Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 This is a portion of a Master's Thesis that I have been reading. I thought I would share it:If one were to ask the typical Mormon why he believes in God and why he accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet, his response probably would not include a sophisticated argument for the existence of God, nor would he marshall evidence of Smith's prophetic abilities. Instead, he likely would simply state that personal revelation has made known to him the truth of these two propositions.Is such a response justified? Is he being irrational or non-rational in responding with references to personal revelation? Beyond the historical importance of personal revelation discussed in the last two chapters, the typical Mormon appeal to personal revelation elicits philosophical questions that in some ways are more important than the earlier historical consideration, affecting even more the writing of Mormon history. The main philosophical question that needs to be discussed is whether beliefs formed from religious experiences are rational. And if so, should the Mormon scholar, or any scholar open to the possibility of the supernatural, at least consider historical evidence for or agains the authenticity of personal revelation in any given case, rather than reducing it to something else or trying to bracket out the question altogether?Personal Revelation in Mormonism; Elmer Jay RichardsonHere is the full link to the thesis:http://www.collectio...p04/mq23474.pdfThoughts? Concerns about the authors intent?
Nemesis Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 How about you state your thoughts and concerns about the authors intent. Thats how you start a discussion.Nemesis
KevinG Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Rationality can be the assumption for a philosophical paper. Mortal rational thought is an inadequate measuring stick for eternal and infinite realities.
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 Is such a response justified? Is he being irrational or non-rational in responding with references to personal revelation? Beyond the historical importance of personal revelation discussed in the last two chapters, the typical Mormon appeal to personal revelation elicits philosophical questions that in some ways are more important than the earlier historical consideration, affecting even more the writing of Mormon history. The main philosophical question that needs to be discussed is whether beliefs formed from religious experiences are rational. And if so, should the Mormon scholar, or any scholar open to the possibility of the supernatural, at least consider historical evidence for or agains the authenticity of personal revelation in any given case, rather than reducing it to something else or trying to bracket out the question altogether?What I conclude from the paragraph above is that our testimonies and personal revelations concerning our individual belief systems is tightly bound to our individual psychologies. Is my faith a product, to some degree, of my psychology? Yes, because I believe that psychology is tied to thought and I am forced to think and reason out my thoughts on my beliefs.1) Is such a response justified?That is a case by case scenario. Faith experience and rationalism are individual and not necessarily collective.2) Is he being irrational or non-rational in responding with references to personal revelation?Possibly. I don't know that I could call it hearsay exactly but I don't know that responding with "I've received a witness" is a logical or rational response because it is central to the individual. For example, JS says he saw God. Is such a claim equally rational as it is irrational or non-rational? I don't know. What I believe faithfully as a member of the Restoration movement is irrelevant in context of JS own religious experience.However, I also argue that he (whomever that may be) is allowed to cite personal revelation as a potentially substantial witness because of the influence of the Divine upon its creation. This is why I believe that JS had a deeply impacting, even for me, religious experience that I am at this time incapable of fully understanding but show reverence for it nonetheless.3) As for the response of scholars to the claims of revelation, I believe that is also a case by case scenario. I would hope for a positive response in considering the religious experiences of others and justifications or rationalizations for those experiences.Scenario:Evangelical: How do you know the LDS church is true?Mormon: Because I have had it confirmed in prayer and spirit.I do not disregard this Mormon's response as illogical because of the intimacy that could very well be deeply rooted. Perhaps it is simply a show of respect.
selek1 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I find this statement to be troubling. There are two significant watersheds for the New Mormon History: Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows my History(1946) and Leonard J. Arrington' s Great Basin Kingdom (1958) .While Brodie was not sympathetic to the religious aspects of the movement, her biography of Joseph Smith stands unsurpassed in Mormon history because of her meticulous use of primary source data. In other words, her work stands as the model for the New Mormon History when it comes to the critical use of source material.If Brodie represents what the author considers to be the "gold standard" of scholarship regarding Mormon theology and history...
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 I find this statement to be troubling.If Brodie represents what the author considers to be the "gold standard" of scholarship regarding Mormon theology and history...I agree. This is a concern for me as well. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt considering the thesis is 15 years old. Maybe he changed his mind.
selek1 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 This statement, too, is biased and makes a number of assertions about the mindset of faithful Mormons- without providing any evidence for the allegations.It also glosses over the very real academic and scholarly criticisms leveled against the "New Mormon historians".As the New Mormon historians began to analyze the past, some Mormons became concerned but found themselves in a quandary. This is a vague assertion offered entirely without evidence. It alleges that "some" Mormons (it never specifies who) were concerned by the new "scholarship" (but never specifies why). The statement (in context) implies that the faithful are disturbed by the fact that the "scholarship" was not faith promoting- and ignores the very real problems of materialistic bias, questionable methodology, and plain, sloppy scholarship which exist in the works for which the author is cheerleading. No longer could they simply dismiss the histories as products of enemies since some of these new histories were written by faithful Mormons. Some Mormons have chosen to label these historians therefore as apostates or near apostates. There's that phantom "some" again. And once again, the author paints these historians as innocent and virtuous crusaders for truth pitted against reactionary and recalcitrant Mormon zealots.Others within the Church have maintained that the New Mormon historians have not portrayed history accurately since they have written histories which do not place God at the center of the development of the Church. For those in the Church who are often critical of the new history, what is at stake is the veracity of the religion. This is an interesting bit of mind reading- offered once again without any sort of evidence.Where have the faithful laid down the ultimatum that "the only accurate LDS history is one which places God at the center of the development of the Church"?Where have the faithful stated or even implied that the veracity of the faith rises or falls on the merit of the "new history"?In point of fact, I have never seen a criticism of the September Six- nor of any of the New Mormon historians- that centered on the fact that their work was not faith promoting. To the contrary, every informed criticism I have read or witnessed has hinged upon their biases, poor methodology, or their abuse of primary sources in order to advance an agenda.In short, the "New Mormon historians" are not criticized because their work does not embrace the theological assumptions of the Church- nor even because the work is often critical of the Church.They are criticized because they are poor historians and sloppy scholars.As is, apparently, the author of this thesis.
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 This statement, too, is biased and makes a number of assertions about the mindset of faithful Mormons- without providing any evidence for the allegations.It also glosses over the very real academic and scholarly criticisms leveled against the "New Mormon historians". This is a vague assertion offered entirely without evidence. It alleges that "some" Mormons (it never specifies who) were concerned by the new "scholarship" (but never specifies why). The statement (in context) implies that the faithful are disturbed by the fact that the "scholarship" was not faith promoting- and ignores the very real problems of materialistic bias, questionable methodology, and plain, sloppy scholarship which exist in the works for which the author is cheerleading.There's that phantom "some" again. And once again, the author paints these historians as innocent and virtuous crusaders for truth pitted against reactionary and recalcitrant Mormon zealots. This is an interesting bit of mind reading- offered once again without any sort of evidence.Where have the faithful laid down the ultimatum that "the only accurate LDS history is one which places God at the center of the development of the Church"?Where have the faithful stated or even implied that the veracity of the faith rises or falls on the merit of the "new history"?In point of fact, I have never seen a criticism of the September Six- nor of any of the New Mormon historians- that centered on the fact that their work was not faith promoting.To the contrary, every informed criticism I have read or witnessed has hinged upon their biases, poor methodology, or their abuse of primary sources in order to advance an agenda.In short, the "New Mormon historians" are not criticized because their work does not embrace the theological assumptions of the Church- nor even because the work is often critical of the Church.They are criticized because they are poor historians and sloppy scholars.As is, apparently, the author of this thesis.I hadn't considered a possible response such as yours, Selek. Perhaps I should go back and re-read the thesis with some of your points in mind. Thanks for responding to the thread.
selek1 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 It's remotely possible that the author does have something to offer- but he spends the first twenty pages (out of 225 total) arguing the discredited notion that the Church is anti-scholarship.That's not exactly a promising beginning.
KevinG Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Is anti-poor-scholarship a fair characterization of LDS historians?
mfbukowski Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I suppose you all have read all 225 pages.All I know is that William James and many other philosophers have no problem in speaking of religious experience being "justified".So do we want to talk about the thesis or the question in the OP?I don't have the time or inclination to read it, I don't know about anyone else. Edited February 16, 2012 by mfbukowski
Duncan Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 http://mormon.org/me/55SW/I know the author, not well, but he used to live here and got the thesis in question from the same non LDS school I also studied Religion at. He is a faithful member of the Church
Nevo Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 http://mormon.org/me/55SW/I know the author, not well, but he used to live here and got the thesis in question from the same non LDS school I also studied Religion at. He is a faithful member of the ChurchIn fact, he's an Institute teacher and a bishop (see here).
Storm Rider Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 There are thesises and then there are thesises. Making so many assumptions without references is an issue. Brodie has long been known to have written history to meet her objective; I don't consider her a historian. She is a researcher that looks only for facts that meet her objective and ignores everything else.As far as the topic goes, I have found a growing disregard within Christianity for the working of the Holy Spirit. An attempt to approach Christianity only through the lens of reason. This is both dangerous and ill-considered. Reason is limited by the failings of man and his finite intelligence. If we only followed reason and proofs, many would be challenged, if not prevented, from believing in the Bible. The pursuit of truth quickly becomes who can argue the best or who has created the winning philosophy of the day. How can Christian scholars cast aside the Spirit? What is the role of the Second Comforter? Who is entitled to the influence of the Spirit? I have heard Christians talk about the benefits of a spiritual witness on one hand and condemn the LDS for depending on a spiritual witness. Lastly, history is a an odd thing. Too often historians and scholars vitually ignore all history that is complimentary or praiseworthy of Joseph Smith and limit their entire research on polygamy, seer stones, and the like. Then they wrap it up as if that is the only history that exists. This also occurs blantantly among anti-Mormons, ex-Mormons, et. al.
Nevo Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Where have the faithful laid down the ultimatum that "the only accurate LDS history is one which places God at the center of the development of the Church"?"There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work" (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect").Where have the faithful stated or even implied that the veracity of the faith rises or falls on the merit of the "new history"?What Richardson actually said was: "For those in the Church who are often critical of the new history, what is at stake is the veracity of the religion." The respected LDS scholar Terryl Givens makes the same point in his book People of Paradox: "the church does stand or fall on the veracity of the official version of its early history.... LDS doctrine as a whole is rooted inescapably in history; its claims to divine authority and restored truth are entirely dependent on the narratives of LDS origins....challenges to orthodox accounts of the church's past strike at the very heart of the faith." (222).In point of fact, I have never seen a criticism of the September Six- nor of any of the New Mormon historians- that centered on the fact that their work was not faith promoting.See again Boyd K. Packer's talk, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." You might also read Leonard Arrington's memoir, Adventures of a Church Historian.In short, the "New Mormon historians" are not criticized because their work does not embrace the theological assumptions of the Church- nor even because the work is often critical of the Church. They are criticized because they are poor historians and sloppy scholars.Ah, yes, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Stanley Kimball, Ronald Walker, William Hartley, Ronald Esplin, Jill Derr.... poor historians and sloppy scholars all. How much "New Mormon History" have you actually read?
Buzzard Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Disabuse me of the notion that the phrase "New Mormon History" applies almost exclusively to scholars in the RLDS/CocC that did not accept the Book of Mormon as true or the Joseph Smith story as historical. That's about the only place I have seen it used. And for the record, most active LDS that I personally know base their testimony on a mixuture of spiritual experiences and objective evidence.
Nevo Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Disabuse me of the notion that the phrase "New Mormon History" applies almost exclusively to scholars in the RLDS/CocC that did not accept the Book of Mormon as true or the Joseph Smith story as historical.Okay.
selek1 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) "There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work" (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect").Emphasis mine.Note that "without consideration" is quite a bit different from "place God at the center of the development of the Church".What Richardson actually said was: "For those in the Church who are often critical of the new history, what is at stake is the veracity of the religion." And it is Richardson who equates the "new history" with veracity.He glosses over the fact that the "new history" is comprised entirely of intepretation, reinterpretation, and quesses (both educated and not).It is he who implies that the "new history" is viewed as a threat to the veracity of the Church.But he offers no evidence to support these allegations or flagrant acts of mindreading.The respected LDS scholar Terryl Givens makes the same point in his book People of Paradox: "the church does stand or fall on the veracity of the official version of its early history.... LDS doctrine as a whole is rooted inescapably in history; its claims to divine authority and restored truth are entirely dependent on the narratives of LDS origins....challenges to orthodox accounts of the church's past strike at the very heart of the faith." (222). And I respectfully agree and disagree with Professor Givens.I agree that the Church's credibility is founded in part on its historical claims.I categorically reject, however, any notion that good historical practices and balanced historical analysis are in any way a threat to the claims of the Church.Ah, yes, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Stanley Kimball, Ronald Walker, William Hartley, Ronald Esplin, Jill Derr.... poor historians and sloppy scholars all. Your claim.Not mine.How much "New Mormon History" have you actually read? More than you might think.I do, however, laud your attempt to gloss over the fact that the author himself holds up Brodie as the poster child for "good use of sources".Name dropping faithful and competent historians is not sufficient sleight of hand to mask that glaring error. Brodie, the egregious Quinn, and others were also considered "new Mormon historians" until their intrinsic biases and tabloid "scholarship" were exposed.Nor is the name dropping sufficient distraction to mask the fact that informed criticism of "new Mormon history" revolves around methodology and good ethical practice, rather than orthodoxy.As someone else pointed out, however, this thesis was written nearly twenty years ago.Both you and Duncan have stated that the author remains a faithful member in good standing (and serves as both an institute teacher and a bishop).I, for one, would be curious as to how his views have changed over the decade-and-a-half since this piece was written.Heaven only knows that the scholarship under discussion has ebbed and flowed. Edited February 16, 2012 by selek1
CV75 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 This is a portion of a Master's Thesis that I have been reading. I thought I would share it:***Thoughts? Concerns about the authors intent?Depending on how carefully one poses or answers the question, some might conflate “how” or “why” someone believes. This might affect the degree of rationality or non-rationality inherent in the question and the response, what is really meant by “personal revelation has made known to him the truth” (is it an explanation of “why”, or of “how”?), and what criteria must be met for either to be justified.Religious experience, including personal revelation, may not be a purely rational or purely irrational process. It depends on what religion means to the subject, and probably more significantly, what "experience" or "being" means to the subject and how he processes them. So it seems to me that the arguments for historical evidence for or against the authenticity of personal revelation would follow suit.I have no concern for his intent. There must be a statement somewhere in the thesis about what constitues rational, non-rational and justified terms and conditions, and these would reflect his own orientation.
Duncan Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 In fact, he's an Institute teacher and a bishop (see here).he lived in Calgary and is now a Bishop? that's surprising
rongo Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I know. Can there any good thing come out of Calgary? . . . 1
Duncan Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I know. Can there any good thing come out of Calgary? . . . hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha! well our very own Calmoriah lived there and there is a woman who lies there I would marry in half a nanosecond but other then that...
LeSellers Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I know. Can there any good thing come out of Calgary? . . .My Jacquie did.Lehi
Jac Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I know. Can there any good thing come out of Calgary?My Jacquie did.So did my parents and mother's parents.Jacquie
Duncan Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 So did my parents and mother's parents.Jacquie Jann Arden and...and...and...hhmmmmmm....
Recommended Posts