Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[MAsh]

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

I've read bits & pieces of Dan Barker (and just finished a book by atheist Michael Shermer and another by Richard Dawkins, and I'm just finishing one by Isarael Finkelstein). While Barker & the new atheists certainly have some interesting things to add to the discussion (and is many cases they've made me re-evaluate some of my thoughts on various topics), they certainly don't offer the last work on the issues of belief and faith or the supernatural.

[AdamFord]

Gee, you've got all the interpretations from A to B represented on that panel.

This is the lowest and cheapest swipe unless you are willing to appear at Sunstone yourself. If invited, Bill, would you come present or sit on a panel at Sunstone? If your answer is no, than it is your fault the panel is not as diverse as you would like. I assure you that Sunstone would welcome your participation.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes. As one example of the Seminar's failure, they applied the criterion of uniqueness as a measure of the "oldest 'layer' of Jesus-tradition," which excludes anything from either Judaism or the Easter faith (the later Christian community) in order to discover who the "real" Jesus had been. Unfortunately that required them to deny Jesus' Jewishness, which was central to who he was. As Anthony Saldarini noted:

To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings. Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church. They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness.

Another example was the denial of apocalyptic in Jesus' preaching. Yet, as Walter Weaver pointed out (and Birger Pearson vehemently agreed):

. . . apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted; at the same time it came from late Judaism and therefore constituted a common resource of synagogue and church.

Bruce Chilton, who was the only member of the Jesus Seminar who could use Aramaic, could not understand this absurd approach to understanding of Jesus.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

Knowing his arguments is not in the same category as refuting them though. And yes, I am more than positive I am well aware of every argument you will bring forth. See? This is the fun of dialogue, getting to know and learn things with one another. It just don't get better than that.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Yes. As one example of the Seminar's failure, they applied the criterion of uniqueness as a measure of the "oldest 'layer' of Jesus-tradition," which excludes anything from either Judaism or the Easter faith (the later Christian community) in order to discover who the "real" Jesus had been. Unfortunately that required them to deny Jesus' Jewishness, which was central to who he was. As Anthony Saldarini noted:

To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings. Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church. They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness.

Another example was the denial of apocalyptic in Jesus' preaching. Yet, as Walter Weaver pointed out (and Birger Pearson vehemently agreed):

. . . apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted; at the same time it came from late Judaism and therefore constituted a common resource of synagogue and church.

Bruce Chilton, who was the only member of the Jesus Seminar who could use Aramaic, could not understand this absurd approach to understanding of Jesus.

LOL! Robert I always enjoy your posts and insights. Very interesting to say the least! They denied Jesus' Jewishness of culture?! Incredible.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I've read bits & pieces of Dan Barker (and just finished a book by atheist Michael Shermer and another by Richard Dawkins, and I'm just finishing one by Isarael Finkelstein). While Barker & the new atheists certainly have some interesting things to add to the discussion (and is many cases they've made me re-evaluate some of my thoughts on various topics), they certainly don't offer the last work on the issues of belief and faith or the supernatural.

No, of course not, no one has the last word....... I find their arguments fascinating because I have never been taught to analyze and think through things the way they do.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

All this said while on a computer. REFUTE. In fact, refute it spiritually so we can all understand without using the science of the computer you are using. THAT would be impressive for spirituality. Lets see if it is spirituality that shares knowledge, or science via the computer.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

Before you slam the door against science disproof of God, FIRST *define* what is meant by god, then......then we shall take a look at what science HAS proven. It's surprising! But first, we need to have a definition.

[Robert F. Smith]

LOL! Robert I always enjoy your posts and insights. Very interesting to say the least! They denied Jesus' Jewishness of culture?! Incredible.

It will be interesting to see what standards of uniqueness Mark Thomas applies to Brother Joseph in order to disclose who he really was.

[why me]

Before you slam the door against science disproof of God, FIRST *define* what is meant by god, then......then we shall take a look at what science HAS proven. It's surprising! But first, we need to have a definition.

Lets see...a definition of god....ummmm.....okay lets try this:

The Great Work of God

In April 1830, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and a handful of others gathered together to organize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was a simple meeting. How the heavens must have rejoiced and glorified God—for on that day, the Church of Jesus Christ returned to earth!

Since that day, millions have discovered the truth of the restored gospel and have entered the waters of baptism. I testify that this great work of God is on the earth today. I bear witness that the Lord watches over His Church and directs it through His prophet, Thomas S. Monson.

It is no ordinary blessing to live in these latter days. These are glorious times foreseen by ancient prophets and attended by watchful, angelic hosts. The Lord is mindful of His Church. He is also mindful of those who follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost and join with their brothers and sisters the world over in helping to bring forth this great work of God.

http://www.lds.org/friend/2012/07/the-great-work-of-god?lang=eng&query=god

He seems rather tangible in many ways. I would suppose that god is the same as appeared to Joseph with his son. And my friend should be carrying out the great work of god. Are you?

I am not...but are you.....

[MAsh]

No, of course not, no one has the last word....... I find their arguments fascinating because I have never been taught to analyze and think through things the way they do.

I agree that I find many of their arguments fascinating but not necessarily because I've never been taught to analyze and think things through the way they do. Many of their arguments have given me new insights and views on topics I hadn't either thought of before, or hadn't thought of from their perspective before. I can say the same thing, however, when I've read things from a variety of other LDS and non-LDS scholars. Critics such as Vogel, Metcalfe, Chris Smith, Mike Reed, and many others have given me moments of pause and re-assessment. The writings of Nibley, Peterson, Ricks, Hamblin, and Royal Skousen have also given me the same moments of "hmmm." I just finished a book about Hebrew in the Bible by Dr. Joel Hoffman, another by Dr. John Barbour about Deconversion. I also recently finished books by Dr. William Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, Dr. Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion, Dr. Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin, and a book by Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Giberson entitled, The Language of Science and Fath. I'm also nearly finished with Dr. Steven Pinker's Language Instinct and Dr. Dan Ariely's Perdictably Irrational. These books have all made me go "hmmm." Typically when I read anything new by an intelligent writer I learn new ways to analyze and think things through-- in ways that I hadn't thought of before. This excitement doesn't come (at least for me) just from aethisitc point of views (although, as I note above, I almost never fail to learn something new or too look at things from a different perspective even when reading the works of critics and atheists), but comes because I'm constantly looking for new ways to examine epistemology, the human brain, scientific issues, and religion. Personally I don't think the atheists have a monopoly on critical analysis, I think this comes from all deeply intelligent people.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree that I find many of their arguments fascinating but not necessarily because I've never been taught to analyze and think things through the way they do. Many of their arguments have given me new insights and views on topics I hadn't either thought of before, or hadn't thought of from their perspective before. I can say the same thing, however, when I've read things from a variety of other LDS and non-LDS scholars. Critics such as Vogel, Metcalfe, Chris Smith, Mike Reed, and many others have given me moments of pause and re-assessment. The writings of Nibley, Peterson, Ricks, Hamblin, and Royal Skousen have also given me the same moments of "hmmm." I just finished a book about Hebrew in the Bible by Dr. Joel Hoffman, another by Dr. John Barbour about Deconversion. I also recently finished books by Dr. William Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, Dr. Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion, Dr. Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin, and a book by Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Giberson entitled, The Language of Science and Fath. I'm also nearly finished with Dr. Steven Pinker's Language Instinct and Dr. Dan Ariely's Perdictably Irrational. These books have all made me go "hmmm." Typically when I read anything new by an intelligent writer I learn new ways to analyze and think things through-- in ways that I hadn't thought of before. This excitement doesn't come (at least for me) just from aethisitc point of views (although, as I note above, I almost never fail to learn something new or too look at things from a different perspective even when reading the works of critics and atheists), but comes because I'm constantly looking for new ways to examine epistemology, the human brain, scientific issues, and religion. Personally I don't think the atheists have a monopoly on critical analysis, I think this comes from all deeply intelligent people.

YES! HEAVENS YES!!!!!! A thousand million gajillion times YES!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly why I study all sides and views. THANK YOU for showing me I am not the only one who does, and who actually DOES take the other views seriously enough to learn from them and increase my knowledge. This is all I have ever really been doing now for decades.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Lets see...a definition of god....ummmm.....okay lets try this:

The Great Work of God

In April 1830, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and a handful of others gathered together to organize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was a simple meeting. How the heavens must have rejoiced and glorified God—for on that day, the Church of Jesus Christ returned to earth!

Since that day, millions have discovered the truth of the restored gospel and have entered the waters of baptism. I testify that this great work of God is on the earth today. I bear witness that the Lord watches over His Church and directs it through His prophet, Thomas S. Monson.

It is no ordinary blessing to live in these latter days. These are glorious times foreseen by ancient prophets and attended by watchful, angelic hosts. The Lord is mindful of His Church. He is also mindful of those who follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost and join with their brothers and sisters the world over in helping to bring forth this great work of God.

http://www.lds.org/f...g=eng&query=god

He seems rather tangible in many ways. I would suppose that god is the same as appeared to Joseph with his son. And my friend should be carrying out the great work of god. Are you?

I am not...but are you.....

LOL! Hold er newt..... what I meant was that some people define God in such broad terms that it is inevitable they will find him anywhere and everywhere, being essentially everything. Saying God is the ultimate, or God is our better nature or something like that or even God is the universe means we can make God have any meaning we want. That is honestly not very helpful. If you want to say God is energy, you can find God in a lump of coal. We need to begin in any investigation with a clear and unambiguous definition of terms, such as God. Yes? Soooooo, what is He/She/It? And from there we can examine if He/She/It makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

Knowing his arguments is not in the same category as refuting them though. And yes, I am more than positive I am well aware of every argument you will bring forth. See? This is the fun of dialogue, getting to know and learn things with one another. It just don't get better than that.

In fact you could just argue against Ostler if you like. There is one of your videos where you interviewed him at I think the FAIR conference and he talked about how our minds create reality by our brains organizing light waves entering our eyes and you acted as if it was a great idea and a revelation to you- blowing your mind if I remember correctly.

Frankly, I remember that because I have been using that analogy on this board for years and I got a tad miffed that now Ostler was using it. I am sure it was just coincidence though. He argued the point exactly as I have been doing.

If you really understood that point, that was basically all I was going to bring up. I am not sure how to find that video- but if you know which one I am talking about- just destroy his argument there and you will destroy mine as well.

He is a process theologian- and I also am from that school and that is the way that guys from that pov argue. The problem is, I would wager you cannot address his position adequately not because you are limited but because I think the position is unassailable.

[CASteinman]

he talked about how our minds create reality by our brains organizing light waves entering our eyes ...

The problem is, I would wager you cannot address his position adequately not because you are limited but because I think the position is unassailable.

I don't really understand what you are talking about here, because I have not followed the discussion. But it appears to me that there are a wide variety of problems with the notion that we create reality by organizing light -- not the least of which is "Where did the reality of the light come from?"

What is nature of the unassailable position you mention?

[ShawFanX]

Actually, it's not silly at all. Falling back on mere faith...

"Mere" faith?"

because there is no evidence,

What would count as "evidence" that the First Vision occurred?

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.

Yes, false religion has caved. The problem for science, when facing the cosmos, Kerry, is that the vast majority of that cosmos is beyond its perceptual field, and this is the case because the vast majority of the cosmos is beyond human perceptual capacity. Within its own preview, however, its been quite successful, narrow as that purview is.

Edited July 15, 2012 by ShawFanX

[Bill Hamblin]

This is the lowest and cheapest swipe unless you are willing to appear at Sunstone yourself. If invited, Bill, would you come present or sit on a panel at Sunstone? If your answer is no, than it is your fault the panel is not as diverse as you would like. I assure you that Sunstone would welcome your participation.

I've actually presented at Sunstone a couple of times in the past. How many times have I been invited to do so? Never. So how can this possibly be my fault if Sunstone has become a hotbed of apostasy and nincompoopery? (Which is not to say that everyone there is an apostate or nincompoop. Simply that apostates and nincompoops seem to be drawn to participate there for some reason. Perhaps because other venues have higher academic standards.)

[CASteinman]

I've actually presented at Sunstone a couple of times in the past. How many times have I been invited to do so? Never. So how can this possibly be my fault if Sunstone has become a hotbed of apostasy and nincompoopery? (Which is not to say that everyone there is an apostate or nincompoop. Simply that apostates and nincompoops seem to be drawn to participate there for some reason. Perhaps because other venues have higher academic standards.)

Did you, by chance, know Dan Rector?

[AdamFord]

I've actually presented at Sunstone a couple of times in the past. How many times have I been invited to do so? Never. So how can this possibly be my fault if Sunstone has become a hotbed of apostasy and nincompoopery? (Which is not to say that everyone there is an apostate or nincompoop. Simply that apostates and nincompoops seem to be drawn to participate there for some reason. Perhaps because other venues have higher academic standards.)

I'm glad to hear you have presented at Sunstone. I agree that it is too slanted in one direction and hope they can get more balance in the future. I'm sorry for accusing you (at least with my tone) unfairly.

[frederick44]

• "He is a process theologian- and I also am from that school and that is the way that guys from that pov argue. The problem is, I would wager you cannot address his position adequately not because you are limited but because I think the position is unassailable."
  

Blake is a lawyer and as such does not like to lose. I have heard several comments that he is somewhat arrogant. But then I like MSjacks comment that the more qualified LDS like to play with and demolish the arguments of us mere mortal exlds.

[Robert F. Smith]

• "He is a process theologian- and I also am from that school and that is the way that guys from that pov argue. The problem is, I would wager you cannot address his position adequately not because you are limited but because I think the position is unassailable."
  

Blake is a lawyer and as such does not like to lose. I have heard several comments that he is somewhat arrogant. But then I like MSjacks comment that the more qualified LDS like to play with and demolish the arguments of us mere mortal exlds.

Blake is a nice guy and he understands a good argument when he finds one. He is serious, not arrogant.

[Dan Vogel]

Chris, and now you, speak of such contradictions as though the matter of their presence is axiomatic. I say it's not self-evident to me, and I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject.

So if there's something I'm missing, let's hear it. No point in being coy.

I'm amazed that you don't see it. You must be really good at creating harmony and ad hoc explanations.

[why me]

Soooooo, what is He/She/It? And from there we can examine if He/She/It makes sense.

Well, Kerry, we are on a mormon forum, right? That would mean we give a mormon interpretation of what he is. Now if you think that she may be a she, then, you are not giving a mormon understanding of god. But you are giving a postmodern interpretation of god since you leave the definition of god to the individual. So, what is the mormon concept of god: man of flesh and bone and we are made in his image. And he is male. What do you think?

[why me]

Simply that apostates and nincompoops seem to be drawn to participate there for some reason. Perhaps because other venues have higher academic standards.)

This seems to be true. One reason for this is that apostacy is popular and newsworthy. And a crowd can always be had and money can be raised. To be on the fringe of the church or to be a critic of the church, or to be in apostacy seems to be hip these days.

[Dan Vogel]

To Robert F. Smith's excellent reply to this, I would add that the Joseph Smith--History account is ambiguous as to the timing of the family members joining the Presbyterian Church. It says that the family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith and that four of them joined the church. No time frame is given. It may have been that they were proselyted beginning in 1820 or before and didn't make the ultimate decision to join until later, after Alvin's death. That would still be consistent with Joseph's telling of the story.

There is enough ambiguity here that the charge of anachronism cannot be sustained, not without a more explicit time frame.

It says JS was at this time in his fifteenth year and the next sentence says his family became Presbyterians. How much clearer do you want it? Besides the same satement is made in the Messenger and Advocate for Dec. 1834 when JS helped Oliver Cowdery write his history--the revival, Rev. George Lane, Lucy and her children joining the Presbyterian Church--only this precedes the 1823 vision of Moroni.

You are trying too hard to create harmony. Sort of like Christians do for the New Testament. I have no doubt that if you are highly motivated to create harmony that you can--anyone can. The point is that JS was shifting his chronology to make a point with his audience. His questions about the true church likely date to 1824-25, and both the revival and the religious division in his family happened then, not in 1820--this is in harmony with the 1832 account.