Dirty Harry and Higher Critical Research

[John Larsen]

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".

But your position, that we can't known what he taught, is patently absurd to anyone who has read his sermons. They are not confusing for the most part. The only debate is about some nuanced details. The doctrine was firmly and regularly taught for many years. It is a matter of historical record. There are 100s of pieces of collaborating evidence. The only way someone could hold the view you are espousing is through ignorance of the actual words of Brigham.

[mledbetter]

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.

No John, you misunderstand me and that's probably my fault. I'm not the best communicator. My last post describes a little better what I was trying to say. The definition of the term 'fact' seems to be the most flexible definition with regards to history than with most other disciplines.

BTW, I'm no apologist. I'm here to learn.

Thanks,

Matt

[mfbukowski]

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.

Come on. Who's arguing the date Lincoln was shot? We are discussing degrees of certainty here. Why he was shot and who plotted it and who was included in the plot and what would have happened had he not been shot--- those are the interesting questions. The only questions worth debating are those that make a difference in our lives, and which are uncertain. Nobody thinks that the existence of gravity is debatable, or the date Lincoln was shot, or if the moon is real.

The question is how we make our way in an uncertain world, and what can be shown with certainty and what cannot be shown with certainty. Uncertain statements are debatable and as such can be either true or false depending on their context.

Religous statements can not by their nature be proven to others with certainty.

"This hieroglyph means such and so, and therefore the Maya did not believe xyz and so clearly then, the Book of Mormon is false" or any statement like that is highly different than the date Lincoln was shot.

Render certainty to the things that are certain and to God the things that are God's! That's why we use the term "Religious Faith", It's not "Religious Certainty". What's your religious Certainty? It appears you have one!

[mfbukowski]

But your position, that we can't known what he taught, is patently absurd to anyone who has read his sermons. They are not confusing for the most part. The only debate is about some nuanced details. The doctrine was firmly and regularly taught for many years. It is a matter of historical record. There are 100s of pieces of collaborating evidence. The only way someone could hold the view you are espousing is through ignorance of the actual words of Brigham.

Baloney. I have read it and know what he taught, and think it is open to interpretation. I think I may actually believe some portions of what he taught if viewed in a certain light etc. There is more to these things than historic study can reveal. I can't wait to sit down with Brigham and talk it over

So I grant none of your points and could debate them to doomsday should either of us actually care. But that's not the point. "What was taught" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how that history is interpreted today by today's prophets. Get over it. Catholics believe this in principle, Mormons believe it in principle. Now I will hear from Catholics too, but that's ok. I'm ready.

Either you believe in continuing revelation or you don't. I know you don't. It's still a free country, sort of. As long as you believe in gay marriage that is.

[mledbetter]

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

Yes, and we have already seen how words like "progressive" and "queer" have developed different meanings over a relatively short span of time. Like "inspiration", as BH pointed out, literally means "breathed in", but who knows that or would even think that? What was the original meaning of the hand grabbing the fish? Yes, it's all a little bit more slippery than historians would have us believe.

Words are just symbols, made from Phonetic symbols. Those symbols change and their arrangment changes; and other cultures adopt your symbols and words and assign different meanings to them; A word or phrase is symbolic just as a hieroglyph and no one culture has a monopoloy on what meaning to assign to that symbol.

I digress, and I have completely derailed the OP. Sorry.

[John Larsen]

Baloney. I have read it and know what he taught, and think it is open to interpretation. I think I may actually believe some portions of what he taught if viewed in a certain light etc. There is more to these things than historic study can reveal. I can't wait to sit down with Brigham and talk it over

So I grant none of your points and could debate them to doomsday should either of us actually care. But that's not the point. "What was taught" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how that history is interpreted today by today's prophets. Get over it. Catholics believe this in principle, Mormons believe it in principle. Now I will hear from Catholics too, but that's ok. I'm ready.

Either you believe in continuing revelation or you don't. I know you don't. It's still a free country, sort of. As long as you believe in gay marriage that is.

Maybe I just don't understand your position. So, for example, when Brigham taught that Adam was a resurrected being who brought one of his wives to this earth, what is the interpretation that this teaching is open to?

[Nevo]

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.

Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine on numerous occasions over several years, both in public and in private. For the evidence, see especially David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (1982): 14-58, and Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).

As BYU religion professor Rodney Turner observed in 1953: "a careful, detached study of [brigham Youngâ??s] available statements, as found in the official publications of the Church, will admit of no other conclusion than the identification of Adam with God the Father by President Brigham Young as an irrefutable fact" (Rodney Turner, "Position of Adam in LDS Scripture and Theology," [M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1953], 58). To its credit, FAIR also acknowledges this (as do, I think, all reasonable, informed Latter-day Saints).

[Jason]

I don't want to turn this into an Adam-God thread.

Then try deleting most of your last post and starting a new thread on the subject.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe I just don't understand your position. So, for example, when Brigham taught that Adam was a resurrected being who brought one of his wives to this earth, what is the interpretation that this teaching is open to?

If you want to start another Adam-God thread be my guest.

What is relevant is that we have continuing revelation, and historical certainty or uncertainty is irrelevant to religious propositions and certainty.

[mledbetter]

I don't want to turn this into an Adam-God thread. There are more than enough of those already. But here are multiple witness accounts of just one sermon in which Brigham Young taught the idea: ...

Very interesting. I'll spend some time digging into this and reading a bit more about it than just what you have posted here.

I admitted previously that I am no apologist (at least not a scholarly one) and that I'm here to learn, so I thank you.

Best regards,

Matt

[mfbukowski]

OK I will do ONE Adam-God post just to illustrate the methodology I am proposing

Remember Rule 1 is that we can't know the history of this:

Of the quotes Nevo quoted, only one is a direct quote of Brigham Young, and this one is ambiguous- for how, see number 2 below.

The rest are heresay. Now here I am on this post, and I cannot seem to get out one abstract thought that people understand and will not misquote, but we are supposed to believe what Brigham supposedly said in 1852.

I could go on, but that is the way to attack the supposed history.

Rule Number 2 - historical statements are subject to different intepretation:

You will notice in the book of Hebrews Paul (or whoever.... see rule number 1!) that Christ is referred to as the "Second Adam". Why? Because he is the Father of our salvation, etc. and we are in a sense "begotten" through him. If there are two "Adams" we can conclude that "Adam" is in fact a title, not necessarily referring to an actual person. And in fact, if you read the ONE quote Nevo has actually given us, assuming it was properly transcribed, Brigham could very well be referring to Elohim as the "Prime Adam" in much the way Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews, since that is uncertain) referred to Christ as the "second Adam"

Rule Number 3- Religious truth is not verifiable through history

And besides, all this is irrelevant because we believe in ongoing revelation and it does not cohere with other church teachings and the clincher, IT IS NOT CANONIZED SCRIPTURE.

So this is a practical application of what I am talking about to the Adam God theory as discussed here. Please now let's get back to the OP OK?

[Jason]

Of the quotes Nevo quoted, only one is a direct quote of Brigham Young,

You might say "probably closest to what Brigham Young actually said of the available accounts" rather than "direct quote", since it was not prepared from a recording or pre-speech text, but from shorthand notes taken during the speech, and therefore there is some room for error, especially if the note-taker did not understand the speech as it was given.

But yes, the whole Adam-God thing is a diversion from the original topic.

[John Larsen]

OK I will do ONE Adam-God post just to illustrate the methodology I am proposing

Remember Rule 1 is that we can't know the history of this:

Of the quotes Nevo quoted, only one is a direct quote of Brigham Young, and this one is ambiguous- for how, see number 2 below.

The rest are heresay. Now here I am on this post, and I cannot seem to get out one abstract thought that people understand and will not misquote, but we are supposed to believe what Brigham supposedly said in 1852.

I could go on, but that is the way to attack the supposed history.

Rule Number 2 - historical statements are subject to different intepretation:

You will notice in the book of Hebrews Paul (or whoever.... see rule number 1!) that Christ is referred to as the "Second Adam". Why? Because he is the Father of our salvation, etc. and we are in a sense "begotten" through him. If there are two "Adams" we can conclude that "Adam" is in fact a title, not necessarily referring to an actual person. And in fact, if you read the ONE quote Nevo has actually given us, assuming it was properly transcribed, Brigham could very well be referring to Elohim as the "Prime Adam" in much the way Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews, since that is uncertain) referred to Christ as the "second Adam"

Rule Number 3- Religious truth is not verifiable through history

And besides, all this is irrelevant because we believe in ongoing revelation and it does not cohere with other church teachings and the clincher, IT IS NOT CANONIZED SCRIPTURE.

So this is a practical application of what I am talking about to the Adam God theory as discussed here. Please now let's get back to the OP OK?

Apologist like to say, "context, context, context!" So you can you, good conscious, merely dismiss a quote without going back and exploring the context in which it was made. I get frustrated when many like to deal with the bricks without considering the wall.

[mfbukowski]

You might say "probably closest to what Brigham Young actually said of the available accounts" rather than "direct quote", since it was not prepared from a recording or pre-speech text, but from shorthand notes taken during the speech, and therefore there is some room for error, especially if the note-taker did not understand the speech as it was given.

But yes, the whole Adam-God thing is a diversion from the original topic.

Right on both counts.

[mfbukowski]

Apologist like to say, "context, context, context!" So you can you, good conscious, merely dismiss a quote without going back and exploring the context in which it was made. I get frustrated when many like to deal with the bricks without considering the wall.

Let me respectfully suggest that it is you who are missing what's on the other side of the wall. All those bricks keep getting in your way.

[Nevo]

[Ron Beron]

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.

Thanks for your comments. I agree about using the temple as a focus of my testimony. Thanks to scholars such as Kerry S. and David B. et al I have seen the temple ceremony and the faith it represents as a starting point to buildiing my faith on a regular schedule. While I constantly face a loaded gun everyday vis-a-vis my knowledge or more appropriately lack of knowledge about things eternal I look at some of the studies being done now and seen a connection between what we know now and what the ancients knew then. This knowledge has and will probably sustain me in the future. I have always been struck by the fact that the ancient prophets knew of us and our time and longed for that time that we could 'complete' them into one great eternal round, they looking forward and we looking back and in that chasm of time we join hands and hearts and are complete.

[Ron Beron]

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?

Ah...the bullet, if it came could shatter my life forever, but it could also shift the paradigm into something better. Without getting too far into it I took a "bullet" several years ago and it almost killed me spiritually. Knowing how to deal with it in a spiritually uplifting way saved my spiritual existence. I think for the better.

[Ron Beron]

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

I use it in my medical practice all the time.

One of my favorites as well. There is something almost ethereal in this man lying there, wounded, needing to know if his resistance would have mattered. The answer was unlike anything he anticipated.

[ERayR]

Shucks I started to read the thread because I thought it was about Harry Reid. I'm disappointed.

[mledbetter]

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?

Hey Ron, I'm can't call myself one of the 'deeper learners' as far as church history is concerned, but I at least find myself dabbling in it as I find time.

The BoA stuff hit hard for me, though I still have much to learn in that regard, it raised serious enough doubt in my mind that I even began questioning the existence of God Himself. Kevin Graham being a friend of mine, didn't help. :-)

This has been a good experience for me, overall, because I found that even in all of my doubts I really wanted to be a pure and a good person (yes, I know, I have a long way to go). I still want to be a good husband and father and to be "god-like". As I thought about those things, I felt a tremendous peace come over me. Maybe it's something I needed to learn about myself. I don't doubt there's a God, and I know that as I continue to learn, my faith will just grow stronger in truth.

Just a side note, as I was reading the fairwiki on the Adam-God stuff, I like what Stephen E. Robinson said about anomalies. Yes there are many in my faith, but not enough to shake it just yet; especially since I see just as many if not more on the other side of the debate, thus far.

There is no chance, and no anarchy, in the universe. All is system and gradation. Every god is there sitting in his sphere. The young mortal enters the hall of the firmament: there is he alone with them alone, they pouring on him benedictions and gifts, and beckoning him up to their thrones. On the instant, and incessantly, fall snowâ??storms of illusions. He fancies himself in a vast crowd which sways this way and that, and whose movement and doings he must obey: he fancies himself poor, orphaned, insignificant. The mad crowd drives hither and thither, now furiously commanding this thing to be done, now that. What is he that he should resist their will, and think or act for himself? Every moment, new changes, and new showers of deceptions, to baffle and distract him. And when, by and by, for an instant, the air clears, and the cloud lifts a little, there are the gods still sitting around him on their thrones, â?? they alone with him alone. --Emerson

[Ron Beron]

There is no chance, and no anarchy, in the universe. All is system and gradation. Every god is there sitting in his sphere. The young mortal enters the hall of the firmament: there is he alone with them alone, they pouring on him benedictions and gifts, and beckoning him up to their thrones. On the instant, and incessantly, fall snowâ??storms of illusions. He fancies himself in a vast crowd which sways this way and that, and whose movement and doings he must obey: he fancies himself poor, orphaned, insignificant. The mad crowd drives hither and thither, now furiously commanding this thing to be done, now that. What is he that he should resist their will, and think or act for himself? Every moment, new changes, and new showers of deceptions, to baffle and distract him. And when, by and by, for an instant, the air clears, and the cloud lifts a little, there are the gods still sitting around him on their thrones, â?? they alone with him alone. --Emerson

That is one fantastic quote. It made my day. Thanks.

[mledbetter]

That is one fantastic quote. It made my day. Thanks.

It's one of my favorites.

Thanks,

Matt

[Mudcat]

Ah...the bullet, if it came could shatter my life forever, but it could also shift the paradigm into something better. Without getting too far into it I took a "bullet" several years ago and it almost killed me spiritually. Knowing how to deal with it in a spiritually uplifting way saved my spiritual existence. I think for the better.

I think sometimes its a lot easier to leave the question "I gottsta know." on the table. Because sometimes we are so comfortable where we are in things, we don't want anything to change us. I would call this the sin of living comfortably in falsehood and I do think its a sin most of us commit from time to time. I think the ultimate fear of truth, is that it will change us.

In a tangible sense, its like this little bump I had on my scalp behind my ear. It was small and I would scratch at it. It would get sore from time to time. I thought it could potentially be cancer. Part of me was afraid to find out the truth, I found the uncertainty of not knowing more comfortable than the thought of having my fear realized and having to face that truth.

I never went to the Doctor about it. It went away, whatever it was, in a couple of months. I saved money of course, but wasn't this actually an act of cowardice on my part? I think so. Mudcat was a scaredy cat.

I think sometimes we are equally if not more so fearful on spiritual matters.

You have got my curiosity piqued about that bullet that nearly did you in. But I get the feeling I should leave well enough alone.

[mfbukowski]

That is one fantastic quote. It made my day. Thanks.

Wow. Amazing stuff. Thanks mledbetter