Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth:

I've responded to something relatively substantive from wayfarer, and to a couple of comments from his supporters, on my blog, at

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/01/sorry-but-i-wont-permit-myself-to-be-set-up-like-this.html

(My remarks are mainly to be found in the "comments").

I can't imagine that there are very many here who're pining away for the now-closed "'Middle Way' or 'New Order' Mormons" thread such that they'll now rush breathlessly over there to see the latest, but there were a few things that I wanted to make clear, if only for the public record.

[CV75]

For what it's worth:

I've responded to something relatively substantive from wayfarer, and to a couple of comments from his supporters, on my blog, at

http://www.patheos.c...-like-this.html

(My remarks are mainly to be found in the "comments").

I can't imagine that there are very many here who're pining away for the now-closed "'Middle Way' or 'New Order' Mormons" thread such that they'll now rush breathlessly over there to see the latest, but there were a few things that I wanted to make clear, if only for the public record.

Hi Dan, I can't seem to follow the conversation on your blog/comments site very well. Would you mind summarizing 2 things for me:

1.The substantive comment you were responding to;

2. Your response to it

Thank you!

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't imagine that the moderators here are eager for me to open up a new back-and-forth with wayfarer, let alone with his fellow-travellers, on this board. And I don't blame them. I hesitate even to open my blog up to the nonsense that is very likely to ensue, and, if it gets very bad at all, will certainly shut things down.

I don't understand what you would be having difficulty with. Can you not access the blog or open the comments?

My substantive response -- it's not deep substance, of course, but relatively speaking, it's substantial -- is entirely contained, thus far, within a single comment following my blog entry. I quote wayfarer's remarks and respond to them.

[Bullfighter]

Dr. Peterson, I've no skin in this game but I have followed the posts with some interest. I think both Wayfarer and yourself have good intents but some sharp comments have derailed the discussion. I could be wrong but it appears to me that Wayfarer is trying to defend some of our MW or NOM brothers and sisters who he believes are characterized wholesale by Dr. Midgley's article as anti-christs, non-believers in God, and ridiculers of the atonement. I think it's fair to say that such characterization was not intended but the article's abstract I think does not make that entirely clear. A clarification (which may have already been attempted) may help and prevent the misunderstandings by local leaders about which Wayfarer has expressed concern.

Meanwhile, I think Dr. Midgley sees the abstract more as a definition of a subset within those who ask "why stay?" with the anti-christ characteristics of disbelieving in God or Christ but perhaps more importantly ridiculing the atonement. I don't believe that it is too unfair to apply anti-christ to one who would ridicule Christ's main work. Again, I may be wrong, but it seems that Dr. Peterson too takes this view of the sentences in question. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

The overall tone of the discussion, in my view has been distressing. I'll just leave this quote here:

"Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.” - President James E. Faust

Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/the-great-imitator?lang=eng

Please don't take this as judgment or censure, I have read much from both sides and respect you both.

Be gentle, I'm new around here.

[wayfarer]

Dan,

Thanks for your response. I don't seem to be able to respond directly to your blog, but I would if I could. Perhaps, if you're willing, I can link up with your Patheos admin and see what is going on -- I'm clearly posting, but apparently my posts go to the bit-bucket.

to my response...

First, I want to make clear that we need to close down the contention that has characterized the former thread. It brought out the worst in both of us (my opinion), so I'm vacating that discussion, and will not return to that dark side again.

now...really to my response...

You are correct in stating that my use of terms, at times, tends to obscure the discourse. There is a technical aspect to my use of the terms. In epistemology, one definition of "knowledge" is "Justified True Belief", thus as we assert, in testimony, that we "know" something, we tend to mean that we believe, with spiritual justification, that X is 'true', and are at least in some ways correct in saying "I know X".

The problem comes when X is an aggregate belief. For example, let's say that X is every possible claim about the Book of Mormon -- that it is a 'True History' of the 'native americans' -- that the Lamanites are the "Principal Ancestors" of the "native americans" - "in this country". When I read the Book of Mormon, finally, for the first time after arriving at BYU, and since I had a goal, I did it in 36 straight hours before riding my bike up to attend all seven sessions of GC in those days...I *knew* that the book of mormon was true -- every sentence, every verse. It was *all*. When I went on my mission, I *knew* that the native americans I taught in south america were "Lamanites". As well, when I had to teach blacks on my mission why they could be baptized but could never be full priesthood-holding/temple attending members, I studied and prayed, and I *knew* that there was a divine reason, most likely coming from pre-mortal existence...because I *knew* this came from the Book of Abraham, a book I *knew* was translated from authentic writing of Abraham.

Let x, y, and z be subclaims within X. When I prayed about the book of mormon, I got a confirmation of x -- that the book of mormon is divinely inspired, and therefore I inductively imputed that X, the whole banana, is indeed true and historical. Later, like most of us here, I learned that "y" -- the claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the (USA) native americans, and "z" that blacks couldn't have the priesthood (blackness was a cursing in the Book of Mormon, and coupled with the Book of Abraham, it seemed clear that there was some sort of cursing due to something associated from the pre-mortal existence) were not valid claims. They are not 'true', at least in a literal, aggregate sense as we thought we understood them. What then do we do with the aggregate claim "X"?

I think a lot of people in the "Middle Way" --- or for discussion's sake, whatever we want to call the place where people don't believe the whole banana --- we struggle with this all or nothing proposition -- we listen to Tad Callister's talk, or Gordon B Hinckley's "Loyalty" talk, and here, clearly, "there is no middle ground" -- it's either all true or "biggest fraud in history". How do we deal with that?

One approach is to find some way that it still can be "all true", even if highly unlikely. For example, as anachronisms and DNA evidence, along with geography features -- progressively create a smaller and smaller physical space in which the Nephites and Lamanites could have lived -- Yup, I will acknowledge it is "possible" that there was indeed a physical Nephite/Lamanite population -- but it's getting to the point that such a thing stretches one's mind and credibility. Let's not deviate and debate this point -- Let's just say, for the sake of this discussion that this is a difficult path for a lot of people to accept. I, personally, will grant it is possible.

Another approach is to evaluate what the subclaims are, and to test each one, as Alma 32 advises. Lo! we get specialized definition of "Faith" in Alma 32:21

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

This definition makes faith a thing different than belief in a couple of ways, and doesn't employ, at least in this verse, the term 'belief':

1. It is not "knowledge" -- I know it says "perfect knowledge", but let's say that it specifically distinguishes itself from "knowledge" and since "knowledge" is justified true belief, I would like to separate it -- perhaps as a stretch, and bear with me for a moment -- from "belief".

2. It uses a relationship between the person and the thing on which one has faith: here, he uses "hope". We can also use terms like "agreement", "acceptance", and "trust", with what, in our praxis, we believe that faith must also involve willingness to act.

3. The target of our faith must be a thing that is true. Now, we don't know if it's true, so the more accurate statement here is that the target of our "faith" must be "not false".

This is why I impute, with Alma's support, a specialized definition of "faith" that does not involve belief, but rather, rests in the land of "I don't know". In addition, faith is at least this: it is something I hope for, agree to teach, accept, trust, and am willing to act upon, that is "not false'. This is why I said that faith recognizes the difference between knowing and not knowing -- something you legitimately objected to due to normal english usage. I understand, but I see this distinction as being helpful to maintain faith when our beliefs are challenged.

As I see it, therefore, Alma describes faith as a Middle Way between belief and disbelief. Unlike skeptics who "cast things out by their disbelief", Alma suggests an optimistic approach -- a "desire to believe"/faith, with an implicit recognition that you don't know -- and then to test the belief out to see if it edifies. This gets to the heart of the NOM/exmo/atheist argument -- when they choose the "all or nothing" binary proposition, they embrace -- indeed "require" -- the idea that "critical thinking" requires "evidence", and with no evidence, one should not believe. I say, "let's set aside belief for a moment: your approach is to "disbelieve" when you have no evidence -- my approach is to be curious, and to test it out, and if I don't know, I can and will have faith in something, provided it edifies."

wayfarer: “I hold this position because by not anchoring on the literal, my faith can withstanding the knowledge, for example, that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Papyrus as Joseph Smith claimed, or that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history of the native americans as a whole as prophets have claimed up until recently.”

Dan: This is where you begin to lose me.

Here is what I mean:

As we test our faith, and once we determine that something 'edifies', Alma warns us NOT to set aside the middle way of faith -- we're not done -- we've only proved one specific thing. In the case of the Book of Mormon, when I read, pray, and get a witness, the specific thing that the witness testifies to me is that it is "True" in a normative (meaning it's worthy of action) and valuative (meaning it is precious/delicious) sense of "Truth". Such a witness cannot typically serve as evidence of an empirical claim, although most LDS do. I believe Alma is encouraging us to continue the path, to continue testing, and to be cautious about our claims. Essentially, Alma is telling us to disaggregate truth claims -- to test each thing. And in so doing, if we find that a given widely-held belief is false -- for example, that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors" of the USA native americans, then we can cast aside that belief without harming the rest of our Faith architecture.

wayfarer: “To be specific, I do not know that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead — I neither believe it nor disbelieve it”

Dan: Again, your use of the verb “to believe” here seems very idiosyncratic.

This is a much deeper issue. I know what we teach, and fully and completely accept the literal resurrection of Christ as what we teach. Further, I really do *believe* (in a justified way) that I have a deep and personal relationship with Jesus. He lives. But when I look at it *reasonably*, as in, can I swear in a court case that I have tangible evidence of the resurrection? Am I sure that the writers of ancient books actually got it right and didn't have some other agenda? No. Reason cannot prove the resurrection -- it is fully unknowable. That's why I said I neither believe it or disbelieve, but I sure as hell (literally) hope for it and try my best to live my life as if it is true. That's where I think "Faith" materially differs from belief.

I hope this has been helpful. Comment away as you see fit.

Edited January 5, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

Dr. Peterson, I've no skin in this game but I have followed the posts with some interest. I think both Wayfarer and yourself have good intents but some sharp comments have derailed the discussion. I could be wrong but it appears to me that Wayfarer is trying to defend some of our MW or NOM brothers and sisters who he believes are characterized wholesale by Dr. Midgley's article as anti-christs, non-believers in God, and ridiculers of the atonement. I think it's fair to say that such characterization was not intended but the article's abstract I think does not make that entirely clear. A clarification (which may have already been attempted) may help and prevent the misunderstandings by local leaders about which Wayfarer has expressed concern.

Meanwhile, I think Dr. Midgley sees the abstract more as a definition of a subset within those who ask "why stay?" with the anti-christ characteristics of disbelieving in God or Christ but perhaps more importantly ridiculing the atonement. I don't believe that it is too unfair to apply anti-christ to one who would ridicule Christ's main work. Again, I may be wrong, but it seems that Dr. Peterson too takes this view of the sentences in question. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

The overall tone of the discussion, in my view has been distressing. I'll just leave this quote here:

"Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.” - President James E. Faust

Source: https://www.lds.org/...itator?lang=eng

Please don't take this as judgment or censure, I have read much from both sides and respect you both.

Be gentle, I'm new around here.

Welcome, and thanks for the comment. I recommend that we focus on Dan's reponse to my post, and the comments about faith, belief, knowledge, and the like, and nothing associated with the former dialog.

thanks.

[why me]

The overall tone of the discussion, in my view has been distressing. I'll just leave this quote here:

"Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.” - President James E. Faust

Source: https://www.lds.org/...itator?lang=eng

Please don't take this as judgment or censure, I have read much from both sides and respect you both.

Be gentle, I'm new around here.

I always find it amazing when someone quotes a GA about manners etc. Unfortunately, this doesn't need to apply to exmormons who mock, bash or attempt to shame members. And in return the member should be calm, gentle and christlike. I do believe that Joseph Smith set a good example in how to deal with former members or with members who were constantly finding fault with the church. He challenged them and showed some strong emotion in defending himself and the lds church.

[why me]

I think a lot of people in the "Middle Way" --- or for discussion's sake, whatever we want to call the place where people don't believe the whole banana --- we struggle with this all or nothing proposition -- we listen to Tad Callister's talk, or Gordon B Hinckley's "Loyalty" talk, and here, clearly, "there is no middle ground" -- it's either all true or "biggest fraud in history". How do we deal with that?

It is either true or the biggest fraud in history. There is no middle way. Mormonism is not set up to accept a middle between these two extremes. That is just the way it is. Now a person can choose to live a middle way. Do this but don't do that etc. But either the church is what it claims to be or it is a fraud. No middle way or third way is possible.

[wayfarer]

It is either true or the biggest fraud in history. There is no middle way. Mormonism is not set up to accept a middle between these two extremes. That is just the way it is. Now a person can choose to live a middle way. Do this but don't do that etc. But either the church is what it claims to be or it is a fraud. No middle way or third way is possible.

With respect, did you even read my post? You jumped on something without seeming to give consideration to the rest. The post specifically addressed this issue.

[why me]

Here is what I mean:

As we test our faith, and once we determine that something 'edifies', Alma warns us NOT to set aside the middle way of faith -- we're not done -- we've only proved one specific thing. In the case of the Book of Mormon, when I read, pray, and get a witness, the specific thing that the witness testifies to me is that it is "True" in a normative (meaning it's worthy of action) and valuative (meaning it is precious/delicious) sense of "Truth". Such a witness cannot typically serve as evidence of an empirical claim, although most LDS do. I believe Alma is encouraging us to continue the path, to continue testing, and to be cautious about our claims. Essentially, Alma is telling us to disaggregate truth claims -- to test each thing. And in so doing, if we find that a given widely-held belief is false -- for example, that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors" of the USA native americans, then we can cast aside that belief without harming the rest of our Faith architecture.

However, this may not have anything to do with the experience what Joseph Smith had. Either he had the experience or he lied. No middle way is possible. Now once we have the foundation that his claim is true, we can question other less important aspects of the lds church: are the lamanites the prinicple ancestors of the lamanites as written by McConkie in the Introduction.

For alma, he is dealing with the belief in god and not in the lds church. One can find a testing means for belief in god and attempt a middle way in that faith. But for the lds church, either Joseph had that experience or he didn't. No middle way. The new testament stresses less a belief on evidence and more of faith based on lack of evidence. It talks about the holy ghost testifying of those things that are good and faith should be based on this. When one prays about the book of mormon and received a positive witness to the truth claim, that is evidence that god lives and that the book is true.

[why me]

With respect, did you even read my post? You jumped on something without seeming to give consideration to the rest. The post specifically addressed this issue.

I am taking your written post one step at a time and responding accordingly.

[wayfarer]

@why me: Can all four of these truth claims be true at the same time?

1. God Lives

2. The LDS Church is True

3. Joseph Smith was a Prophet

4. Joseph Smith lied.

[why me]

This is a much deeper issue. I know what we teach, and fully and completely accept the literal resurrection of Christ as what we teach. Further, I really do *believe* (in a justified way) that I have a deep and personal relationship with Jesus. He lives. But when I look at it *reasonably*, as in, can I swear in a court case that I have tangible evidence of the resurrection? Am I sure that the writers of ancient books actually got it right and didn't have some other agenda? No. Reason cannot prove the resurrection -- it is fully unknowable. That's why I said I neither believe it or disbelieve, but I sure as hell (literally) hope for it and try my best to live my life as if it is true. That's where I think "Faith" materially differs from belief.

I hope this has been helpful. Comment away as you see fit.

And yet, we have no evidence for the resurrected Christ, nor that christ was crucified. It takes faith. What you are doing in your questioning process will always lead to doubt and yet hope that it is all true. But faith is more than hope. There is also a knowing based on testimony that came from the holy ghost. I don't see any such philosophical understanding in Paul as you have done.

[why me]

@why me: Can all four of these truth claims be true at the same time?

1. God Lives

2. The LDS Church is True

3. Joseph Smith was a Prophet

4. Joseph Smith lied.

Yes. Joseph lied. But if he lied about his first vision, and the book of mormon than number two is false as is number 3.

Edited January 5, 2013 by why me

[wayfarer]

And yet, we have no evidence for the resurrected Christ, nor that christ was crucified. It takes faith. What you are doing in your questioning process will always lead to doubt and yet hope that it is all true. But faith is more than hope. There is also a knowing based on testimony that came from the holy ghost. I don't see any such philosophical understanding in Paul as you have done.

Once I recognize that it is an unknowable, the 'debate' is over. It's a faith issue. I do not doubt that Jesus resurrected from the dead. My doubt, belief, or disbelief is immaterial. Paul says "faith" is a type of evidence of 'things unseen', aka, the unknowable. Therefore faith is sufficient and complete for positing the unknowable -- my approach leads only to faith, which involves hope and action. That's it.

[wayfarer]

Yes. Joseph lied. But if he lied about his first vision, and the book of mormon than number two is false as is number 3.

Rhetorically, were I to ask:

1. Prove to me that the First Vision is true.

2. Prove to me that the First Vision is false.

You would be able to do neither. It is completely unknowable. Therefore, since I don't know, belief, doubt, and disbelief are immaterial. If we have faith, we hope for it, we accept it, we teach it, we trust it, and we act upon it, but since we don't know (faith is not perfect knowledge), we acknowledge we don't know.

here is where this applies: we don't know if this was a physical event. Some people claim it was, it was certainly a manifest personal spiritual vision. But the exact details vary from account to account, and because it's all in the faith category, who cares? It's something we don't have a perfect knowledge about. Hence, we accept in faith that the first vision happened, and cease to argue about specific details, nor do we require someone to profess 'belief'/'knowledge' in such an event. That a person 'believes' it, and even convinces him/herself that s/he knows it but does nothing, is not superior to the person who knows that s/he doesn't know, yet, fully accepts, agrees, hopes for, teaches and acts on it.

Edited January 5, 2013 by wayfarer

[Sky]

As we test our faith, and once we determine that something 'edifies', Alma warns us NOT to set aside the middle way of faith -- we're not done -- we've only proved one specific thing. In the case of the Book of Mormon, when I read, pray, and get a witness, the specific thing that the witness testifies to me is that it is "True" in a normative (meaning it's worthy of action) and valuative (meaning it is precious/delicious) sense of "Truth". Such a witness cannot typically serve as evidence of an empirical claim, although most LDS do. I believe Alma is encouraging us to continue the path, to continue testing, and to be cautious about our claims. Essentially, Alma is telling us to disaggregate truth claims -- to test each thing. And in so doing, if we find that a given widely-held belief is false -- for example, that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors" of the USA native americans, then we can cast aside that belief without harming the rest of our Faith architecture.

If you don't believe that the Book of Mormon was historical, then Alma couldn't have been a real person. If none of the characters in the Book of Mormon were real people, then why bother building my life around a work of fiction, even though it might have allegorical value? If the people and events described in the Book of Mormon never actually existed or happened, then the book holds no more value to me than The Chronicles of Narnia.

And regarding "principle ancestors" - I believe the wording has changed to "among the ancestors of the American indians." That may seem small, but it is an important distinction. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was never considered scriptural.

[why me]

Rhetorically, were I to ask:

1. Prove to me that the First Vision is true.

2. Prove to me that the First Vision is false.

You would be able to do neither. It is completely unknowable. Therefore, since I don't know, belief, doubt, and disbelief are immaterial. If we have faith, we hope for it, we accept it, we teach it, we trust it, and we act upon it, but since we don't know (faith is not perfect knowledge), we acknowledge we don't know.

If the first vision is false, then martin, david and oliver lied. They never saw a vision of an angel with the plates. The 11 witnesses give credence for the first vision. But since you and I were not there, we need faith that they told the truth in their statement and on their deathbeds.

[mfbukowski]

@why me: Can all four of these truth claims be true at the same time?

1. God Lives

2. The LDS Church is True

3. Joseph Smith was a Prophet

4. Joseph Smith lied.

Just answering this logically, of course they can all be true at the same time.

The truth of every statement Joseph ever spoke and the truth of the "church" are obviously two different things. The church doctrine could be "true" (regardless of what that means- that is another issue entirely) and even Joseph's statements of doctrine could be "false"- the doctrine could be disputed or adjusted, or no longer taken as doctrine. The King Follette discourse is a prime example

This whole discussion shows an alarming simplicity in understanding what the word "true" has been taken to mean in various contexts.

Edited January 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

If you don't believe that the Book of Mormon was historical, then Alma couldn't have been a real person. If none of the characters in the Book of Mormon were real people, then why bother building my life around a work of fiction, even though it might have allegorical value? If the people and events described in the Book of Mormon never actually existed or happened, then the book holds no more value to me than The Chronicles of Narnia.

And regarding "principle ancestors" - I believe the wording has changed to "among the ancestors of the American indians." That may seem small, but it is an important distinction. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was never considered scriptural.

Does it matter if Alma existed? If Joseph Smith was a prophet and his words are in Alma 32, I accept them as prophetic, relevant, normative, and valuable to me. I accept the Book of Mormon as the word of god. I don't accept the Chronicles of Narnia as the word of god in the same way. One is scripture, one is not. that's the difference. Whether Alma existed or not, I neither believe nor disbelieve, nor do I doubt he lived. It's immaterial to my faith.

[Sky]

Once I recognize that it is an unknowable, the 'debate' is over. It's a faith issue. I do not doubt that Jesus resurrected from the dead. My doubt, belief, or disbelief is immaterial. Paul says "faith" is a type of evidence of 'things unseen', aka, the unknowable. Therefore faith is sufficient and complete for positing the unknowable -- my approach leads only to faith, which involves hope and action. That's it.

But some privileged few have seen, Joseph Smith being among them. Thank goodness.

D&C 76: 23-24:

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

There is no "middle ground" there.

[wayfarer]

Just answering this logically, of course they can all be true at the same time.

The truth of every statement Joseph ever spoke and the truth of the "church" are obviously two different things. The church doctrine could be "true" (regardless of what that means- that is another issue entirely) and even Joseph's statements of doctrine could be "false"- the doctrine could be disputed or adjusted, or no longer taken as doctrine. The King Follette discourse is a prime example

This whole discussion shows an alarming simplicity in understanding what the word "true" has been taken to mean in various contexts.

Correct. Normatively "True" means that this provides a basis for living that is reliable and effective for me. Valuatively "True" means that I find it delicious to me. Empirically "true" means that said event actually happened and can be empirically verified with evidence.

Historical events may be empirically true but without evidence there is no empirical proof. Therefore, they are 'unknowable. I am suggesting that Alma asks us to test things we hold in faith, and implicitly, there will be a LOT of things that are 'unknowable'. He suggests that in faith, we don't cast these out by our unbelief, but there is no requirement in 'faith' to believe a supposed empirical claim if we already accept the normative value thereof as 'true' for us, and act on it.

[wayfarer]

But some privileged few have seen, Joseph Smith being among them. Thank goodness.

D&C 76: 23-24:

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

There is no "middle ground" there.

I completely accept the account. But from an epistemological point of view, I need to ask a few questions:

1. Do you know this happened?

2. Do you have evidence that it happened?

3. Is the evidence so sure that you can assert Justified True Belief on this?

4. Is it not possible that they were deceiving us?

5. Or...that this was a vision with 'spiritual eyes' that was in no way physical.

6. How does the claim "that by him, through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created" get asserted by virtue of seeing Jesus on the right hand of god?

While we can assert these claims in faith, we must also recognize that such claims are empirically unprovable. Alma's middle way is that we do not cast these things out by our disbelief, but rather, continue to have faith until we ourselves, see for ourselves, the face of god and jesus at his right hand. Until then, we do not know -- we do not have perfect knowledge, and we must remain firmly in the middle-way of faith.

[mfbukowski]

3. The target of our faith must be a thing that is true. Now, we don't know if it's true, so the more accurate statement here is that the target of our "faith" must be "not false".

What kind of "things" are true? Let me suggest that no-thing is true, but propositions may be true or false.

"I know the church is true" is not speaking about a "thing"- because things- churches- are not true or false. If one is checking a wall to see if it is "true" with a plumb-bob for example, that might be an exception because "true" has many meanings and being "square" is one of them.

But obviously we are talking about a complex set of beliefs and a bundle of propositions with very vague boundaries when we say that we "know the church is true".

Yet we understand perfectly what that sentence means. In the most general terms, it means that one has a certainty that following the path of what the church teaches will lead one to a knowledge of God better than other paths to God, and that this bundle of beliefs have given your life meaning and happiness. It also means a lot more and its meaning varies enormously.

But attempting to put some kind of positivistic definition to this sort of statement is to distort is true meaning beyond what the needs of communication would dictate. Defining it as you attempt is to rip it from its context and therefore destroy its meaning in attempting to deconstruct it.

It's like attempting to describe the beating heart of a frog by first tearing out the frog's heart and then complaining that you can't observe it beating.

That methodology will never work. Positivism will never teach you anything about natural languages and their use!

[Sky]

Does it matter if Alma existed? If Joseph Smith was a prophet and his words are in Alma 32, I accept them as prophetic, relevant, normative, and valuable to me. I accept the Book of Mormon as the word of god. I don't accept the Chronicles of Narnia as the word of god in the same way. One is scripture, one is not. that's the difference. Whether Alma existed or not, I neither believe nor disbelieve, nor do I doubt he lived. It's immaterial to my faith.

Well, I think it matters a great deal whether Alma existed or not. You say that you neither believe nor disbelieve, nor do you doubt that he lived. But that doesn't really make a lot sense to me. It's a convoluted statement. I still see no good reason to build my life around the words of a fictional character.