Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[CV75]

Wayfarer, since I jumped ahead to the last post on this thread, where you are quoted as saying/asking: "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?"

I quickly looked up the talk, where he says, "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

Each of us (and I take this to mean all the children of God) faces the matter, not our own knowledge of the Church being true. The matter is addressed through our questions and seeking, not pre-digested answers. This leaves plenty of room for finding out all along the spectrum from hearing the truth to a desire to believe it to faith and on to knowledge.

The matter at hand on this subject is, whatever the Church is (meaning what we believe, think, hope or know it is--correctly or not), it is either the kingdom of God or a fraud/nothing. This is the best first question. Once that is answered, we get into the other concerns such as, "If (or rather, since) it is the kingdom of God, then why...?"

Edited January 6, 2013 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

*I* am not. we are completely in sync here, but for the life of me you seem to indicate that we disagree.

I am a True Believing Mormon. We disagree on pretty subtle issues only, I agree.

So why do you consider yourself "middle way"??

Why do you feel you need to designate yourself any way other than TBM? THAT is the only issue here that I can see.

I say the church is true and you quibble about what that means. I say the quibbling is just that and doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Then you agree with me.

So what is all this middle way stuff? Why voluntarily separate yourself from the mainstream church?

[rongo]

In my professional area, formal epistemology gives way to practical epistemology

I and mfbukowski have both asked you what a "professional ontologist" is. What do you do for work (as you keep bringing this up as evidence of your precision with language)?

I have to admit I have no idea what a "professional ontologist" is, or could be.

Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

2. i relate and identify with the middle way community because I have been there, and thus I use identifiers that often cause confusion to other believers that value literal belief.

Why do you do that? Pardon me for being direct, but I have seen others do that to maintain a sense of intellectual "superiority" (not saying that is your reason) when all it does in fact is create division?

We all have our own personal understandings of these things, and the objective, I think, should be unity rather that elitism.

For all I know the literal interpretation is just as "true" as any- I just personally have a problem seeing it literally. But as with everything else, "all" I have to go on is my personal subjective opinions.

For all I know God most certainly could have created the world in six days or six minutes- or six billion or sixty billion years and who am I to say otherwise? All I can know for certain is what I personally have experienced and I wasn't quite around when all that happened.

[mfbukowski]

We routinely say that we "know" things -- including very ordinary things -- that, strictly speaking, we can't prove. I know, for example, that I saw Sandy Koufax pitch his first no-hitter for the Dodgers. Can I prove it at this remove in time? No. I have no ticket stubs, my dad, my mother, and my brother are dead, etc. We also "know" things for which the evidence, while strong, isn't absolutely conclusive in any strictly logical sense. We "know," for example, that, if we step off a thousand foot cliff, we will fall to our deaths. And yet maybe we won't. Weird things happen. We "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen for the past several billion mornings. But this knowledge is not logically ironclad.

That's exactly the crux of the issue. We say we "know" all kinds of things which we cannot prove, and indeed we are right to do so. That is perfectly correct usage.

Your example of something in our memory is an excellent analogy as well for spiritual experience. We know it happened, we were there and it is/was as "real" as anything which happened ever in our lives. We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about what happened but we cannot "prove" it to anyone else.

Is that in instance of "knowledge" even though we have no evidence? Of course!

[mfbukowski]

I and mfbukowski have both asked you what a "professional ontologist" is. What do you do for work (as you keep bringing this up as evidence of your precision with language)?

I have to admit I have no idea what a "professional ontologist" is, or could be.

Thanks!

In fairness, I should say that wayfarer answered this to my satisfaction in a pm, which of course I am not going to reveal because it contained some private information about his employment.

All I will say is that in his employment determining "what really happened" is of paramount concern, and on reflecting on that I think that though the characterization as a "professional ontologist" is a little eccentric perhaps it is not an inaccurate statement.

[rongo]

In fairness, I should say that wayfarer answered this to my satisfaction in a pm, which of course I am not going to reveal because it contained some private information about his employment.

All I will say is that in his employment determining "what really happened" is of paramount concern, and on reflecting on that I think that though the characterization as a "professional ontologist" is a little eccentric perhaps it is not an inaccurate statement.

Good enough for me. I just was really trying to figure out what in the world that could even mean.

[mfbukowski]

You know sometimes I think my positions on issues confuse people and maybe I should clarify what it is that I think I do and am pretty good at.

I think what I do is come up with alternative explanations for phenomena which in my opinion can be seen as harmonizing TBM Mormonism with other views be they scientific, historical, or philosophical

These explanations are not necessarily "true" or might be according to how one wants to see it.

So when I criticize literalists it is not that I am saying they are "wrong", just that they are not seeing that there are multiple explanations for every position imaginable and have had some training in seeing other ways of seeing these issues.

I have been obsessed with the question "How do you KNOW that" for my entire life and have been able to dream up many possible answers and come to many possible conclusions. But I would say that all I really "know" is what I am certain about for myself- and honestly, that is a pretty small set of propositions, but included in that set are all the propositions necessary to identify as True Believing Mormon.

Convincing others of that though, has its problems.

But that is what the Holy Ghost is for!

[why me]

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.

Joseph can only be a prophet because he was chosen to be a prophet based on the work he needed to do: to bring about the book of mormon and lead the new church of christ. But if he wrote the book of mormon, he is not a prophet but a fraudster. There is no middle ground. Either the book is what it claims to be or it isn't. Either alma was on plates with the appearance of gold or it wasn't.

[why me]

As an imperfect comparison, do you find value in Christ's parables? Does it matter if the characters in them actually existed? Or if they were recorded precisely as Jesus actually gave them? I think many scriptural teachings and stories have value independent of their historicity.

I think that most would consider the parables, stories with a teaching component in them. However, with the book of mormon we have a book which is claimed to come from plates and translated by Joseph Smith. We have 3 witnesses that testified that they saw the plates and an angel. And we have 11 witnesses who claimed that they handled the said plates. Your comparison with the parables doesn't hold up.

But both take faith that christ told the parables and the book of mormon is what it claims to be.

[why me]

Wayfarer,

It seems that in your calls for "evidence" or lack of "evidence," you actually mean scientific evidence or empirical evidence. Why isn't a spiritual manifestation "evidence" of the truth in your experience? Why isn't an Alma 32 testing evidence of the truth? If a person receives a spiritual witness from Heavenly Father, I think that person is completely justified in saying that their belief/knowledge is both rational and evidence-based. Do you disagree? Thanks.

I think that Paul would agree with you. I believe that he warned against seeking evidence when a spiritual manifestation would be enough. What is interesting is that paul knew peter and james to my understanding. And peter and james knew Christ. That would be his proof, along with what happened to him so he could be converted.

[Jude2]

I think I get Wayfare’s position but I lose his rational for using John 3

Taken from Br. Petersons blog; “I love the Gospel of John. In it, a well-educated, rational Jew named Nicodemus interprets Christ’s words literally that we must be born again. He asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” After which Jesus explains that there is a difference between heavenly things and earthly things, and that spiritual things are equally real even if not physically so. That’s why Jesus taught in parables — the truth is the normative value of the story, not the physical literalism thereof.”

He has a more evangelical approach in his thinking. Yes Nicodemus was mistaken about Jesus’ intent but the rebirth of baptism by water is an earthly ordinance which literally washes away sins. We can’t just say will I’ll be baptized by water in a spiritual sense and call it good.

Jesus didn’t teach in parables so you can disbelieve.

My hubby just commented to me "Joseph Smith was not a parable".

I think you can know if Jesus was resurrected or any of the other questions you have put forth.

First the witness of the Holy Spirit is very real. I can not prove to anyone that I have received this witness but of myself I can know it is real.

Secondly if I apply myself Jesus has promised “if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev 3. We can reach a point of righteousness where we sup with him. I’m not there yet but it can be done. One of the Apostles at a Stake conference once said something which made me sit up and take notice. He has seen more and knows more, he didn’t walk by just faith anymore.

[Bullfighter]

I think that most would consider the parables, stories with a teaching component in them. However, with the book of mormon we have a book which is claimed to come from plates and translated by Joseph Smith. We have 3 witnesses that testified that they saw the plates and an angel. And we have 11 witnesses who claimed that they handled the said plates. Your comparison with the parables doesn't hold up.

But both take faith that christ told the parables and the book of mormon is what it claims to be.

As, I said, it's an imperfect comparison, merely meant to illustrate that even a fictitious story can be of value. I think it does accomplish that, though agree it does not extend readily to the Book of Mormon.

I'm not claiming the Book of Mormon or any of the records Joseph Smith produced are not historical. On the contrary, I very much hope that they are, I'm only saying that even if additional empirical evidence (taking the witnesses testimony and the book itself as original evidence) were not to appear or were even to contradict, it would not destroy the spiritual value of the teachings contained in the BOM, POGP, or JST. I believe those can stand on their own merits.

I have for myself received spiritual confirmation that the doctrine contained in the BOM is true, but I'll admit I haven't received any confirmatory answer by prayer or by study on whether or not it's historical. If you have, I hope someday I can obtain this knowledge too. In the meantime, uncertainty on this point has not prevented my following the teachings I believe are true.

[Calm]

Your comparison with the parables doesn't hold up.

I agree. No one, especially their creator/author Christ, ever claimed the parables were anything but parables. To equate the BoM which is identified as a text about real people with the parables leaves one with the question of why their author, Joseph Smith thought or pretended they were anything but parables. One can certainly treat the texts in identical ways, but one is still left with the question about Joseph Smith and to ignore that is pretty significant 'putting one's questions on the shelf". And if one also criticizes Joseph Smith in other areas as either not what he claimed to be or doing what he claimed to do, then again it would seem one has a huge problem to deal with...a problem that must have some impact on how one views the value of the BoM. Eventually it will have to be dealt with.

[Calm]

I believe those can stand on their own merits.

I would also agree with this. If one has a witness of the truth of the doctrine, then one does not need additional witnesses to incorporate those doctrines into how one lives one's life...which is the most important reason for the BoM's existence imo....it is there to change our lives for the better.

I don't think one needs a witness of anything else for that impact to have full effect....as long as one does not become critical or reject possibilities that define the BoM as what it claims to be. If one does, one is holding a paradoxical position about the truth of the BoM as what it claims to be informs us about the source of its doctrine.

Edited January 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bullfighter]

I agree. No one, especially their creator/author Christ, ever claimed the parables were anything but parables. To equate the BoM which is identified as a text about real people with the parables leaves one with the question of why their author, Joseph Smith thought or pretended they were anything but parables. One can certainly treat the texts in identical ways, but one is still left with the question about Joseph Smith and to ignore that is pretty significant 'putting one's questions on the shelf". And if one also criticizes Joseph Smith in other areas as either not what he claimed to be or doing what he claimed to do, then again it would seem one has a huge problem to deal with...a problem that must have some impact on how one views the value of the BoM. Eventually it will have to be dealt with.

I agree, the two cannot be equated in regards to the claims their authors made, I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough and my point has overextended itself, it was simply an example that a fictitious story can retain value in directing our lives. Nothing more than that was intended, I should have made that clearer given this discussion's context. I'll try and be more careful going forward.

The overarching "question on the shelf" of Joseph Smith's presentation of his work is perhaps a much larger and more difficult issue entirely. On this front, all we can do is examine the records of Joseph Smith's life and works to try and gain an understanding of the man and at the same time seek spiritual confirmation that he was a prophet chosen of God. For myself, I am satisfied that Joseph Smith was a man inspired of God to accomplish the bringing forth the fullness of the gospel, on this I have received an answer. I believe he was sincere in producing the Book of Mormon and other translations/revelations. In short, I believe him to have been a prophet.

However, at the same time I try not to hold him against a standard of perfection, I think all, save one, fair poorly when that becomes our measuring stick. In my view at least, Joseph Smith, though undoubtedly inspired and prophetic, was still susceptible to the influence of his circumstances, still capable of doctrinal speculation, still a man seeking the right way in faith but not always finding it. Now, to clarify, please don't take that as criticism of Joseph Smith, I don't think it's wrong to be influenced by our circumstances, on the contrary I think it unavoidable and often prudent; I don't think speculation is wrong, if anything it often seems to precede revelation; and I don't think there is anything to find fault with in seeking the right way in faith, even if it doesn't always come out just right. And to clarify further, I am not saying that anything Joseph Smith produced or taught was a result of the times, merely speculation, or a mistake, I am just allowing for the possibility. I think Joseph Smith was a greater man than I can ever hope to meet, I would hate to taint that esteem by comparing him to an impossible standard.

Now to the point about the Book of Mormon, it is undeniable that it has been consistently presented as a historical record, almost exclusively as a record of the ancient peoples of the Americas, formerly as the exclusive ancestors, more recently as among the ancestors of the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere. Joseph Smith presented it this way, even going so far as to occasionally point out Nephite or Lamanite artifacts during his travels (gotta love Zelph). It is apparent that Joseph Smith believed the Book of Mormon to be historical and church leadership has overwhelmingly agreed. I want to make it clear that I do not disagree with the historical position. On the contrary I am entirely open to it, all I can say is that I don't know. I have sought an answer to this question but have received no confirmation, eventually coming to believe that the topic is not relevant to my salvation and so the knowledge is not necessary. Still, I continue to hope for either personal revelation on the matter or archaeological evidence, but so far no luck.

Now, what if the Book of Mormon turns out to be not based on the ancient people of America, or worse yet not based on ancient people anywhere? Does that destroy the faith? I can understand that for many it would, but can only answer that for me it would not. I allow for the possibility of a misunderstanding of the nature of Joseph Smith's translations/revelations from the beginning on down to today. Again, to be clear, I am not saying this is the case, just that it is possible. I can't pretend to know God's intents, though in my experience they are wise and purposeful, though not always revealed fully. If God chose to reveal or inspire the BOM, BOA, JST directly to the mind of Joseph using the stones, plates, scrolls, and Bible as tools or faith promoting objects, that is fine by me, it is the words and doctrine contained therein that I value.

[Bullfighter]

I would also agree with this. If one has a witness of the truth of the doctrine, then one does not need additional witnesses to incorporate those doctrines into how one lives one's life...which is the most important reason for the BoM's existence imo....it is there to change our lives for the better.

"Can I get an amen?"

Amen!

I don't think one needs a witness of anything else for that impact to have full effect....as long as one does not become critical or reject possibilities that define the BoM as what it claims to be. If one does, one is holding a paradoxical position about the truth of the BoM as what it claims to be informs us about the source of its doctrine.

I agree, provided I am right in assuming you use the word critical in the sense of being "inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily" rather than one of the other meanings: "involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc." I'm not sure one can ever be correct in being critical in the first sense, but doubt there could be anything wrong with being critical in the second sense.

Rather than rejecting non-trivial possibilities, I tend to think of things in a more probabilistic sense, at least those things of which I don't have a "sure" knowledge either empirically or spiritually. In the present case, I'm willing to admit that much of the Book of Mormon's historicity and the lack of archaeological evidence for the most part does not fall on the side of probable, which I understand is troubling to many or maybe heretical to some, however, throwing a testimony that the book's doctrine is true and a strong spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith was a man inspired by God into the scales shifts the balance in my mind back to probable. Either way, I remain hopeful that the book is historical and I receive some type of evidence to confirm it as fact.

[Calm]

it is undeniable that it has been consistently presented as a historical record, almost exclusively as a record of the ancient peoples of the Americas, formerly as the exclusive ancestors, more recently as among the ancestors of the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere.

I have no problem with anything you've said so that is why I am only responding to this comment, from the way you phrased it I am wondering if you are aware of not so recent comments about the nonexclusivity of the Lehite ancestors of the aboriginals of the West, for example:

In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference: We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.^[8]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians/Statements/20th_century

[wayfarer]

2. i relate and identify with the middle way community because I have been there, and thus I use identifiers that often cause confusion to other believers that value literal belief.

3. i don't see a faithful middle way as a compromise, but rather, an authentic, considered life. it certainly is neither "cafeteria mormonism" nor is it lukewarm.

Why do you do that? Pardon me for being direct, but I have seen others do that to maintain a sense of intellectual "superiority" (not saying that is your reason) when all it does in fact is create division?

I do speak in terms of the Middle Way as a viable, considered position, not because it is superior, but because it is viable to me, and gets me to the place of faithful acceptance of the gospel. If for no other reason, the following quote compels me to find a Middle Way.

Joseph can only be a prophet because he was chosen to be a prophet based on the work he needed to do: to bring about the book of mormon and lead the new church of christ. But if he wrote the book of mormon, he is not a prophet but a fraudster. There is no middle ground. Either the book is what it claims to be or it isn't. Either alma was on plates with the appearance of gold or it wasn't.

I will absolutely grant WhyMe his right to believe strongly in a literal interpretation. I will grant that to Bill Hamblin, and all others who insist that the account must be literally true.

That premise doesn't work for me, and never has. What we have, today, is an epistemological fact: the book of mormon exists. It either does or doesn't, and it absolutely exists. How it came to be has some empirical claims to it, as well as spiritual claims. That it somehow came about by the gift and power of god is a spiritual claim -- I not only have faith in this, I feel through my own spiritual experience with that same gift and power that this is true -- I 'know' it. That it testifies of Christ and contains the Gospel in essential fulness is a valid normative claim, one which I completely accept as true -- I 'know' it as well. That it is an accurate and faithful record of native americans in any form is an empirical claim, and the evidence for this physical event is debatable. I would submit that there are statements in the Book of Mormon that self-identify that the book was never meant to be a historical record: at least for the small plates, they were explicitly not meant to contain 'history'.

I would suggest and grant that both WhyMe and I accept the spiritual value of the book of mormon. We are on common ground, but the way we get there differs. That's why I say the Middle Way is not middle ground: the Way is not the destination. We both hold the book to be 'true' in terms of normative, spiritual value.

But if I must accept the literalness of the book of mormon in order to be a member of the church in good standing, then I am afraid that the church is not for me. I can't do it. I won't do it. I don't want to force my "Way" of getting to the spiritual truth on you, but please don't force your "Way" on me. For me, for good or ill, I know far too much about the history and nature of the origin of scripture and the methods of translation to accept that claim. To me, the book of mormon is either purely in the category of "revelation" -- in the same way that the Torah is "revelation" -- or it's nothing at all. Since I do not accept the Torah as a reliable, historical record of the history of mankind, then I do not accept the book of mormon as a reliable, historical record of native americans. There may be historical facts in both records, but for the most part, they constitute the revealed word of god to his people as they could understand it at the time.

Take WhyMe's own tagline:

... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.

Words of Joseph Smith, p.204

WhyMe proposes that Joseph Smith was either a prophet or a fraudster. I know from my spiritual witness that he was a Prophet. The empirical, historical evidence also states that he was a documented fraudster, and at least was indicted as such. In my humble opinion, he was both, and the outcome was divine. God took a very human man, "not very righteous" by his own account, and revealed divine word through Joseph Smith's mind and heart. It has ever been such that prophets are human, and Joseph was no exception. Hallelujah!

For all I know God most certainly could have created the world in six days or six minutes- or six billion or sixty billion years and who am I to say otherwise? All I can know for certain is what I personally have experienced and I wasn't quite around when all that happened.

This is where I absolutely have to differ. I believe that whether the scripture record is superior to the geological record for determining the age of the earth matters a very great deal. To quote what I said before, and I believe you agreed with me:

spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths. physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) truths. spiritual evidence is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

The age of the earth is a historical, empirically deterministic fact. To uphold scripture as superior to determining the age of the earth essentially stops our ability to observe the truth as it is made known unto us. This is why I believe that Joseph Smith said that we would not have creeds that prevented us from learning additional truth--all truth as being relevant.

If the true believing position requires us to uphold scripture as a means to establish physical or historical fact, then I am not, nor ever will be, a true believer. Scripture suggests that the rotation of the earth can stop if god wants us to kill off the amalekites. Scripture necessarily comes from a worldview, revealed line upon line and precept upon precept, that was relevant to the people who held such views at the time.

It's not an idle matter. We have, today, many issues around policy that are being informed by the tension between a scriptural/literal worldview and a scientific worldview. For those using the terms, "there is no middle ground", I have to say there must be. And if we recognize that that 'ground' is not in the outcome, but in the process, then the term "Middle Way" becomes essential to broker an agreement between ardent scriptural literalists on one hand, and militant atheist skeptics on the other. I would suggest that most of us are in the Middle between these two poles on this issue.

The age of the earth matters because if we take the literal view, even the one that says "yom" means 1,000 years, then we get to the idea that we are extremely close to the second coming -- so close we can bank on it, literally. This is the position of the evangelical dominionists, that the world is for mankind's dominion, and we don't need to worry about the environment, because it's ours to use, and the Savior's coming soon anyway. So...let's not worry about the idea that fossil fuels both cause global warming and will run out in 50-100 years -- the Lord has it covered.

Likewise, if we think mental illness is a result of sin or demonic possession, then we won't effectively treat those that need such help. The list where science helps is endless.

As well, in the realm of public policy, having a worldview that constitutes a Middle Way between scriptural literalism and sketpicism is essential. As I noted to you, my job entails making assessments of facts in order to determine the evidentiary truth of things. As we approached the war on Iraq, the major question was whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and the evidence for this was very tenuous at best. Working closely with the leader of the UNSCOM inspections team, while it was apparent that Saddam was hiding something, it was also equally apparent that his regime was completely bankrupt of any power to execute a weapons programme. The evidence for this was overwhelming. As well, the evidence of his capabilities, the specific photos shown by Colin Powell at the UN, the yellow-cake story, and the aluminum tubes, all were completely debunked as evidence prior to the UN event. And of course, through an exhaustive search of Iraq after invasion, there were no weapons of mass destruction. What Saddam Hussein was hiding was a bluff: he wanted the Iranians/his enemies to think that he might, to keep the appearance of power up. We should have known that -- the evidence was there -- some of our intel folks did make that conclusion, but they were ignored, because their conclusions did not fit the dogma.

Very telling is a news event where President Bush was asked if he asked his father, George HW Bush -- a master at intelligence, probably the world's expert on middle-eastern politics and threats -- before making the decision to invade Iraq. His answer was that he "asked his Higher Father".

Again, the Prophet Joseph Smith gives the answer:

D&C 9:6-8 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner. Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

D&C 8:2-3 Behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

These verses in D&C 8 and 9 say to me that all revelation comes through the synthesis of "mind" and "heart", meaning that both thinking and feeling are relevant. We need facts where facts matter. We need spirit where spirit matters. When facts and feeling, body and spirit, are inseparably connected, we gain a fulness of joy. When the preacher and the receiver reason together with the spirit, both are edified and rejoice together. The Middle Way, to me, is not a choice between "spirit" on one extreme and "reason" on the other, but rather, the synthesis of reason and spirit.

Too often we are taught to not question, to be assured that if we obey, we'll be happy all day, or that the prophet will never lead the church astray. In an unfortunate and now discredited guide to ward teachers, the statement came out "when the brethren speak, the thinking has been done." I know that these quotes are often used by the anti-mormons to discredit the church and make us look like a cult. Whatever -- I don't care what they think. But when we ourselves uphold the idea that whatever is provided in scripture and over the pulpit is superior in all ways to secular knowledge even for empirical or historical truth determination, as Ezra Taft Benson laid out in his "14 Fundamentals", then we are seriously at risk of being exactly the cult the exmos say we are.

As I see it, the garden account is sublime in its lessons and distinctly non-literal. In fact, by divorcing ourselves from its literal content, we can see a very important message. The tree in the garden wasn't the tree of all knowledge, but rather, "a tree of knowledge of good and evil". In the area of information management, an "ontology" or a "schema" is a representation of knowledge, and it is accurate to say that a 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' is a pre-defined, hierarchal (tree-like) schema of moral values. In other words, a predefined schema of good and evil has another name: "dogma". It's important to recognize why that tree, and satan, were placed in the garden. God did not want us to be ignorant, and the purpose of placing the tree with a requirement not to partake wasn't to keep us ignorant, but rather, as explicitly said, so that we can learn through our own experience good and evil.

The choice is clearly before us: either we can continue to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which means we require rote acceptance of dogma, or we can be like Alma encourages: to test things out or ourselves, and as charged within the creation as well as the expulsion -- to learn for ourselves to distinguish good or evil.

And because we have gifts differing, but in the end land at a place of faith, I choose to pursue the Middle Way between believing acceptance of church dogma and skepticism in order to get there. I see value in church doctrine, particularly on spiritual matters. I see value in skepticism, particularly in evaluating empirical claims. I walk a Middle Way between, using the right tool for the right purpose as best as I can see it.

I'm sure that what I call the Middle Way isn't for everybody -- no, not at all. It works for me, and many times, I walk the Way alone.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[go_utes01]

I think you are laying out a false dichotomy between "reason" and "spirit." It seems that relying on spiritual manifestations, from an all-knowing Heavenly Father, would be highly reasonable.

[wayfarer]

I think I get Wayfare’s position but I lose his rational for using John 3

Taken from Br. Petersons blog; “I love the Gospel of John. In it, a well-educated, rational Jew named Nicodemus interprets Christ’s words literally that we must be born again. He asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” After which Jesus explains that there is a difference between heavenly things and earthly things, and that spiritual things are equally real even if not physically so. That’s why Jesus taught in parables — the truth is the normative value of the story, not the physical literalism thereof.”

He has a more evangelical approach in his thinking. Yes Nicodemus was mistaken about Jesus’ intent but the rebirth of baptism by water is an earthly ordinance which literally washes away sins. We can’t just say will I’ll be baptized by water in a spiritual sense and call it good.

Jesus didn’t teach in parables so you can disbelieve.

I explicitly don't 'disbelieve' as I have clearly noted.

The point of bring up John 3 is that belief or disbelief in the literal aspects of the story are irrelevant. "being born again" does not mean a direct rebirth by going back into the womb. period. It means a spiritual rebirth, not a physical one. To physicalize/literalize rebirth is to lose the point.

In like manner, we partake of the sacrament. In india where I lived for some years, some hindu zealots would accuse christians of 'cannabalism', because we partake of human flesh and blood every week in our services. For the catholics, the dogma of transubstantiation is a required belief that the host is Jesus' flesh indeed, as the wine becomes the blood of Christ indeed. We don't accept this literal interpretation, because we recognize the symbolic value of the sacrament, and literalizing that is absurd. And if one really understands Catholic dogma, the dogma of transubstantiation is linked to the creedal terms "consubstantial"/"homoousion" in the original Nicene creed: that God, Jesus, and Holy Ghost are sharing of the exact same substance, and thus, the host/wine represent that same 'god-substance'.

Yet in our hymn: partaking now is deed for word, that i remember Him, my Lord -- we clearly understand the value of a symbolic exercise.

My hubby just commented to me "Joseph Smith was not a parable".

Of course not. He existed. The question isn't whether Joseph Smith existed, and we already agree that he was a prophet. The question comes in what it means to bring forth the book of mormon by the gift and power of god. And if we already acknowledge that the book of mormon is the result of the gift and power of god, does it matter how it was done? Does it have to be through a literal translation, or can it be, like all other scripture has been, a product of a revelatory process?

I think you can know if Jesus was resurrected or any of the other questions you have put forth.

First the witness of the Holy Spirit is very real. I can not prove to anyone that I have received this witness but of myself I can know it is real.

Secondly if I apply myself Jesus has promised “if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev 3. We can reach a point of righteousness where we sup with him. I’m not there yet but it can be done.

Yes, we can, and the spiritual evidence is sufficient to prove all things of normative, spiritual value. Can that same spirit prove an empirical claim? If your child is sick and you pray with all your heart and get a spiritual witness "knowing" that things will be ok, and yet the child dies of simple bacterial infection because you didn't go to the doctor, will your faith save you from the consequences of the law?

You have a responsibility as a parent to seek out all means god has given you to validate the truth. If someone makes an empirical claim based upon a literal interpretation of scripture, such as "the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the native americans", and the truth is something else...then where did your faith get you?

In making no attempt to validate empirical claims, we are on sandy foundation. god said through joseph smith that both our mind and heart must be engaged in the process. Knowing a historical fact simply by feeling good about it spiritually is a notoriously unreliable means to validate historical facts.

One of the Apostles at a Stake conference once said something which made me sit up and take notice. He has seen more and knows more, he didn’t walk by just faith anymore.

You may not accept this, but I have heard that voice and had multiple experiences where I cannot doubt the existence of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his deep meaning in my life. I don't have any doubt whatsoever of that. None. My daily walk relies upon that spirit and knowledge -- issues held in faith are irrelevant to that walk upon the Way. I'm not alone on this -- I think most active LDS have had this kind of witness, but don't realize that it is very likely the same as that of the apostles -- the difference being that they are called to provide that witness to the world and we typically are not.

I'm not at all saying that I'm on the same level as an apostle -- far from it -- but the witness of the holy spirit to confirm spiritual truth is available to all people who seek it. Perhaps we underestimate our own position before the Lord -- the Apostles may have a special witness of christ, but we all have that gift, and to assume that theirs is a viable proxy for our own is dangerous thinking.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

I think you are laying out a false dichotomy between "reason" and "spirit." It seems that relying on spiritual manifestations, from an all-knowing Heavenly Father, would be highly reasonable.

Ok. I like Baskin Robbins chocolate almond ice cream. I think it's the best in existence.

I'm not trying to mock your statement. But my preference for baskin robbins chocolate almond ice cream is really a passion. I feel very strongly about it. It doesn't make it right for YOU, however. I appreciate that you find a proof from an all-knowing heavenly father as sufficient for proof in all things both reason and spirit -- if that works...enjoy!

To me, there are significant problems with the idea that a personal witness from heavenly father as a proof of things we can readily observe in the real world. I also can't quite grasp that there is any empirical validity about an "all knowing heavenly father". how do we propose to know that there is an all-knowing heavenly father? Say that our 'heavenly father's existence' is a claim we hold in 'faith' -- we agree to it, we hope for it, we act on it. Even if said being were to appear to us, and claimed he was a 'heavenly father', how would we validate the claim?

A second claim is that said being is 'all knowing'. As I have explored how all-knowingness leads to vast logical contradictions with the real world, it seems that even the smartest being imaginable cannot predict the outcome of random events, and there are such things.

I think we need to recognize that the omni-whatever attributes of god are a holdover from the neo-platonic incursion into christianity in the second and third centuries. And yes, Joseph Smith was brought up learning this, and at the beginning, he held to this worldview. In time, however, god started to become closer and closer to a real person to him as things were revealed to him, line upon line, and precept upon precept. The god proposed by Joseph Smith wasn't quite in harmony with the omni-whatever of the creeds -- God was a lot more "human" than that -- and that's the great secret.

I'll go back to enjoying my ice cream...after fast is over, of course.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[volgadon]

Ok. I like Baskin Robbins chocolate almond ice cream. I think it's the best in existence.

I'm not trying to mock your statement. But my preference for baskin robbins chocolate almond ice cream is really a passion. I feel very strongly about it. It doesn't make it right for YOU, however. I appreciate that you find a proof from an all-knowing heavenly father as sufficient for proof in all things both reason and spirit -- if that works...enjoy!

Perhaps if the Baskin Robbins chocolate almond ice cream had borne witness to you by a spiritual manifestation, you might have a point.

[wayfarer]

Perhaps if the Baskin Robbins chocolate almond ice cream had borne witness to you by a spiritual manifestation, you might have a point.

How do you know that it wasn't a spiritual manifestion? My preference is a personal experience is it not?

[volgadon]

How do you know that it wasn't a spiritual manifestion? My preference is a personal experience is it not?

Perhaps because nothing in your post indicates that it was. If anything, sounds like an ad hoc response to my post.