Dirty Harry and Higher Critical Research

[Ron Beron]

Sometimes the study of religious affairs especially those of an arcane variety such as ancient Israel etc., and especially given the regimen of a modern day believer wrapped in the mantle of higher criticism can run afoul of some major league soul searching. It came to me it is akin to the plot of a movie, in this case, â??Dirty Harryâ?. In the beginning of â??Dirty Harryâ?, Harry bravely and confidently pulls out his .44 Magnum, â??the most powerful handgun in the world, (which) would blow your head clean offâ?, and asks the young bank robber, â??I know what youâ??re thinking. â??Did he fire six shots or only five?â? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. â?¦youâ??ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?â? The young man promptly drops his bid to retrieve his own weapon and as Harry walks away ask, â??I gots ta know.â? At which point Callahan pulls the trigger on an empty chamber.

The question all serious students asked themselves is at what point are we facing the gun barrel of a .44 Magnum and asking the question of â??I gots to knowâ? in our pursuit of information and knowledge. Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple â??clickâ? of an empty chamber?

The answers are not easy, but they are often worth the suspense.

How do the deeper learners here feel about this?

[The Nehor]

The Gospel is bulletproof. Tell him that not only do you feel lucky but you're willing to let him reload the gun.

[Humphrey]

Sometimes the study of religious affairs especially those of an arcane variety such as ancient Israel etc., and especially given the regimen of a modern day believer wrapped in the mantle of higher criticism can run afoul of some major league soul searching. It came to me it is akin to the plot of a movie, in this case, â??Dirty Harryâ?. In the beginning of â??Dirty Harryâ?, Harry bravely and confidently pulls out his .44 Magnum, â??the most powerful handgun in the world, (which) would blow your head clean offâ?, and asks the young bank robber, â??I know what youâ??re thinking. â??Did he fire six shots or only five?â? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. â?¦youâ??ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?â? The young man promptly drops his bid to retrieve his own weapon and as Harry walks away ask, â??I gots ta know.â? At which point Callahan pulls the trigger on an empty chamber.

The question all serious students asked themselves is at what point are we facing the gun barrel of a .44 Magnum and asking the question of â??I gots to knowâ? in our pursuit of information and knowledge. Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple â??clickâ? of an empty chamber?

The answers are not easy, but they are often worth the suspense.

How do the deeper learners here feel about this?

Ron Beron;

I am not sure I qualify as a deep learner, but I was attracted to the title: Dirty Harry and Higher Critical Research. Years ago, I removed myself from Church membership based on doctrinal issues. I relate to your statement: " Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple â??clickâ? of an empty chamber?" A few minutes ago I seemed to have a moment of "murderous truth" having reviewed the Adam-God Theory. Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam-God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report p.115 (October 1-3 1976) So crumbles one of my disagreements with the Church. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I "gots to know" why Brigham Young taught that doctrine.

[Ron Beron]

Ron Beron;

I am not sure I qualify as a deep learner, but I was attracted to the title: Dirty Harry and Higher Critical Research. Years ago, I removed myself from Church membership based on doctrinal issues. I relate to your statement: " Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple "click" of an empty chamber?" A few minutes ago I seemed to have a moment of "murderous truth" having reviewed the Adam-God Theory. Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam-God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report p.115 (October 1-3 1976) So crumbles one of my disagreements with the Church. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I "gots to know" why Brigham Young taught that doctrine.

Your comments are the whole point here. We 'gots' to know...no matter what the cost.

[John Larsen]

Interesting question.

For me, I studied a lot of Church history which drastically altered my perception of the Church and the nature of my faith. But I retained my activity in the Church and belief patterns. It was the turn to higher criticism which I studied intently, although as an amateur, that really impacted my belief. I know that it has been said that traditional belief cannot survive an encounter with higher criticism and detailed biblical research. Not that everyone who engages this avenue loses their faith, but the fundamentalist, literalistic faith of people like the LDS often cannot survive in its pre-existing form.

It is when the biblical traditions on which Mormonism is founded collapsed that caused the damaged structure of Mormonism, based on its history, to collapse in total.

[Jason]

Ron Beron;

I am not sure I qualify as a deep learner, but I was attracted to the title: Dirty Harry and Higher Critical Research. Years ago, I removed myself from Church membership based on doctrinal issues. I relate to your statement: " Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple â??clickâ? of an empty chamber?" A few minutes ago I seemed to have a moment of "murderous truth" having reviewed the Adam-God Theory. Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam-God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report p.115 (October 1-3 1976) So crumbles one of my disagreements with the Church. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I "gots to know" why Brigham Young taught that doctrine.

He never did. A few confusing sermons with garbled transcripts and years upon years of Church members and anti-Mormons debating, "what the heck was that about?" created a phantom stumbling block out of nothing substantial. An empty chamber, as it were.

[Nevo]

He never did. A few confusing sermons with garbled transcripts and years upon years of Church members and anti-Mormons debating, "what the heck was that about?" created a phantom stumbling block out of nothing substantial. An empty chamber, as it were.

Yes, he did.

t is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

• Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
  
• Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
  
• Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
  
• Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.
  

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.[3] While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

[mfbukowski]

Well as far as my knowledge of biblical history and languages, I am definitely not what anyone would call a "deep learner" but I have picked up a few shards of academic philosophical knowledge along the road, so I will throw it out there and see what sticks.

The Dirty Harry analogy is very appropriate because there are flaws both in the movie scene and in the assumption that historical knowledge can shake our faith- if our faith is well founded and the nature of truth is understood.

The problem with the movie scene is that revolvers have open chambers which can be visually inspected FROM THE FRONT OF THE GUN. If you have ever looked at a revolver from its "business end" you know that you can see into the chambers and can easily see if there is a round in the next chamber which will rotate into place and have your name on it if and when the gun is fired. This only works at close visual range of course, but if memory serves, that is just the way the movie scene played out. He was holding the gun on the bad guy at very close range.

So theoretically the bad guy could have had more information than the good guy, who was not about to turn the gun around and stare up the chambers to see if there was a round in the next chamber or not. After that great speech, the bad guy could have said "Nope, you're wrong dude, you're out of bullets" and started wailing on Dirty Harry.

Because we can see more than the critics, if we understand the nature of truth, we can turn any argument around and say "No, you're wrong dude" and start wailing on the critics.

The key is understanding that 1-scientific and historic truth NEVER have the final answers and 2- neither have anything to do with religious truth.

You just cannot disprove religious truths with scientific or historic truths. Can't do it. As Hamblin would say, "context is everything". So when you think you're down on the ground and the gun is to your head, just look over and check out the chambers. If it looks like they have you, you still have 2 options. Either their science or history is unproven because it always is - or if it's very strong, it's probably not relevant to religious truth anyway.

But is this an honest approach to "truth"? Of course it is, because religious truth cannot be proven or disproven historically or scientifically.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, he did.

No he didn't

And if he did he was mistaken. See what I mean? The history is debatable first of all. But it has been subsequently denounced as doctrine by men we consider prophets seers and revelators, and it does not cohere with the rest of church doctrine.

So - it is incorrect doctrine, and it is debatable if he taught it. Loses on both grounds.

Just an example.

So when you understand this, as I learned it and figured it out 35 years ago, before I was a member of the church, the question becomes "does scholarship really matter in anybody's life"?

To me at the time, the answer was "no" because it could not prove nor disprove what was really important to me in life, which was the pursuit of truth.

Digging around and putting together manuscripts is fascinating for those who are into it, but that wasn't me. I was into "truth".

So I quit academia.

But I found Mormonism. And I know it is true because the "proof is in the pudding" And there is no critic anywhere who can shake my faith because I understand this. And I don't care what Brigham or anybody else said unless it is canonized doctrine.

[Nevo]

No he didn't

And if he did he was mistaken. See what I mean? The history is debatable first of all. But it has been subsequently denounced as doctrine by men we consider prophets seers and revelators, and it does not cohere with the rest of church doctrine.

So - it is incorrect doctrine, and it is debatable if he taught it. Loses on both grounds.

Just an example.

But you're wrong on a key point. The "history" is not debatable. It's a fact (or in your words, a "historic truth") that Brigham taught the things listed in the FAIR article. It is also a fact that subsequent Church leaders rejected BY's Adam-God doctrine. Now our interpretations of these two facts are debatable, but the facts themselves are not.

[Jason]

What mfbukowski said.

[mfbukowski]

But you're wrong on a key point. The "history" is not debatable. It's a fact (or in your words, a "historic truth") that Brigham taught the things listed in the FAIR article. It is also a fact that subsequent Church leaders rejected BY's Adam-God doctrine. Now our interpretations of these two facts are debatable, but the facts themselves are not.

The history is debatable, it was never canonized doctrine, the interpretations are debatable and it doesn't fit with our other doctrines. Either you believe in continuing revelation or you don't.

There's nothing here to argue. It's a waste of time.

[Nevo]

The history is debatable . . .

It is not debatable whether or not Brigham Young taught Adam-God. I realize you don't think history or scholarship matters, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to just make stuff up.

[Maidservant]

I'm not quite sure I understand completely what you are trying to say, Ron, so I hope I don't miss the point here in my comments.

In any case, I only wish to outline my own experience.

Hmmm, where to start.

I am constantly locating information and insights and, yes, receiving revelation that knocks me off my feet in terms of my belief and perception. Constantly. Sometimes I can barely keep my breath as I experience anger at what I didn't know before and why it was hidden, and yet at the same time, here it is before me, and I know it now . . . this can be in any realm. I'm not just talking about Church History, in fact, I'm mostly not talking about Church History. ( . . . why the capital letters, mumble, mumble . . .)

However, I am highly aware that it is my Father that has presented these lessons to me. To be even more blunt, my tutelage is due to covenants and the effects of covenants that I have made with Jesus Christ, both the baptismal and temple covenants. Another way to say this, is that my temple learning and temple transformation as a child of God continues to take place outside of the (geographic location of the) temple between the times when I attend a session (that helps me process my learning and be prepared for the next set of life experiences).

What I think I believe is constantly being broken down. Then the pieces are put back together with a few more in them. And then I am challenged to ask myself, What do I do with this in my daily life? All of this process is due to the hand of the Father in my life. To me more blunt, it is not possible for me to learn something outside of the Father. It is also not possible for me to learn something outside of the Church, because I am reminded that I am learning these things because of my covenants that were administered to me through the order of the priesthood (the Church).

My Father in heaven seems to like to keep me pretty close to the edge in terms of new knowledge and perception. He wants me to ask all of my questions. He wants me to understand what the purpose of mortal life really is and what exactly it is I (and all of us) are doing here. He wants me to leave the milk behind and start eating meat.

Now sometimes there is a fine line between "eating meat" and "looking beyond the mark". This is why we begin where we do with the most important, simple things such as loving one another and sacrifice and cleanliness. I find myself in spiritual danger with the knowledge or possible knowledge I encounter. When I asked God about this, he said that the more a person learns spiritually, that the choice is always like that. You learn it and get the good. Or you learn it and fall. It's not for pansies. I know I'm not articulating that correctly, so I hope you'll be able to understand what I mean by that.

So, while my testimony of God and, yes, of the Restored gospel and Church (the Church is awesome! in my opinion. A miracle!) remains with me, I am nevertheless battlescarred from the shakeups of my perception and beliefs and understanding and clearer sight. But at those moments when it settles down, I understand better and it blesses my life and has prepared me to serve others. I see that the work of knowledge, the work of God . . . is of deliverance.

Which is amazing, because that is pretty much the message in the Book of Mormon and Bible (and other word of God) from the very beginning, the very simple beginning. So God is merciful and tells all of his children this knowledge of deliverance from the very beginning and they can begin to be delivered!

No matter what I learn I keep coming back to knowing that there are two things everyone needs to incorporate into their being, or all other knowledge, information and experience will end up worthless. I have come to value these two all-prevasive joys more and more and more -- the older I get, the more I think I know:

It is that we must be clean. And it is that we must be kind.

If a human being can transform -- live -- cleanly and kindly, then they ARE delivered at the present, and any other information, small or great, is just icing on the cake in many ways. Nothing else will deliver or transform a person other than these two things. (Not speaking of the atonement here, just knowledge and agency.)

Happy seeking.

[mledbetter]

But you're wrong on a key point. The "history" is not debatable. It's a fact (or in your words, a "historic truth") that Brigham taught the things listed in the FAIR article. It is also a fact that subsequent Church leaders rejected BY's Adam-God doctrine. Now our interpretations of these two facts are debatable, but the facts themselves are not.

I love how people talk about history as 'fact'. There is no fact in history, because we were not there.

All we have are documents written by men; who may or may not have been the men we thought to have written said documents; and what they may or may not have meant when they wrote said documents; or what state of mind said men where in when wrote said documents; or whether or not they were even telling the truth to begin with.

There are only likely's, most likely's, and not likely's when it comes to history.

Edit: allow me to rephrase 'history' as meaning anything occurring in a time in which we weren't living.

[Nevo]

There is no fact in history, because we were not there.

Well, in that case, Jesus wasn't resurrected and Joseph Smith didn't see God. If either of them even existed.

[mledbetter]

Well, in that case, Jesus wasn't resurrected and Joseph Smith didn't see God. If either of them even existed.

You are correct, there is no way for me to know that as fact on human history and knowledge alone. We agree.

[Nevo]

You are correct, there is no way for me to know that as fact on human history and knowledge alone. We agree.

I think we are talking past each other. I don't believe that historians can reach back into the past and recover it as "it really was." I also don't think it's possible for historians to determine whether or not Joseph Smith saw God. But it's quite another thing to say that there is no such thing as a factâ??which is how I understood your assertion that "there is no fact in history." If that is your position, then it is absurd. Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865. That's a fact, not just someone's subjective opinion or interpretation.

[Mudcat]

The question all serious students asked themselves is at what point are we facing the gun barrel of a .44 Magnum and asking the question of â??I gots to knowâ? in our pursuit of information and knowledge. Will our questions produce a death inducing fusillade of murderous truth or will we be rewarded with the knowledge of a simple â??clickâ? of an empty chamber?

The answers are not easy, but they are often worth the suspense.

How do the deeper learners here feel about this?

Interesting post Enemy Ace. I don't qualify myself as a deep learner, more likely I am a shallow learner. I don't usually swim to the bottom of a pond, I would rather splash in lots of different mud puddles.

I am curious, if we could view the truth as bullet, as your analogy seems to posit. It's quite logical to say that a bullet that hits you, will definitely change your immediate paradigm.

Do you think sometimes we reach for our shield of faith to fend such a shift in paradigm. Is it healthy to do so?

[Jason]

Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865. That's a fact, not just someone's subjective opinion or interpretation.

Actually even that statement relies on who you think Abraham Lincoln was, what time zone he was in, what definition you use for "shot", and what calender you use.

It's all open to interpretation, and is all somewhat subjective.

[mfbukowski]

It is not debatable whether or not Brigham Young taught Adam-God. I realize you don't think history or scholarship matters, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to just make stuff up.

I never said that history or scholarship don't matter. Good grief. What I did say is that religious truth is not dependent on either of them. Brigham taught something about Adam and God. If what you think he taught is what he actually taught is the question, and whether or not what he taught- whatever that was because we don't really know-- was doctrinal is another question.

But the important question is what this has to do with the religious truths taught by the LDS church today, and the answer to that is "nothing whatsoever".

[ERMD]

"I gots to know," is one of my favorite movie quotes.

I use it in my medical practice all the time.

[mfbukowski]

I love how people talk about history as 'fact'. There is no fact in history, because we were not there.

All we have are documents written by men; who may or may not have been the men we thought to have written said documents; and what they may or may not have meant when they wrote said documents; or what state of mind said men where in when wrote said documents; or whether or not they were even telling the truth to begin with.

There are only likely's, most likely's, and not likely's when it comes to history.

Edit: allow me to rephrase 'history' as meaning anything occurring in a time in which we weren't living.

Some of us are becoming historical ourselves I remember being a kid when Kennedy was assasinated- and we still don't know what "really" happened. Heck we don't know what "really" happened in half the news items from yesterday, or the latest flash bulletin on tv right now. It depends on who saw what and how they filter it through all their prejudices and how it gets remembered etc etc. "Facts" especially in a historical context can be very slippery to grasp. I heard the other day that the Mayan glyph for "conjure" is a hand grabbing a fish. Ever tried to grab a fish swimming in the water? That's the way historic "facts" can be

[John Larsen]

I love how people talk about history as 'fact'. There is no fact in history, because we were not there.

All we have are documents written by men; who may or may not have been the men we thought to have written said documents; and what they may or may not have meant when they wrote said documents; or what state of mind said men where in when wrote said documents; or whether or not they were even telling the truth to begin with.

There are only likely's, most likely's, and not likely's when it comes to history.

Edit: allow me to rephrase 'history' as meaning anything occurring in a time in which we weren't living.

So history is constructed from artifacts--pot shards dug out of the ground, signed documents, books, papers, clothing, etc. You seem to be not just denying the conclusions and hypothesis derived from these elements, but the existence of the objects themselves. You can debate the contextual meaning of the Gettysburg address, but can you really debate the existence of the speech or the existence of the battle without becoming a crackpot?

There seems to be a group of uniformed apologists and critics who do not take the time to familiarize themselves with the basic facts that are out there and undisputed. When you dispute this stuff, you only end up looking desperate.

[mledbetter]

I think we are talking past each other. I don't believe that historians can reach back into the past and recover it as "it really was." I also don't think it's possible for historians to determine whether or not Joseph Smith saw God. But it's quite another thing to say that there is no such thing as a factâ??which is how I understood your assertion that "there is no fact in history." If that is your position, then it is absurd. Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865. That's a fact, not just someone's subjective opinion or interpretation.

Based on the magnitude of the witness accounts and written records, yes it is most likely that Lincoln was shot by Booth.

I wasn't clear enough. There are facts in history, but there is no way for us to know for an absolute truth what were facts and what were not. We can only determine what is most likely. Also, most historical accounts aren't as well documented as the Lincoln assasination.

Okay, you say it was a fact that Lincoln was shot?

Were you there, did you see it?

Maybe we need to have a more clear definition of 'fact'. How much evidence do you need to determine something as fact? How many eye witnesses do you need? How many written accounts? How diverse do the opinions and objectives/agendas of the different witnesses and accounts need to be to determine something as fact? This is why I view history, when compared to most other disciplines, to have the least amount of possibilties when it comes to determining anything as 'fact'. In other words, the term 'fact' with regards to history seems to have the broadest definition and the most flexibility among people who call themselves historians when compared to other fields of study, especially science and math.

Given this broad definition, and the magnitude of pure lies witnessed by myself over the years perpetrated by people who I consider to be anti-mormon, I've developed the habit over being pretty cynical once a critic, or even an apologist, discusses anything in history about the Church as fact.

The only place I've ever seen fact in its purest form is in mathematics and even there it all comes down to the definition of the term.

So, I guess my question to you would be, how much evidence do you have that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory as doctrine when compared to the evidence of the Lincoln Assasination, since we are using that evidence as the bases for our definition of the term 'fact'?

I really don't know, so that's why I'm asking. I'm not trying to be rude to you, I just really want to know what evidence we have of him having taught this as doctrine so I can learn for myself and judge for myself how factual it really is.

Thanks,

Matt