Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[ShawFanX]

[media=]

Ahh yes, the old man...Hartnell. I think it was Hartnell who played the really grouchy Doctor. Always snapping at everybody.

Baker's my man (and secondly, Pertwee).

[mfbukowski]

It appears from a Backyard Professor video I recently viewed on Youtube that Kerry has now removed to a position of a cross between 19th century and a modern Saganesque style of scientistic positivism and rationalism, from which we must hope, he will one day emerge and return to Zion, hopefully no worse for the wear.

I fear you are right on the former and hope you are right on the latter.

Getting stuck in the 19th century is no fun. It happened to me once.

[ShawFanX]

There is an insurmountable epistemological problem here. For all practical purposes, what he said he saw was.... what he said he saw.

Precisely, which is why, given the kind of phenomena this was (much like Stephen seeing Christ standing on the right hand of the Father), a scholarly historical treatment would seem inappropriate - unless all one wishes to uncover is whether or not the event was believed to have happened and the sociocultural factors mediating that.

And yes, I think indeed there is no way out of the quandry. Of course SOMETHING happened, but it is pretty irrelevant to even worry about it because what DID happen is totally unknowable and always will be, unless of course the security camera tapes from the grove for that day ever come to light.

Not, however, according to LDS doctrine, which is, after all, the real crux of the matter.

[ShawFanX]

I fear you are right on the former and hope you are right on the latter.

Getting stuck in the 19th century is no fun. It happened to me once.

You have a Tardis too?

[mfbukowski]

You have a Tardis too?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Mine is a Japanese hybrid model. Just look at those examples of British technology in the video and you will see why I would never trust anything technological coming out of there. After all, they invented the Jaguar.

Love their language and their actors, but their machines? Not so much.

[mfbukowski]

Not, however, according to LDS doctrine, which is, after all, the real crux of the matter.

The trick, as I think you almost pointed out, was to avoid category errors. Subjective "verification" for subjective matters is fine, as is objective verification for objective matters.

There's no problem until you try to mix the two, like looking for scientific proof for God or some such silliness.

[mfbukowski]

Love their language and their actors, but their machines? Not so much.

Oh yes, and I nearly forgot that universal favorite, exported throughout the world- British Cuisine.

[volgadon]

Oh yes, and I nearly forgot that universal favorite, exported throughout the world- British Cuisine.

There is little of note beyond toasted bread.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

And it's a good thing. The point is no one CAN determine the "reality" of visions.

Ironically, not even those who say they have them......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The trick, as I think you almost pointed out, was to avoid category errors. Subjective "verification" for subjective matters is fine, as is objective verification for objective matters.

There's no problem until you try to mix the two, like looking for scientific proof for God or some such silliness.

Actually, it's not silly at all. Falling back on mere faith because there is no evidence, but the feeling one ought to believe anyway is vastly inferior to finding evidence. Science has nothing to apologize for. It has been moving forward now for centuries and has never once submitted a mistake in its knowledge to faith in religious matters. But religion absolutely has caved in time and time and time again to the knowledge and findings of science.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It appears from a Backyard Professor video I recently viewed on Youtube that Kerry has now removed to a position of a cross between 19th century and a modern Saganesque style of scientistic positivism and rationalism, from which we must hope he will one day emerge and return to Zion, hopefully no worse for the wear.

Why on earth would I ever want to give up thinking using logic, rigorous analysis, and evidence? I am not opposed to science anymore than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were. Science has the track record. Yes I am tired of being told what to believe, and rather like thinking through things for myself. It is, to say the least, quite exhilirating actually! Ah to breathe the air of free thinking through my own mind instead of believing others ideas simply because I am told that is the proper thing to do. Give me evidence I say.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why on earth would I ever want to give up thinking using logic, rigorous analysis, and evidence? I am not opposed to science anymore than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were. Science has the track record. Yes I am tired of being told what to believe, and rather like thinking through things for myself. It is, to say the least, quite exhilirating actually! Ah to breathe the air of free thinking through my own mind instead of believing others ideas simply because I am told that is the proper thing to do. Give me evidence I say.

It is something when people try to tell us what we believe...no us as a people but "us" as individuals. However lack of evidence does not mean lack of facts.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It is something when people try to tell us what we believe...no us as a people but "us" as individuals. However lack of evidence does not mean lack of facts.

Lack of evidence EXACTLY means lack of facts, who are you kidding? UNTIL evidence is presented for any ideas, one is simply not bound to believe them. WHEN the evidence comes along and is SHOWN to as many as possible, THEN one begins analyzing and seeing what facts work, and what facts don't, and through reason, logic, and critical thinking we can discern what to keep and what to let go of. Until that process goes through, it is all speculation.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, what actually matters, in would appear, if one is trying to ascertain the historicity of an event - whether or not that event is actually historical in a phenomonological sense - is whether or not a specific phenomena, in this case, the actual appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, which would have been, for Joseph, an empirical reality (and an empirical reality as a matter of its actual occurance within the actually existing universe), really occured or not.

This is one of those claims about which we must depend on spiritual confirmation. However, there are other methods and issues which are amenable to reasoned analysis, the results of which can be extrapolated to these other claims which are virtually unverifiable by scientific or logical means.

If all one is after is subjective memories or perceptions of what was claimed to have occured, then one is not really doing history anymore but a kind of psychohistory or social history - looking at what people believe to have been the case based upon an in-group tradition that binds them together as a people, in this case a religious origin story that birthed a religious movement.

Whether the First Vision actually happened in a salient phenominal sense is the problem, and I have no idea what any historical-critical methodology would have to say about that, as Joseph was the only witness on earth to that event.

Dan Vogel did mention that Mark Thomas is excited about applying the methods used by the Jesus Seminar. The problem there, despite decades of effort, is the signal failure of the Seminar to reach any meaningful conclusions about the real Jesus -- although they did do some nice textual analysis of the NT and associated literature.

[Robert F. Smith]

Brodie ended up (thanks to Wes Walters) being correct that the 1826 trial did occur. Attempting to discredit her over the Jefferson bio fails because it seems the consenus is that Sally Hemmings was Jefferson's concubine.(DNA, circumstantial evidence). At Monticello I understand they now accept the Sally Hemmings/Jefferson relationship. See the books by Annette Gordon-Reed.

I wasn't referring to the fact that Jefferson's wife had died and that he had taken up with her half-sister. Had she been "white" he would likely have married her, but he was not permitted that option in his own time. Of course they accept the Sally Hemmings relationship, and she was family. The problem was that Brodie (whom Mike Quinn termed "bitter") used a host of poor methodologies and assumptions in her bios of both men, and professional historians pointed to the same mistakes in each case. That's not accidental. That's confirmation. If you want examples of her blatant and gross errors (quite inexcusable), I can give you some. Worse, she actually refused an offer to use the LDS Church Archives while doing her book. That is true bitterness and hate.

Did Brigham Young take Zina Huntington off Brother Jacobs. How would u feel if Monson came and took your wife off you and said she was sealed to him for eternity. Go and find another for yourself and also go on a mission. The stretcher is available if this is all too much for you.

Once again, only bitterness and hatred could motivate such uncalled for comments.

Baer showed that Nibley was not using sources correctly (see Chris Smith's site) in defending the BOA.

The late Prof. Baer was Hugh Nibley's teacher beginning in 1959 at UC Berkeley, and later at the Oriental Institute in Chicago. They came to be great friends and colleagues. Baer was a gentleman, and would never think of being rude to Nibley. Everything that Baer wrote on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri (even though it is now out of date) was done in a professional and collegial way. You would do well to try emulating that.

I can be certain that in ten or twenty years no evidence will be found for the cities of Nephi and Zarahelma.

It would help if you came to the question of Book of Mormon historicity with an open and unbiased mind. Your absolutism and contempt do not stand you in good stead. You are clearly unfamiliar with serious literature and research on the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

There is little of note beyond toasted bread.

Hmmmm deep fat fried bread and boiled bacon, nice and white and slimey. What could be more appetizing?

[mfbukowski]

Actually, it's not silly at all. Falling back on mere faith because there is no evidence, but the feeling one ought to believe anyway is vastly inferior to finding evidence. Science has nothing to apologize for. It has been moving forward now for centuries and has never once submitted a mistake in its knowledge to faith in religious matters. But religion absolutely has caved in time and time and time again to the knowledge and findings of science.

We really have to get together sometime. Have you read any Kuhn?

I recommend that and some William James- Varieties of Religious Experience

Edited July 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Kerry A. Shirts]

We really have to get together sometime. Have you read any Kuhn?

I recommend that and some William James- Varieties of Religious Experience

I'll make you a deal......... I'll re-read Kuhn if you'll read Dan Barker, "godless."

[Kerry A. Shirts]

This is one of those claims about which we must depend on spiritual confirmation. However, there are other methods and issues which are amenable to reasoned analysis, the results of which can be extrapolated to these other claims which are virtually unverifiable by scientific or logical means.

Dan Vogel did mention that Mark Thomas is excited about applying the methods used by the Jesus Seminar. The problem there, despite decades of effort, is the signal failure of the Seminar to reach any meaningful conclusions about the real Jesus -- although they did do some nice textual analysis of the NT and associated literature.

I would suggest the "real" Jesus is still not available with biblical scholarship yet. There are far too many unknowns and various hypotheses that do not fit any one single interpretation of who he was, what he was, etc. I suspect the jury is still out on this most fascinating of issues.

[mfbukowski]

I'll make you a deal......... I'll re-read Kuhn if you'll read Dan Barker, "godless."

I used to be an atheist you know, but I got better. Of course I will read it. I already know all his arguments. But you don't know mine.

[Storm Rider]

Why on earth would I ever want to give up thinking using logic, rigorous analysis, and evidence? I am not opposed to science anymore than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were. Science has the track record. Yes I am tired of being told what to believe, and rather like thinking through things for myself. It is, to say the least, quite exhilirating actually! Ah to breathe the air of free thinking through my own mind instead of believing others ideas simply because I am told that is the proper thing to do. Give me evidence I say.

Science has the track record? Oh, let's see, how many times has science been wrong? Mice are produced by putting an old shirt in the barn and filling it with corn - spontaneous generation. Then tobacco is good for you. Wine is bad for you; no, it is good for you; no, it is bad. DNA is the end all and be all. Science is limited by man's mind. Empirical evidence and research is great and I like it, but it must not, should not ever be favored over faith. The old putting your faith in the arm of flesh thing seems to apply.

I say give me evidence that I should believe solely in science and toss out faith.

[Calm]

There is little of note beyond toasted bread.

I love fish and chips (at least the chips I had when I first went to a fish and chips shop, they just seem to do regular french fries these days). And definitely Yorkshire pudding. Edited July 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Actually, it's not silly at all. Falling back on mere faith because there is no evidence, but the feeling one ought to believe anyway is vastly inferior to finding evidence. Science has nothing to apologize for. It has been moving forward now for centuries and has never once submitted a mistake in its knowledge to faith in religious matters.

You sound like Richard Dawkins. The problem that religion has always faced is over evidence verses faith. And this will always be the case. At some point the religious faithful need to come to grips with aspects of science. We saw this with Darwin and we still this now. The only problem that the faithful have with science is when science declares that there is no god. Outside of that, science and god's creation seem to be at one. Science has not proved that god does not exist but it has proved that the universe is a beautiful creation.

[Calm]

Actually, it's not silly at all. Falling back on mere faith because there is no evidence, but the feeling one ought to believe anyway is vastly inferior to finding evidence.

But the motivation to go out and find evidence is an act of faith, is it not? To create, to search, even to desire to know are all acts of faith.

Science has not proved that [G]od does not exist but it has proved that the universe is a beautiful creation.

Well stated. Edited July 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

I love fish and chips (at least the chips I had when I first went to a fish and chips shop, they just seem to do regular french fries these days). And definitely Yorkshire pudding.

And I love Welsh Rarebit, Yorkshire pudding is nice too, but am allergic to fish.