future free actions, and hence is of necessity learning as choices occur. Future free actions don't yet exist to be known, on this view. God has all knowledge of the complete range and consequences of every possible choice we can make, but doesn't know which choice will be actualized until it is made. God, therefore, can be pleasantly or even unpleasantly surprised.

Ostler made this a major theme in this paper...

[Log]

Hi Logâ??

Okay, but is that what BY actually believed? Or, did he believe that Adam is God? The father of our spirits? I don't think that BY could actually be right [about x] if he taught something that is not true [about x]. (He could have been right about many other things.) I think "the interpretation commonly laid on what he taught" is pretty darn close to what he actually believed and taught.

Just because BRM found a way to reconcile BY's statements with later LDS orthodoxy does not mean that what BRM interpreted BY to mean is actually what he meant, n'est-ce pas?

Best.

CKS

I have access to a trove of BY's teachings on the subject, and yes, it is my impression that this is what he meant.

[cksalmon]

Yes, everyone in the Q12 is a prophet, at least. So also is every true Saint, for the testimony of Christ - from the Father - is the spirit of prophecy.

The nature of things - intelligences, matter, and all configurations of them - does not change. Therefore, God will not be discovering anything which alters the plan of salvation - there are not new principles to be discovered, for him, for he has complete knowledge of all that is, and complete theoretic knowledge of all that can be (speaking ontologically; this is the knowledge BRM was concerned about preserving). However, he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of future free actions, and hence is of necessity learning as choices occur. Future free actions don't yet exist to be known, on this view. God has all knowledge of the complete range and consequences of every possible choice we can make, but doesn't know which choice will be actualized until it is made. God, therefore, can be pleasantly or even unpleasantly surprised.

Ostler made this a major theme in this paper...

Hi Logâ??

There is truly nothing new under the sun. This view has been current in traditional Christian circles for maybe 20 years (popularlyâ??longer in the underground). We EVs call it "Open Theism." I don't buy it, frankly.

I believe that God has knowledge of all the future free actions of human agents. Additionally, I would hold that God has knowledge of all future counterfactuals of creaturely action, as well.

I do understand the argument. But, I'd suggest that a God who doesn't know what his creatures are going to choose to do is not a God who is omniscient. Or, he is omniscient of only present and past events regarding creaturely freedom. He doesn't know the future. A God who doesn't know the future is not an omniscient God, on my view. He's just a God who can make educated guesses about the future. Sure, he has more knowledge than I do, but really he's no different than I am with regard to his abilities. If I knew everything about the past and present, I could also make educated guesses about the future. But, one wouldn't be able to say that I foreknow the future. I wouldn't be omniscient. I know certain things, but not everything that there is to be known.

At this point, you'll need to argue that future free actions of creaturely agents are definitionally unknowable.

For an omniscient God, I'm not going to buy into it. Unless you can provide a better argument than our best EV proponents of such a view have provided.

Best.

CKS

[Log]

For an omniscient God, I'm not going to buy into it. Unless you can provide a better argument than our best EV proponents of such a view have provided.

Best.

CKS

Then you must buy into a denial of free will. I addressed that in my blog, too. And if there is no free will, then I fail to see how evangelical thought is any different than materialistic reductionism, morally.

[sunstoned]

Hey, what about the OP? I want to know where the real Cumorah is.

[cksalmon]

Then you must buy into a denial of free will. I addressed that in my blog, too. And if there is no free will, then I fail to see how evangelical thought is any different than materialistic reductionism, morally.

Hi Log (again)—

But, then, you'd have to demonstrate that God's foreknowledge invalidates free will. I'm personally okay with the punt to materialistic reductionism. I don't agree with your assessment, but it is, shall we say, superficially homologous.

I'd like to see some demonstration, though, that God's foreknowledge of the free actions of his creatures entails a denial of free will.

I haven't seen a convincing argument, yet. But, you should know that I deny a libertarian conception of free will. At the outset.

My belief in "free will" is one based on a voluntaristic conception of same. But, then I'm a theological determinist.

My believing such does not entail a denial of free will. It does entail a different conception of free will than you apparently endorse.

But, I would be interested to know, per your understanding of free will, how God's omniscient knowledge of the future acts of creaturely freedom abrogates a legitimate understanding of free will.

Best.

CKS

PS. I think we're getting far beyond the OP here. We could perhaps continue the discussion in a new thread?

[cdowis]

If all you apologists know that the Prophet(s) is/are wrong - why don't you correct him/them?

We do, right here on this forum.

Do we need to send him an engraved, personal invitation?

It seems to me that if you know something that the Prophet doesn't know, it is your moral and righteous obligation to tell him.

Please tell me how BOM archeology and geography has ANYTHING to do with morality and righteousness. Please explain to me how it has anything to do with the principles of the Gospel and church doctrine.

Your biting sarcasm duly noted.

After all, he is merely speaking as a man - and you know it! Why not settle this issue once and for all and tell him?

Are you blind? Read our hundreds of posts on this forum. If he is at all interested in BOM geography, he can find hundreds, thousands of posts and articles on the internet and this forum. He can read the FARMS articles, published by an organization of Brigham Young University.

Could it be that you really don't know? Could it be that you use the crutch of "speaking as a man" when it is necessary for you as an apologist?

The prophet has no first hand information on BOM geography, unless you pretend that he is several thousand years old. He has made no claim to revelation on the subject.

BOM geography is not a moral or doctinal issue.

Only the rabid antimormons pretend that we believe and teach that EVERY word, every breath that issue forth from the mouth of a prophet is a revelation and official doctrine of the church.

Legitimate questions me thinks.

Methinks thou art an antiMormon who criticizes us on the one hand for letting the prophet "do our thinking", and, when we disagree with him on a non-doctrinal issue, criticizes us for denying the prophetic word.

We are not fools or Bozo the clown.

Hacedor

Thank you for your attempt to impress us with your intellectual fireworks. Very entertaining.

[Log]

I'd like to see some demonstration, though, that God's foreknowledge of the free actions of his creatures entails a denial of free will.

I haven't seen a convincing argument, yet. But, you should know that I deny a libertarian conception of free will. At the outset.

My belief in "free will" is one based on a voluntaristic conception of same. But, then I'm a theological determinist.

My believing such does not entail a denial of free will. It does entail a different conception of free will than you apparently endorse.

But, I would be interested to know, per your understanding of free will, how God's omniscient knowledge of the future acts of creaturely freedom abrogates a legitimate understanding of free will.

Um, CKS - the logical demonstration that establishes the logical incompatiblity between free will and classical omniscience was also in that first blog post of mine. If you want to start a new thread to deal specifically with that logical demonstration, I'll join you there.

And, any philosophies which entail the denial of the individual (which is free will) - via infallible foreknowledge, or reduction to arrangements of matter - are not superficially homologous - they are isomorphic.

[cksalmon]

Um, CKS - the logical demonstration that establishes the logical incompatiblity between free will and classical omniscience was also in that first blog post of mine. If you want to start a new thread to deal specifically with that logical demonstration, I'll join you there.

And, any philosophies which entail the denial of the individual (which is free will) - via infallible foreknowledge, or reduction to arrangements of matter - are not superficially homologous - they are isomorphic.

Hi log--

Your argument there assumes a libertarian understanding of free will. I hold a voluntaristic view and deny a libertarian conception of free will. Thus, while I hold to the logical power to contrary, I don't hold to the actual power to contrary. A foundational issue divides us at this point. (I'm fairly comfortable with my view; my Masters thesis dealt in large measure with these very issues.)

But I really don't believe a thoroughgoing materialism (the LDS view, by the way) is isomorphic with infallible foreknowledge. Perhaps you could expound upon that.

Best.

CKS

[Log]

But I really don't believe a thoroughgoing materialism (the LDS view, by the way) is isomorphic with infallible foreknowledge. Perhaps you could expound upon that.

Best.

CKS

Materialism is not the LDS view, so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. But feel free to show where the logical demonstration in my blog post is fallacious.

[cksalmon]

Materialism is not the LDS view, so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. But feel free to show where the logical demonstration in my blog post is fallacious.

Hi Log--

Here I thought that Mormonism did hold to a thoroughgoing materialism. Note that I'm not equating materialism and atheism or some such. On what grounds do you deny that Mormonism holds to a thoroughgoing materialism? I thought this was a fairly basic LDS belief.

Curious.

CKS

[Log]

Hi Log--

Here I thought that Mormonism did hold to a thoroughgoing materialism. Note that I'm not equating materialism and atheism or some such. On what grounds do you deny that Mormonism holds to a thoroughgoing materialism? I thought this was a fairly basic LDS belief.

Curious.

CKS

On what grounds do you affirm Mormonism holds to a thoroughgoing materialism? I'm not aware of any such teaching.

[cksalmon]

On what grounds do you affirm Mormonism holds to a thoroughgoing materialism? I'm not aware of any such teaching.

I was thinking of D&C 131:7:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

So, matter is matter, definitionally. And spirit is matter. I guess the out would be that Mormons believe that spirit matter interfaces with non-spirit matter in a manner that is in excess of material processes? I dunno.

CKS

[Log]

I was thinking of D&C 131:7:

So, matter is matter, definitionally. And spirit is matter. I guess the out would be that Mormons believe that spirit matter interfaces with non-spirit matter in a manner that is in excess of material processes? I dunno.

CKS

Indeed. I am unaware of any teaching which indicates "spirit," or matter, is coextensive with intelligence, or the light of truth. Matter is matter, and then there's intelligence - neither of which is reducible to the other.

That's my understanding.

[cksalmon]

Indeed. I am unaware of any teaching which indicates "spirit," or matter, is coextensive with intelligence, or the light of truth. Matter is matter, and then there's intelligence - neither of which is reducible to the other.

That's my understanding.

Hi Log--

Not what you have in mind directly above, I'd think, but, of course, the "intelligences" from which we were purportedly organized are material as well. The problem seems to be that, per LDS cosmogony, all is matter--"there is no such thing as immaterial matter"--and, yet, this "matter" is capable of exhibiting properties in excess of its origin: e.g., Elohim telepathically imbuing an investigator with a testimony of the Spirit.

Best.

CKS

[Log]

Not what you have in mind directly above, I'd think, but, of course, the "intelligences," from which we were purportedly organized, are material as well. The problem seems to be that, per LDS cosmogony, all is matter--"there is no such thing as immaterial matter"--and, yet, this "matter" is capable of exhibiting properties in excess of its origin: e.g., Elohim telepathically imbuing an investigator with a testimony of the Spirit.

I recognize two fundamental constituents to reality - intelligence and matter, with neither being reducible to the other, having different properties.

I think we're talking at cross purposes, and I yet await your addressing the logic I alluded to previously.

[cksalmon]

I think we're talking at cross purposes, and I yet await your addressing the logic I alluded to previously.

Hi Log--

Perhaps we are. If (by "the logic I alluded to previously") you're referring to your argument to fallible foreknowledge, I think I'll politely have to pass. I've written so much and talked so much about that issue that I'm sort of suffering from burnout. It's just not something I'm interested in discussing further at this point.

(But, perhaps, God will make me do it. In that case, I really wouldn't have a choice, would I? )

Best.

CKS

[Ah Pook]

Cksalmon, log

You two have taken this thread off topic. How about starting a new thread or maybe an email exchange will suffice?

As for the quotes in the initial post you have to understand that those comments where made before DNA science was â??revealedâ? to us thus providing a greater understanding of our â??Lamaniteâ? brethren. Ever since then I have noticed that comparisons to the native peoples of the Americas to the Lamanites of the BoM have been infrequent of late and comments establishing Cumorah to be in upstate New York equally so.

I have to say this whole Cumorah thing does provide a creditability problem for the Church and its leaders and apologetics just makes it worse. How can we expect anyone to take us seriously if we undermine the words of our leaders past and present who we revere as prophets, seers, and revelators by effectively saying â??they were wrongâ? as if we are right even though we are not sustained as prophets, seers, and revelato

[thesometimesaint]

Ah Pook:

Despite all the SPECULATIONS of men, whether they be Apologists, or Apostles, working for a Prophet, or working for a profit they are just that SPECULATIONS. The exact location where the BoM main events took place, has YET to be revealed.

IF tomorrow they were to find a road sign that said Zarahemla Next 5 exists. Would you believe?

[Bernard Gui]

aaronshaf:

I'll hold by everything LDS leaders have said. When you are held to everything your leaders have said.

But EVs have no leaders. They have the magic Get Out Of Jail Free card...sola scriptura

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I don't get the Ensign.

You're kidding, right?

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

Bernard Gui:

They have a VERY constricted view of what Scripture is. I'm not up on my Latin, but wouldn't it be Biblica Sola?

But they still have leaders, some with VERY BIG bank accounts.