James White On Mormonism

[MiserereNobis]

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Conclusively only to a (post-)modernist. There is a reason (and you and I will take the opposite side, of course) that Pope St. Pius X declared modernism to be the synthesis of all heresies.

I must admit that I truly do enjoy the fact that I have found you, mfb: a fairly die-hard Mormon post-modernist. For some reason (my ignorance, obviously), I didn't think I would uncover such a thing. Surprises always abound! Thanks for being you!

Clearly

On this board, at least

we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

Well, at least we've got more years than you... nany-nany-boo-boo

[MiserereNobis]

The statements above are far too brief to even come close to demonstrating that the LDS faith is clearly anything. You don't do justice to the Platonic tradition, totally overlook the Aristotelian and Scholastic tradition, and give a nonsensical account of Aristotelian "nature".

Indeed. The "modern" time period (1600-present) loved to discredit the past with straw men accounts of their philosophies. Calling the Middle Ages the "dark ages" is a clear example.

Edited October 30, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Vance]

Notice that your statement is one filled with temporal terms that cannot rightly be applied to a being outside of time.

The temporal is all we can know. Anything outside the temporal is purely speculation on our part.

Jesus has a body, but not quite like the body we have.

It is said to be of "flesh and bone", that is physical is it not?

I can't pass through solid structures.

Neither can you walk on water. So, what does this have to do with Jesus' body being physical?

As for emotions I am not sure how Christ experiences emotions.

Whether you know the "how" is irrelevant. Isn't it rather obvious that He DID experience emotions?

[Calm]

Conclusively only to a (post-)modernist. There is a reason (and you and I will take the opposite side, of course) that Pope St. Pius X declared modernism to be the synthesis of all heresies.

I must admit that I truly do enjoy the fact that I have found you, mfb: a fairly die-hard Mormon post-modernist. For some reason (my ignorance, obviously), I didn't think I would uncover such a thing. Surprises always abound! Thanks for being you!

On this board, at least

Well, at least we've got more years than you... nany-nany-boo-boo

Got to admit, your humour adds a nice spice to philosophical discussions usually missing on the board. Mfb tries hard, but if no one is willing to play, one sided humour gets old.

[mfbukowski]

Well, if you are a follower of Hume there isn't really any point in debating anything further, since we can't speak of connections or causes. I personally think Hume takes his skepticism to nonsensical lengths.

It's hardly that I am a "follower" of Hume.

It's just that most of the last 300 years of philosophy is based on Kant and Hume in some way or another. And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of.

Unfortunately we are not completely rid of them yet, though, obviously.

[mfbukowski]

Don't I? As an individual who was Mormon for 20+ years, studied under notable LDS scholars, and read various works by Nibley, Ostler, Givens, and the like I am curious as to where you see ignorances of my knowledge of the LDS faith.

I don't know how you could know those authors and not be aware of the common thread of Pragmatism found in their writings. Ostler is usually classified as a "process theologian" quite rightly, I think.

David Paulsen is quite fond of William James as are many other Mormon writers,

I know of no one who wants to go back to Protestant theology. What would be the point of the Restoration if we go back to thinking like Evangelicals?

And yes, the "Dark Ages" were rightly named. Astrology and Alchemy? After all, alchemy was based on the idea of "substance" and the notion that all one had to do is to change the "accidents" of lead into those of gold, and by retaining the metallic "substance", the converse of the way that transubstantiation changes the substance while retaining the accidents, you could change lead into gold. With gold at its present price- I think even Romney would invest in that if you can make it work

We moderns and post moderns believe in things like atomic number and electrons and all that silly stuff.

If that's heresy, I plead guilty. I am not exactly alone in my positions. I wish I thought this stuff up- but you give me too much credit.

Edit: How could I forget James Faulconer??

Edit: Oh yeah- Sterling Mc Murrin! He messed up on several points but he got it exactly right about Pragmatism and Mormonism.

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Mfb tries hard, but if no one is willing to play, one sided humour gets old.

Nobody wants to play with me! I have practically stopped posting!

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. The "modern" time period (1600-present) loved to discredit the past with straw men accounts of their philosophies. Calling the Middle Ages the "dark ages" is a clear example.

Next time you get sick- please don't call a physician from the 17th century, ok?

I like you too much! I know modern medicine is witchcraft, but heck, who wants a life span of 35 years?

[volgadon]

Nobody wants to play with me! I have practically stopped posting!

Perhaps you should take up sports.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps you should take up sports.

That thing cracks me up every time I see it!

[Seraphim32]

It's hardly that I am a "follower" of Hume.

It's just that most of the last 300 years of philosophy is based on Kant and Hume in some way or another. And yes, I think that just maybe it is not worth turning the clock back to 1600, especially when doing so would re-introduce all the errors of the past it has taken us 300 years to rid ourselves of.

Unfortunately we are not completely rid of them yet, though, obviously.

You seem to have fallen into the age-old trap of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be poor judgment to throw out pre-enlightenment philosophy simply because it happened to coincide with archaic practices in other fields. A philosophy should be scrutinized alone to determine its merit. I would love to hear more about the errors you speak of and how they can be attributed to Scholastic philosophy.

I don't know how you could know those authors and not be aware of the common thread of Pragmatism found in their writings. Ostler is usually classified as a "process theologian" quite rightly, I think.

David Paulsen is quite fond of William James as are many other Mormon writers,

I know of no one who wants to go back to Protestant theology. What would be the point of the Restoration if we go back to thinking like Evangelicals?

And yes, the "Dark Ages" were rightly named. Astrology and Alchemy? After all, alchemy was based on the idea of "substance" and the notion that all one had to do is to change the "accidents" of lead into those of gold, and by retaining the metallic "substance", the converse of the way that transubstantiation changes the substance while retaining the accidents, you could change lead into gold. With gold at its present price- I think even Romney would invest in that if you can make it work

We moderns and post moderns believe in things like atomic number and electrons and all that silly stuff.

If that's heresy, I plead guilty. I am not exactly alone in my positions. I wish I thought this stuff up- but you give me too much credit.

Edit: How could I forget James Faulconer??

Edit: Oh yeah- Sterling Mc Murrin! He messed up on several points but he got it exactly right about Pragmatism and Mormonism.

I still don't understand what led you to conclude that I have an ignorance of the LDS faith. I am well aware of the process theology underlying LDS theology.

This so-called dark age you speak of, was it a global phenomenon, and can it truly be attributed to the philosophy of the time? Further, even if it could be demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong about physics does that de facto mean he was wrong about everything else? Once again, I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and we should judge each idea individually. I could be completely correct in my theories about how cheetahs get their spots while being mistaken in my theories about astrophysics. Likewise, Aristotle could have simultaneously been a poor physicist while being a fantastic metaphysician.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a more focused discussion about the Scholastic tradition in a seperate thread. Would this be possible?

[volgadon]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a more focused discussion about the Scholastic tradition in a seperate thread. Would this be possible?

Shall I open one for you?

[Seraphim32]

Shall I open one for you?

Please, and thank you, friend

[volgadon]

Please, and thank you, friend

Opened. I'll now copy the various, relevant posts. After I'm done, we can carry on forward.

[volgadon]

Here you go. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59269-between-scholastics-and-pragmatists-the-mddb-philosophy-debate/

[mfbukowski]

You seem to have fallen into the age-old trap of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be poor judgment to throw out pre-enlightenment philosophy simply because it happened to coincide with archaic practices in other fields. A philosophy should be scrutinized alone to determine its merit. I would love to hear more about the errors you speak of and how they can be attributed to Scholastic philosophy.

Just so you know, I was raised Catholic and am pretty familiar with scholastic philosophy.

The errors I speak of are called "The History of Philosophy". In case you hadn't noticed, only Catholics do Scholastic philosophy nowadays. There is a reason for that.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a more focused discussion about the Scholastic tradition in a seperate thread. Would this be possible?

Holy cow.

If you really want to rehash the history of philosophy I suppose we could do it, but why? It has already been done by minds far better than either of ours. I discussed this with Miserere Nobis and we decided it probably was not worth the time and effort.

Honestly, I don't think you really want to do that. The Correspondence Theory of Truth alone is a huge problem and then you have the whole substance and essence problem- explaining what an "essence" is and how such a thing exists outside of language.

The real problem is that Scholasticism does not have an adequate understanding of the philosophy of language. Truth is a property of sentences not of "reality" whatever that is. It is not possible to get past appearances to anything beyond- as Nietzsche I think correctly understood. There are no facts, just interpretations. There is no truth beyond true statements and those are always of course based on contingent linguistic uses.

THAT is the central insight of post-enlightenment philosophy and I think it is pretty much past debate unless you want to NOT use words in the debate. And that makes a debate a little hard.

[mfbukowski]

Further, even if it could be demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong about physics does that de facto mean he was wrong about everything else?

No, his philosophy was wrong all on its own.

Don't get me wrong- he was obviously one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He just didn't have 2000 years of competing incredible thinkers available to stand on their shoulders. Instead, unfortunately, he was one of the first.

I would love to hear what he would have to say about Wittgenstein!

[mfbukowski]

Opened. I'll now copy the various, relevant posts. After I'm done, we can carry on forward.

Just found this.

OK with me but this has been done before. Get out your Father Copelston.

[Robert F. Smith]

What is troubling to me is that too many are relying on scholars to define the church rather than the General Authorities and personal revelation.

I understand how you feel, but I think that you are confusing the intellectual debate with the pastoral function of the Brethren. The two are quite different. As for personal revelation, I doubt that James White and his friends are very much interested in seeking it.

See Ara Norwood's excellent review of one of James White's books online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=1&id=379 .

[Robert F. Smith]

By understanding God to be an idealized, glorified, perfected Man, Mormonism solves the problem which has played out over 2,000 years of theology- the problem of transcendence vs immanence.

If God is transcendent, essentially a Platonic Form of Goodness, he cannot be involved with lowly humans and be our Father and hear and answer prayers.

On the other hand, if he is immanent, it was believed that he could not be omniscient and omnipotent. So the whole thing was solved by giving Him two "natures" that of God and that of Man- represented in the dual natures of Jesus.

But that really just defines away the difference by giving the word "nature" some magic ability to create an imaginary difference.

What is the nature of man? To be manly.

What is the nature of God? To be Godly

What is the nature of a dog? To be a dog. What is explained by the word "nature"? Nothing! It is like saying that a sleeping pill works by its ability to induce sleep. A sleeping pill's nature is that it induces sleep.

That explains nothing!

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Yet the Mormon explanation goes back to the Biblical roots of the Council of the Gods, discussed much on this forum.

Clearly we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

Brilliant summation, Mark!!

[Vance]

I understand how you feel, but I think that you are confusing the intellectual debate with the pastoral function of the Brethren. The two are quite different. As for personal revelation, I doubt that James White and his friends are very much interested in seeking it.

See Ara Norwood's excellent review of one of James White's books online at http://maxwellinstit...13&num=1&id=379 .

Ah yes, White does a classic anti-Mormonism.

"(W)hatever the image of God is (in other words, White doesn't know), it separates man from the rest of creation, for only man has this image. . . .So the idea that the image has to do with corporeality, hence making God and exalted man, is without basis . . ."

Or, in other words, "I don't know what ________ means, but Mormons are WRONG!!!!"

LOL!!!!!!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

Brilliant summation, Mark!!

Thanks!