Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[wayfarer]

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

no, it's not. our personal spiritual experiences are just that, our own. just like my baskin robbins example. It's something I can enjoy, it is sufficient witness for me that I like it.

I tend to think of spiritual experience like manna. Something that provides immediate substenance, but not preservable.

Any model breaks down, of course, but the idea is that while a spiritual experience is sufficient to determine the truth of a spiritual claim for myself, when we go beyond its purpose, it, too, breaks down.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[go_utes01]

Are you saying I should not rely on spiritual manifestations then?? I don't think that is what you are saying. And whether or not Heavenly Father is indeed omniscient is of little consequence to my point - he is most assuredly far above my level of knowledge/understanding and I would venture far above yours or anybody else on this planet. I also did not say that we should expect to rely on spiritual manifestations for all things, including matters that are observable or experienced by us. In our hearts and in our minds is essential to my understanding of how Heavenly Father helps to manifest truth unto us. I am equally enlightened by learning about physics, chemistry, politics, philosophy, etc. as I am when I learn about religion or theology. And that learning comes not only through personal revelation, prayer and scripture study, but also through studying out of the best books and pondering the truths no matter where they are found. Because, regardless of where I personally find truth, it all testifies of God - the ultimate way, truth, and light.

[wayfarer]

Are you saying I should not rely on spiritual manifestations then?? I don't think that is what you are saying. And whether or not Heavenly Father is indeed omniscient is of little consequence to my point - he is most assuredly far above my level of knowledge/understanding and I would venture far above yours or anybody else on this planet. I also did not say that we should expect to rely on spiritual manifestations for all things, including matters that are observable or experienced by us. In our hearts and in our minds is essential to my understanding of how Heavenly Father helps to manifest truth unto us. I am equally enlightened by learning about physics, chemistry, politics, philosophy, etc. as I am when I learn about religion or theology. And that learning comes not only through personal revelation, prayer and scripture study, but also through studying out of the best books and pondering the truths no matter where they are found. Because, regardless of where I personally find truth, it all testifies of God - the ultimate way, truth, and light.

You are correct: I am NOT saying that we should NOT rely on spiritual manifestations. (awkward double negative...) I'm saying that we SHOULD, for the right purpose and in the right way as scriptures lay out. This is exactly my position:

1. Spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths.

2. Physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) facts.

3. Spiritual evidence, by itself, is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

4. Physical proof without spiritual confirmation is not sufficient to prove eternal truth of any kind.

The actual process of confirming truth should be to both the "Mind" -- the intellect, after studying it out thoroughly and finding all facts necessary, and "Heart" -- the spiritual truth confirmed through our emotions -- the burning of the bosom, etc. Often the spirit reveals knowledge through inspired thoughts appearing through our non-conscious mind, and when they come, it's as if we knew them all along -- they edify us. Here are key scriptures:

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.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[volgadon]

We need facts where facts matter. We need spirit where spirit matters.

Which is, in the worldview of the D&C, a false dichotomy. In his Gifford lecture on science and the sacred, Seyyed Hossein Nasr defined metaphysics, or scientia sacra, as, "the knowledge by means of which man is able to distinguish between the Real and the illusory and to know things in their essence or as they are, which means ultimately to know them in divinis."

Compare this to D&c 93:23-28.

"Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things."

[thesometimesaint]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

[why me]

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!

I don't mind what you believe because you have the right to believe what you want to believe. But your middle way as stated above is difficult to rationalize and very confusing. Joseph was certainly not perfect but I don't see him as a fraudster. Now in his youth he may have believed that he could find treasure but I see no evidence for a fraud. And with the book of mormon, he either found the plates or made the story up. I see no middle way there. If he made it all up, the lds church is founded on a false foundation and Joseph is guilty of a terrible crime. No middle way there at all.

[wayfarer]

@vogadon: i cannot seem to send you a pm. i do not see that dichotomy. please see post 78

[volgadon]

@vogadon: i cannot seem to send you a pm. i do not see that dichotomy. please see post 78

I have terrible luck recieving PM's, so let me send you one with my email.

[wayfarer]

I don't mind what you believe because you have the right to believe what you want to believe. But your middle way as stated above is difficult to rationalize and very confusing. Joseph was certainly not perfect but I don't see him as a fraudster. Now in his youth he may have believed that he could find treasure but I see no evidence for a fraud. And with the book of mormon, he either found the plates or made the story up. I see no middle way there. If he made it all up, the lds church is founded on a false foundation and Joseph is guilty of a terrible crime. No middle way there at all.

this is where we simply agree to disagree. i have no intent in having you see things my way. It is by no means confusing to me, and like I said, the Middle Way is not for everyone. I have no problem with Joseph doing with the book of mormon what Josiah did with deuteronomy. god can create scripture from a heathen funerary scroll if he so desires.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[Bullfighter]

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:

http://en.fairmormon...ts/20th_century

Thanks for sharing, I have seen those comments and appreciate them. I was referring more to the 2006 change in the introduction. I am aware the idea had been around in the church long before that, just not necessarily widespread. You are certainly right to point out that support for nonexclusivity goes back farther than many may be aware.

[pogi]

1. Spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths.

2. Physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) facts.

3. Spiritual evidence, by itself, is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

4. Physical proof without spiritual confirmation is not sufficient to prove eternal truth of any kind.

I agree with points 1 and 4, and only agree with points 2 and 3 in that physical evidence is necessary to demonstrate a physical or historical fact to someone else, but I disagree in that it is required to establish physical or historical fact/truth for ourselves.

For example, Mosiah 8:17-18 explains the possibility of spiritual knowledge of historical, physical, and future facts without physical/empirical evidence: "But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings." (Mosiah 8:17-18).

Note, that a seer is of "great benefit to his fellow beings." How could he be of any benefit if physical/empirical evidence (which he lacks) is required to substantiate his prophecies? Is it not because the spirit alone is enough to prove to us the truthfulness of their words despite the lack of physical evidence?

Another scripture demonstrates this in Mormoni 10:5, "and by the power of the holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Christ is the source of all truth as the creator of all things spiritual and physical. It would not be too much for Him to reveal knowledge of all kinds to us by means of His spirit as stated in scripture. By this same spirit, we can know the truthfulness of the words and prophecies of the seers without requiring physical evidence for proof.

Give me an example of a physical fact that is not governed by a spiritual law or truth, or that is not seen and understood by the Spirit of the Lord. If you can do so, you might have something to stand on. But until then I hold true that through the Spirit alone, we can know the truth of all things.

[pogi]

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

Personal preference and spiritual truths are two different matters.

Personal preference is relative and changing, spiritual truths are absolute and eternally constant. In other words, Gods truths are absolute and are true for all, and always will be. Man's truth, on the other hand, is relative and true for the individual only.

[wayfarer]

Personal preference and spiritual truths are two different matters.

Personal preference is relative and changing, spiritual truths are absolute and eternally constant. In other words, Gods truths are absolute and are true for all, and always will be. Man's truth, on the other hand, is relative and true for the individual only.

of course. But and individual's understanding of eternal truth does evolve over time, line upon line, and precept upon precept, and is quite personal:

Alma 12:9 It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

[wayfarer]

I agree with points 1 and 4, and only agree with points 2 and 3 in that physical evidence is necessary to demonstrate a physical or historical fact to someone else, but I disagree in that it is required to establish physical or historical fact/truth for ourselves.

For example, Mosiah 8:17-18 explains the possibility of spiritual knowledge of historical, physical, and future facts without physical/empirical evidence: "But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings." (Mosiah 8:17-18).

Note, that a seer is of "great benefit to his fellow beings." How could he be of any benefit if physical/empirical evidence (which he lacks) is required to substantiate his prophecies? Is it not because the spirit alone is enough to prove to us the truthfulness of their words despite the lack of physical evidence?

All scripture is given by revelation through the mind and heart of the prophet receiving such scripture or revelation. This is what Joseph Smith said precisely about the translation process. Now, I love Joseph Smith, but he also was, by profession, a scryer -- a seer-stone reader, and in his worldview, this was a very special skill. He used the seerstone too translate the book of mormon...and it wasn't the "urim and thummim" found with the plates.

If revelation -- even 'inspired translation of ancient scripture' -- is given, line upon line, precept upon precept, through the mind and heart of the prophet, then what is the likelyhood that some of this scripture was, in a word, self-serving? Do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that Joseph Smith's own ideas may have on occasion found there way into the book.

Of course not. Most LDS won't accept this concept. But the process of going through the mind and heart of the revealer is exactly how revelation works, it always has, and it seems to be like it always will.

Now you cannot have a proof mechanism that is self-referent.

As well, there are a host of issues, particularly where concrete facts should have been considered, where Joseph Smith's inspiration was notoriously wrong. I cite the Kirtland anti-banking company for example. there are many others. He was a prophet like all others.

Joseph Smith certainly believed that divine revelation was important, but he also revealed that we MUST study it out in our minds. Thus, if we follow Joseph Smith correctly, revelation only comes AFTER we have studied out, and exausted the facts.

Another scripture demonstrates this in Mormoni 10:5, "and by the power of the holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Christ is the source of all truth as the creator of all things spiritual and physical. It would not be too much for Him to reveal knowledge of all kinds to us by means of His spirit as stated in scripture. By this same spirit, we can know the truthfulness of the words and prophecies of the seers without requiring physical evidence for proof.

Give me an example of a physical fact that is not governed by a spiritual law or truth, or that is not seen and understood by the Spirit of the Lord. If you can do so, you might have something to stand on. But until then I hold true that through the Spirit alone, we can know the truth of all things.

Great -- we can know the truth. Did you notice in 2 and 3 I did not use the term "truth"? Do you think there is a difference between "facts" and "truth"?

[pogi]

Great -- we can know the truth. Did you notice in 2 and 3 I did not use the term "truth"? Do you think there is a difference between "facts" and "truth"?

Facts are empirically observable information. Truth comes in many different forms however: subjective, objective, relative, and absolute. When I speak of God's truth, I speak of objective and absolute truth. When considering our limited and fallible perspective and measurements, facts are subject to change in time. Our knowledge of facts are ever growing and changing, especially in relation to archeology and history. God's truth on the other hand is not subject to change. It does indeed come line upon line, and each line will be absolutely true.

Our physical bodies are not the fundamental source of consciousness and intelligence, we had these characteristics before mortality. In this life, we still possess a sentient spirit capable of acquiring knowledge of both truth and facts. Just as I don't need to see the Lord to know that he does in fact and truth exist, neither do I need to see any physical/empirical evidence of Moroni to know that he was a historical figure and appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith in spirit. This can be revealed to me despite the lack of physical evidence. I don't need to see the whole picture to know this individual line or principle of truth. It can be revealed to me spiritually. In other words, I don't need physical/empirical evidence to study something out in my mind and then ask God if it is true. I don't need proof to know.

The directive to study it out in our minds does not necessarily refer to acquiring empirical facts and weighing the evidences. I believe that it refers to spiritual meditation and focus on a principle or idea. In other words, attempting to see and understand a principle through spiritual eyes rather than through physical senses, and by weighing spiritual evidences rather than physical ones, then seeking spiritual confirmation through prayer. We get better and better at this the more we practice.

[wayfarer]

@pogi, thank you for your thoughts

[mfbukowski]

First I want to really thank you for a superb post. It clarifies your position very well I think.

I will intentionally restrict my response to areas with which I disagree not because I am being disagreeable or think you are "wrong" but because I think they are essential areas for dialogue on this whole issue- that fact that the areas of disagreement are few is itself I think important to note. But I think the areas of disagreement we have are important ones.

....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 perhaps come from an odd position on the Book of Mormon- I actually believe what it says.

Notice that the term "Native American" is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon itself, nor does the word "Indian"- which would be the 19th century version of the more politically correct term "Native American". Yes I am obviously aware that this is the common assumption, and that the BOM has been interpreted that way forever, but those terms do not actually appear in BOM.

Indeed in light of DNA evidence and the evidence of "others" in the BOM, I think many scholars and apologists are backing away from this alleged "claim" as empirically provable in any meaningful way. This alleged "claim" has never been a part of what I personally have believed about the BOM, and I have had no reason to include that postulate in my understanding of the BOM - ever. I think that historically it is a record of some peoples who were here, and yes, I am sure that there is theoretically some genetic evidence of these people somewhere if we knew what to look for, but we do not. So theoretically in principle one could verify this "claim" insofar as it is verifiable, but that possibility is virtually nil. And I am not the only faithful member who believes that.

So as far as I am concerned, I don't see that as any reason to call myself "middle way"- clearly there are many many TBM's who see it as I see it as well. So I see no reason here to self-identify myself as anything other than a TBM.

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.

Whoa dude! Time out! Relax for a minute!

There is nothing in a baptismal interview or a temple recommend interview about taking the BOM literally! Where does it say that?? Do you have a quote from the Handbook mentioning that?? You will never find it there!

And there are many many who don't take the BOM "literally"- who are true and faithful members. But of course I am not even sure what you mean here- in what way do you think a good member is "forced" to accept the BOM "literally"?

The age of the earth is a historical, empirically deterministic fact.

Until they decide to change it.

I respect you very much and it is a treat to converse with you but honestly I would suggest that you study some philosophy of science, especially Thomas Kuhn. I am not a fan of Kuhn actually but I think understanding his view would help enormously.

In the influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Kuhn made the dramatic claim that history of science reveals proponents of competing paradigms failing to make complete contact with each other's views, so that they are always talking at least slightly at cross-purposes. Kuhn characterized the collective reasons for these limits to communication as the incommensurability of pre- and post-revolutionary scientific traditions, claiming that the Newtonian paradigm is incommensurable with its Cartesian and Aristotelian predecessors in the history of physics, just as Lavoisier's paradigm is incommensurable with that of Priestley's in chemistry (Kuhn 1962, 147–150; Hoyningen-Huene 2008). These competing paradigms lack a common measure because they use different concepts and methods to address different problems, limiting communication across the revolutionary divide. Kuhn initially used incommensurability predominately to challenge cumulative characterizations of scientific advance, according to which scientific progress is an improving approximation to the truth, and to challenge the idea that there are unchanging, neutral methodological standards for comparing theories throughout the development of the natural sciences. Like in evolution, the process does not change toward some fixed goal according to some fixed rules, methods or standards, but rather it changes away from the pressures exerted by anomalies on the reigning theory (Kuhn 1962, 170–173). The process of scientific change is eliminative and permissive rather than instructive. In the process of confronting anomalies, certain alternatives are excluded, but nature does not guide us to some uniquely correct theory.

To characterize this view in a few words is to distort it perhaps beyond recognition- nevertheless I will boldly distort it right now. What he is saying essentially is that all science is a matter of interpretation dependent on one's historical point of view, and it doesn't necessarily always reflect "the facts"- whatever that means.

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.

And the point is that science does the same thing, but for different purposes.

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.

Now here is the exact crux of the issue! I agree with every WORD above, but not with what you are saying.

You are holding science as a constant and saying that scripture must be interpreted in a middle way. I am saying that science is as "valid" as science- in its own sphere- and that indeed SCIENCE must be interpreted in the same "middle way" that you apparantly do not see! And I would maintain that certain "militant atheists" accept the same erroneous assumption that you are making- that indeed "truth" can be found in science in a more valid way than through revelation. One approach is a saw and the other approach is clamp. Clamps hold things together, saws cut things apart. You do not use a clamp for a saw's job nor do you use a saw for a clamp's job. Neither clamps nor saws produce more "truth" than the other- they are both tools which don't have much of anything to do with "truth". One uses blatant parables, the other uses subtle parablels but both use parables. Atomic theory is a parable. All observation, no matter how precise, requires interpretation. History requires one to look at data and interpret it. Nietzsche said "There are not facts, only interpretations" and I think that if you reflect on that .... interpretation... you will see that it is indeed a fact!

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.

I see this statement as two different kinds of literalists beating each other over the head. We have the Evangelical literalist position opposed to the scientific literalist position- as represented by you! Neither of you are completely right.

I would urge a scientific middle way!

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.

That works only as long as the person is not actually possessed by demons!

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.

Requiring interpretation of the data.

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.

But you are confirming my point- "some of our intel folks" disagreed in interpretation of the data which led to a disastrous consequence. Interpretations have consequences but that does not mean that these consequences were "wrong"! The decision that such consequences were "wrong" in a normative sense. Perhaps had we NOT invaded Iraq some other consequence MIGHT have happened which might have been seen as "adverse" as well. Speculatively, perhaps for example some other nation might have perceived the US as weak because we did NOT invade Iraq despite the interpreted data that said there WERE WMD's and perhaps that other nation would have perpetrated another attack on the US or some other nation because of a perceived weakness in US resolve to stop agression etc etc etc.

We cannot know what did not happen due to the US invading Iraq. The only point I am making is that these are all fluid situations where the consequences are often totally unpredictable and it is impossible to know at any one point which decision was "right" as normatively interpreted later. Clearly we made a mistake- but that was not knowable until after the fact. The "science" is always an interpretation which happens after the experiment is done. If one wants to, one could apply Alma here. THE FRUITS OF THE INVASION WERE NOT SWEET! This is as much a normative judgement- about if the decision to invade was "right or "wrong"- as any we make spiritually.

In this regard the decision to invade or not invade could be seen to be as much "spiritual" as any other decision we make. It has nothing to do with science. And again we do not know what might have happened had we not invaded. Maybe the consequences would have been "good" maybe not! It is unknowable.

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.

Now see there you go again! Who says this is the Middle Way and NOT the TBM way? I agree with every word of this paragraph! This is essentially exactly what I was saying above- with a different conclusion.

In the area of information management, an "ontology" or a "schema" is a representation of knowledge, ....

It is highly debatable that such a "representation" is possible or how we could possibly know if it was accurate. How do we get outside of our intepretation to see if it "corresponds" to something beyond our interpretation? Philosophically this is a very tenuous assumption.

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.

I think this is a strawman- I have not seen this in actual practice in the church at all. I will acknowledge that our experiences may differ.

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.

But again, it appears that you have no skepticism whatsoever for the way empirical claims are interpreted. It does not seem that you see them as interpretation of data as much as spiritual claims are. That is the central way we differ I think.

Maybe this whole post- which has become far too long- can be reduced to that. For me, you have too much trust in science and are not a very good skeptic at all

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.

That's your choice! It's your own self-definition to exclude others.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Dang ya.

That says everything I just said in that log bag of wind above!

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

* * * *

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.

JEFFREY R. HOLLAND

PBS interview, March 4, 2006, online at http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html , excerpts:

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

* * * *

I don't know if there's a subject he's spoken [about] more directly and more emphatically than retention. Now, retention simply means that we'd like to keep everybody in the church that comes to the church. I suppose every church would like that. I don't know whether any church succeeds at that very well. There must be lapsed almost everything. There must be lapsed Presbyterians; there must be lapsed Episcopalians. And there are lapsed Latter-day Saints. ...

* * * *

We ask quite a bit of people when they join this church. They walk away from old habits; you know our position on smoking and drinking and things like that. We ask them to contribute offerings to the church; we have ... a biblical doctrine of tithing. As they mature and come along, we love to have the sons and daughters go on missions if they choose to do that, and on and on and on. We really ask for a bit. We don't apologize for that, but I think what President Hinckley is saying is let's be aware of that, let's be sympathetic and mindful of that, and carefully and gently with our arm around these new converts, and help them take those steps and not cataclysmically go off over the cliff on this basic decision to get baptized and come into the church. ...

In the parable of the lost sheep, any loss is too much of a loss. We would leave 90 and nine to go find one any time we could. That is the savior's example and teaching and ministry. ... We're committed to every single solitary individual that comes to us in this church -- and again, not that others aren't, but we keep records. We want to know who they are and where they are so that when they move, we try to find where they move so that the church can pick them up there. I think many congregations would like to do that. I think many other religious faiths would love to be as systematic about that as we try to be. But we try to really work at it. I don't say that in a self-vaunting way. I'm saying that may count in part for our numbers and activities. I think other parishes or congregations may simply hope that whoever is out there will come. Well, with us we really try to document who's out there and go find them. ...

---------------------------------

[re Juanita Brooks]

... I didn't sense any great burden for her. Juanita was a strong woman. She was a very, very strong woman out of the hardscrabble world that southern Utah and southern Nevada settlers came [from]. ... I did not sense a sort of personal anguish, but you have to understand that by the time I would have been old enough ... that this is more than a decade after her publishing the book. ... When I knew Juanita and knew her family, she was a temple-going, tithe-paying, absolutely faithful Latter-day Saint. ... I saw her living out her life with the peace and tranquility [of someone] who had done a good piece of history and probably helped the church come to grips with something that all of us wish had never happened. ...

* * * *

We don't discipline people in this church for very much. In a church of over 12 million people, I keep hearing about the September Six [the 1993 excommunication and disfellowshipping of six Mormon academics]. ... All I'm saying is, I think this church has a history of being very, very generous. There are some lines -- I'd probably say "lines," plural. The chief among these is the issue of advocating against the church. Personal beliefs within the give-and-take of life and associations and whatever you choose -- there are lots of people who carve out their life in the church all the way out to the edge and beyond. I guess that's always the way it's been, and that's always the way it will be. But I think where the church will act is when there is an act so decisive or so glaring, and particularly in this case, so much cast in the spirit of advocacy, that the institution itself cannot retain its identity and still allow that.

* * * *

There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ...

* * * *

We are adamantly not another Protestant religion.

But what I don't like, and what I don't want to perpetuate, is the personal antagonism and the personal cleavage where otherwise wonderful people can go to dinner together and have their kids on the soccer team together and carpool to the PTA together, and then, when it comes to religion, just start throwing fists. That does not seem to me right. .

---------------------------------

[end of excerpts from Holland PBS interview]..

Edited January 7, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

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?

First of all of course the church does not teach that, so that is not a point for a "middle way", but is a strawman.

Second of all the entire reason we have antibiotics in the first place is that we believe the normative spiritual proposition that "children should not die of simple bacterial infections".

The science was created to facilitate the normative notion that human life has value, silly though it may be, "empirically", parasites that we are on the planet.

Edited January 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Are you saying I should not rely on spiritual manifestations then?? I don't think that is what you are saying. And whether or not Heavenly Father is indeed omniscient is of little consequence to my point - he is most assuredly far above my level of knowledge/understanding and I would venture far above yours or anybody else on this planet. I also did not say that we should expect to rely on spiritual manifestations for all things, including matters that are observable or experienced by us. In our hearts and in our minds is essential to my understanding of how Heavenly Father helps to manifest truth unto us. I am equally enlightened by learning about physics, chemistry, politics, philosophy, etc. as I am when I learn about religion or theology. And that learning comes not only through personal revelation, prayer and scripture study, but also through studying out of the best books and pondering the truths no matter where they are found. Because, regardless of where I personally find truth, it all testifies of God - the ultimate way, truth, and light.

He knows all there is to know. But he is constantly organizing the unknowable into the known. Chaos is unknowable. Once it is organized it becomes knowable and he knows it because he has organized it.

So yes, he knows "all" that is knowable- worlds without end which he has organized.

[mfbukowski]

This is exactly my position:

1. Spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths.

2. Physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) facts.

3. Spiritual evidence, by itself, is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

4. Physical proof without spiritual confirmation is not sufficient to prove eternal truth of any kind.

Please please please read this article

Here is a taste:

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."^[1]

Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. The term fideist, one who argues for fideism, is very rarely self-applied. Support of fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not supported by their own ideas and works or followers.^[2] There are a number of different forms of fideism.^[3]

Them's my boys! But there's nothing "middle way" there.

[mfbukowski]

Which is, in the worldview of the D&C, a false dichotomy. In his Gifford lecture on science and the sacred, Seyyed Hossein Nasr defined metaphysics, or scientia sacra, as, "the knowledge by means of which man is able to distinguish between the Real and the illusory and to know things in their essence or as they are, which means ultimately to know them in divinis."

Compare this to D&c 93:23-28.

"Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things."

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith edited by Joseph F Smith page 355

All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom12 has seen fit13 and proper to reveal to us,

while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies,14 are revealed to us in the abstract,

and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our

bodies.15 God reveals them to us in view of no eternal dissolution of the body, or tabernacle.

[mfbukowski]

JEFFREY R. HOLLAND

PBS interview, March 4, 2006, online at http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html , excerpts:

Thank you thank you.

I was looking for that but could not find it. I think it was also repeated in a recent conference address but couldn't find it either.

There is no need for anyone to self-identify as "middle way"- we are all in this thing together. Some may choose to exclude themselves by their beliefs- that is true enough. But certainly not taking scripture literally is NOT a reason to do so.

[why me]

There is no need for anyone to self-identify as "middle way"- we are all in this thing together. Some may choose to exclude themselves by their beliefs- that is true enough. But certainly not taking scripture literally is NOT a reason to do so.

That was my take too. Why identify oneself as midde way? There has always been people who have been middle way without the classification. And it was no big deal. They were still considered to be mormon. No problem.