Truth Vs Faith Which Are We Bound To Uphold When In Conflict

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps you haven't got a good grasp on what kind of civilization the Book of Mormon describes.

I'm sure you can enlighten me.

[mfbukowski]

Believing in the Tooth Fairy was good, it is not true as in there being an actual Tooth Fairy.  This logic is a way to dodge historicity and simply say because something gives you value, you should never have to deal with it factuality.  Then Santa should still be still on the table.  My best most valuable Christmases were based on my believing something that was false even though it was true in that it brought value.

I see.  How does one know there WAS an "Actual Resurrection"?

 

And "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yes,Virginia,ThereIsASantaClausClipping.jpg

 

Edit:  Note that this appeared in an American newspaper in the 19th century.  There is a reason for that- and William James' Pragmatism reflects that very attitude.

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

Edited October 30, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

I see.  How does one know there WAS an "Actual Resurrection"?

 

And "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yes,Virginia,ThereIsASantaClausClipping.jpg

 

Edit:  Note that this appeared in an American newspaper in the 19th century.  There is a reason for that- and William James' Pragmatism reflects that very attitude.

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

If everything is just stories, you're right: when choosing stories by which to live your life, pick the good ones, the ones that bless people's lives. My dad tells me that, for him, Mormonism is just a philosophy by which he chooses to live his life, and even then, he embraces what is good in the church and disregards the rest. My problem, as I've explained, is that I can't be the kind of cafeteria Mormon my dad is, so I try to embrace all of it. And, unfortunately, when I embraced all of it I was quite unhappy. So, I'm still looking for better stories.

[mfbukowski]

Again, you're talking about certainty and proof, and I am not. My background is in Latin American studies, and based on my formal and informal study, I not only see no evidence of any civilization remotely like the one described in the Book of Mormon in the Americas in that time period, but I see clear evidence that such a civilization did not exist. Could I be wrong? Sure, anything's possible. But based on what I know, it's extremely unlikely that a civilization like the one described in the Book of Mormon existed in the right time and place.

In the end, none of that would matter if being a member of the church had helped me be a better or happier person.

Well of course you did not answer the questions directly.

 

I am not going to argue the objective "evidence" one way or another, (you mentioned only smelting of ore- and in fact that was an ancient practice known in the middle east in even Roman times so your point here is irrelevant to our hypothetical culture) though I could, but this is not about facts, it is about your understanding of what MAKES a statement a "fact".

 

And I do not think that "truth" has much to do with being a "happier person" necessarily- for me it has to do with finding purpose in life, something that all the "facts" in the world cannot do.  But of course having a purpose has a lot to do with being happy I suppose.

 

I just have trouble understanding how a postmodernist could confuse "facts" with a religious position.  This is not about you personally, or anything else- I just don't see how those two points of view are compatible.

 

Archaeologists think that the "truth" is out there waiting to be "discovered" and that is what you learned in your classes I guess.  I am just saying that I don't think that that attitude is compatible with a post modernist view of "truth".

 

I suppose I could post more Rorty on how science and religion are compatible because they are not discussing the same issues, but we have gone there before and it did no good.

 

I take a different tack with say DB Mormon because he has a correspondence theory perspective, so I try to show him how that is an insufficient view of religious truth.

 

But with you, I am just saying that your post above seems incompatible with a postmodernist perspective, which I think you espouse.  If not let me know

.but I see clear evidence that such a civilization did not exist

 

I mean a postmodernist would say to this:  "So what- what does that have to do with anything?"

 

But for the record, I also think that there IS a way to interpret the scientific data to show the existence of what we call "Nephite" culture.   Mark Wright ain't no dummy.

 

But my point goes more to what I think is an inconsistency which runs though most of what you post here.

[mfbukowski]

If everything is just stories, you're right: when choosing stories by which to live your life, pick the good ones, the ones that bless people's lives. My dad tells me that, for him, Mormonism is just a philosophy by which he chooses to live his life, and even then, he embraces what is good in the church and disregards the rest. My problem, as I've explained, is that I can't be the kind of cafeteria Mormon my dad is, so I try to embrace all of it. And, unfortunately, when I embraced all of it I was quite unhappy. So, I'm still looking for better stories.

See there you go again.  If all truth relies on interpretation, none of them are "just stories".  Make up your mind.

 

I bet DBMormon's kids believe in Santa.

[pogi]

And, unfortunately, when I embraced all of it I was quite unhappy. So, I'm still looking for better stories.

 

Hi jk, I am just curious, what part of it made you so unhappy?  I mean, which principles of the gospel made you so unhappy when you lived them and so much happier when you stopped living them?

[canard78]

Believing in the Tooth Fairy was good, it is not true as in there being an actual Tooth Fairy. This logic is a way to dodge historicity and simply say because something gives you value, you should never have to deal with it factuality. Then Santa should still be still on the table. My best most valuable Christmases were based on my believing something that was false even though it was true in that it brought value.

There's a difference between something that you describe here as being good as in fun. That's not what I said. I was saying that a belief that works, a belief that leads you to be and do good, is true. The whole naughty/nice Santa list never seems to be any real impact on children's behaviour for 365 days of the year.

When Mother Teresa prayed to Mary, assuming she did, was it actually Mary who listened and answered her prayers? Or was it Heavenly Father? Did Mother Teresa's belief that Mary would guide and strengthen her, yes it appears to have done so. Was that belief that Mary heard her prayer true? Insofar as it led her to do more good, then yes, it was true.

[canard78]

.

A bit pretentious to declare ones self as the arbiter of what is correct and what isn't.

Do you ever enter a conversation on this board or elsewhere feeling that the perspective of another member doesn't entirely align with the teachings of scripture and leaders. Haven't you told me in the past what is correct and what isn't based on your reading of doctrine?

If, for example, someone in a class said the Catholics are the church of the devil or blacks were denied the priesthood because of pre-existence "fence-sitting" would you consider them to be correct or incorrect? If the latter, what would you say, and, to correct this perception.

[jkwilliams]

Well of course you did not answer the questions directly.

 

I am not going to argue the objective "evidence" one way or another, (you mentioned only smelting of ore- and in fact that was an ancient practice known in the middle east in even Roman times so your point here is irrelevant to our hypothetical culture) though I could, but this is not about facts, it is about your understanding of what MAKES a statement a "fact".

 

And I do not think that "truth" has much to do with being a "happier person" necessarily- for me it has to do with finding purpose in life, something that all the "facts" in the world cannot do.  But of course having a purpose has a lot to do with being happy I suppose.

 

I just have trouble understanding how a postmodernist could confuse "facts" with a religious position.  This is not about you personally, or anything else- I just don't see how those two points of view are compatible.

I don't see the two as the same at all. Whether or not I think there is evidence of Nephites is not a religious position to me any more than is my belief that there is evidence that the automobile appears to have been invented by a German man named Benz.

 

Archaeologists think that the "truth" is out there waiting to be "discovered" and that is what you learned in your classes I guess.  I am just saying that I don't think that that attitude is compatible with a post modernist view of "truth".

Postmodernism argues that there is no "truth" out there, so subjective, religious experience is no more an avenue to truth than is objective, scientific evidence. I can choose to believe that subjective experience means something to me, and I do; and I can choose to believe that objective, scientific evidence means something to me, and I choose to believe that, too. But I recognize that neither choice approaches truth as defined in the scriptures: things as they really are.

 

I suppose I could post more Rorty on how science and religion are compatible because they are not discussing the same issues, but we have gone there before and it did no good.

Yes, they are talking about different issues, but where we differ, I think, is that you privilege one over the other.

 

I take a different tack with say DB Mormon because he has a correspondence theory perspective, so I try to show him how that is an insufficient view of religious truth.

 

But with you, I am just saying that your post above seems incompatible with a postmodernist perspective, which I think you espouse.  If not let me know

Again, for a postmodernist, everything is tentative, and human experience (science, religion, whatever) is equally incapable of approaching truth.

I mean a postmodernist would say to this:  "So what- what does that have to do with anything?"

In the end, I, like you, choose how I interpret experience, all the time recognizing that it's all tentative.

 

But for the record, I also think that there IS a way to interpret the scientific data to show the existence of what we call "Nephite" culture.   Mark Wright ain't no dummy.

Oh, there's a way, sure, but it doesn't work for me.

 

But my point goes more to what I think is an inconsistency which runs though most of what you post here.

I'll try again: You want my judgment about whether there were Nephites to be a religious statement, a "category error" because I'm making a judgment based on science in a matter of faith. I will simply say that I'm not making a judgment about faith or religious experience; I am making a judgment about scientific evidence for and against the existence of the civilization described in the Book of Mormon. To me, it's no different from looking at the evidence in favor of the existence of Mercur, Utah. My grandmother was born in Mercur; it doesn't exist anymore, but I can look at the evidence of the town that once was. There's nothing religious about it.

Can I prove that Mercur existed? If someone were determined not to believe in it, no, I could not. But I can to my satisfaction determine that such a place existed and that my great-grandfather was the mine superintendent. Do you think it's a category error for me to express my belief that Mercur existed?

I guess I don't understand why you think that an assessment of the archaeological record is a category error.

[jkwilliams]

Hi jk, I am just curious, what part of it made you so unhappy?  I mean, which principles of the gospel made you so unhappy when you lived them and so much happier when you stopped living them?

I know better than to give an exit story here, so I'll just say I like myself better now.

[pogi]

We will have to agreeably disagree.  When we look back I don't believe we will see a higher number of LDS (in this life) having achieved exaltation versus people who were not LDS in this life.  I just don't see it.  

 

I don't disagree with you here.  I wasn't talking about this life however, I was speaking of the qualifications for exaltation in general.  Membership is one of them.  Our covenants and promised blessings through endurance seems to me a great advantage over those who have no such promises. 

 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 3-6)

 

If this passage is not speaking of those of the covenant who follow Christ, who is it speaking of?  Who else is adopted into the covenant besides the LDS in these last days?  While I don't believe that God's favored people are all LDS, and I don't believe that the LDS are more righteous than other faiths, I do believe that God has chosen us for his own purposes for reasons unknown to me. 

Edited October 30, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

I know better than to give an exit story here, so I'll just say I like myself better now.

I am genuinely happy to hear that!  I am not trying to bait or trick you in any way.  I am truly curious and interested in stories like yours.  I have a hard time reconciling your experiences with my own.  I can understand if people have problems with the truth claims or have feelings of disillusionment after hearing about more detailed histories, but to hear that someone is a "happier" and "better" person when not living the gospel of love is baffling to me.  When I think of all the principles taught, I have a hard time understanding how a person would not be benefitted and improved thereby if lived.  It is unfortunately common for people to feel shame for not being perfect in obedience to the principles.  Shame is one of the greatest tools of the adversary in my opinion.  There is a difference between righteous guilt which always leads to hope, self-confidence and self-worth, and toxic shame which leads to doubt, feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy.  If it was feelings of shame which caused you to feel so poorly about yourself in the church, please know that shame is not part of the gospel. 

 

If you don't feel safe sharing, that is fine.  You can send me a private message if you'd like, or not, either way.

Edited October 30, 2013 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I don't see the two as the same at all. Whether or not I think there is evidence of Nephites is not a religious position to me any more than is my belief that there is evidence that the automobile appears to have been invented by a German man named Benz.

 

Postmodernism argues that there is no "truth" out there, so subjective, religious experience is no more an avenue to truth than is objective, scientific evidence. I can choose to believe that subjective experience means something to me, and I do; and I can choose to believe that objective, scientific evidence means something to me, and I choose to believe that, too. But I recognize that neither choice approaches truth as defined in the scriptures: things as they really are.

 

Yes, they are talking about different issues, but where we differ, I think, is that you privilege one over the other.

 

Again, for a postmodernist, everything is tentative, and human experience (science, religion, whatever) is equally incapable of approaching truth.

In the end, I, like you, choose how I interpret experience, all the time recognizing that it's all tentative.

 

Oh, there's a way, sure, but it doesn't work for me.

 

I'll try again: You want my judgment about whether there were Nephites to be a religious statement, a "category error" because I'm making a judgment based on science in a matter of faith. I will simply say that I'm not making a judgment about faith or religious experience; I am making a judgment about scientific evidence for and against the existence of the civilization described in the Book of Mormon. To me, it's no different from looking at the evidence in favor of the existence of Mercur, Utah. My grandmother was born in Mercur; it doesn't exist anymore, but I can look at the evidence of the town that once was. There's nothing religious about it.

Can I prove that Mercur existed? If someone were determined not to believe in it, no, I could not. But I can to my satisfaction determine that such a place existed and that my great-grandfather was the mine superintendent. Do you think it's a category error for me to express my belief that Mercur existed?

I guess I don't understand why you think that an assessment of the archaeological record is a category error.

John, there is so much here that I see as misunderstandings I really don't have the time or inclination to go into each in detail

 

First of all "things as they are" are exactly AS WE EXPERIENCE THEM, a true postmodernist would say that indeed each belief has a function and the way to determine which is "right" or "true" is to determine which works better. 

 

If you are falling off a cliff, believing that it isn't there doesn't work too well.  So that position would be "false"

 

If you are looking for purpose in life, and believing in Nephites or believing that the Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima or that Jesus was resurrected give you that purpose in your life, all would be equally "true".  THAT would be the total Pragmatist position-  I am not a total Pragmatist, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. 

 

It is not "Oh well, whatever makes you happy!"  It is a theory of the nature of truth and what criteria makes truth true.  You have offered no reference to any other theory of truth.

 

So this sets the pragmatic theory on its head and is exactly backwards:

Postmodernism argues that there is no "truth" out there, so subjective, religious experience is no more an avenue to truth than is objective, scientific evidence

Pragmatism argues that there IS "truth", and it is what we experience directly, so religious experience, IN ITS SPHERE is just as "valid" as scientific experience is IN ITS SPHERE.   I would say that all scientific experience starts out as subjective- the first time Galileo looked through his telescope and no one else was around to corroborate his observations, they were indeed "subjective".  He might have seen a pink elephant as much as the rings of Saturn- at that moment there was no one to verify if what he saw was what anyone else saw.

 

Pragmatism erases the distinction between how things appear and how they are.  And really so does Phenomenology and Existentialism and all those guys you like to quote, in fact virtually every serious philosopher of the latter 20th century believes some form of that- unless they are in Catholic or Evangelical institutions, and their bread is buttered by belief in the old sectarian Neoplatonism.

 

Whether or not I think there is evidence of Nephites is not a religious position to me any more than is my belief that there is evidence that the automobile appears to have been invented by a German man named Benz.

Fine, believe what you like.  But for me it IS a religious position, and you have done nothing to argue against that.  THAT John is the category error.

 

Religious statements are not scientific statements.

 

And no, I do not "privilege" one over the other.  You can't even conceive, I guess, that I see them as unrelated as baseball and house painting. Each are true in their spheres- which means within their individual vocabularies or literary contexts.

In the end, I, like you, choose how I interpret experience, all the time recognizing that it's all tentative.

No, it's not "tentative".  If that is implying that somehow there IS a "final answer" it is not what I believe at all.  There IS no "final answer".  All we have are theories one of which works better or worse than another one.  Science is not "tentative" unless you want to say that it will ALWAYS be "tentative" at which point that becomes meaningless.  It is what it is- it is what many people experience today with the classification systems we have available within the cultural contexts we all have.  Nothing more nothing less.   What works today won't work tomorrow- what worked for Galileo and Copernicus and Newton needed to be re-created by Einstein

To me, it's no different from looking at the evidence in favor of the existence of Mercur, Utah. My grandmother was born in Mercur; it doesn't exist anymore, but I can look at the evidence of the town that once was. There's nothing religious about it.

Can I prove that Mercur existed? If someone were determined not to believe in it, no, I could not. But I can to my satisfaction determine that such a place existed and that my great-grandfather was the mine superintendent. Do you think it's a category error for me to express my belief that Mercur existed?

Emphasis added.

You have proven your own error.  History has nothing to do with religion, and you know instinctively here.  THAT IS THE CATEGORY ERROR, thinking that one has to do with the other.

 

AND THE HUGE PROBLEM- The issue is proving that the Nephites did NOT exist- not that they existed. You turned your original statement on its head.  Frankly it does not matter to me if they existed in some sense or not- but I am not pointing out a logical problem with your argument.  You have changed from talking about proving that some people/event EXISTED to whether or not they did NOT EXIST.

 

The non-existence of ANYTHING cannot be proven- in fact it is a non sequitur.  Just naming the "Nephites" means they "exist" in some sense as much as Hamlet "exists", at the very least.  So even saying that the "Nephites don't exist" is contradictory in some sense.

 

John I really do not want to offend or anything- I would love to get together with you and knock back a few...... non-caffeine diet pepsis     We are very similar in many of our positions on everything but the nature of the importance of these particular issues.

 

But it seems that every time we start talking, I end up taking a lot more of my time answering you than I have available.  That's my fault, not yours, but I really am going to have to not respond to your responses to my posts, at least for a while.  Because I know there will be responses- and if I don't respond don't take it that I don't like you or think that I don't have a response to give.  We just don't seem to get anywhere!

 

I always have a response to you Mr. W- and that is the problem! 

 

And besides- I am sure no one else reads this stuff anyway!

Edited October 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I am genuinely happy to hear that!  I am not trying to bait or trick you in any way.  I am truly curious and interested in stories like yours.  I have a hard time reconciling your experiences with my own.  I can understand if people have problems with the truth claims or have feelings of disillusionment after hearing about more detailed histories, but to hear that someone is a "happier" and "better" person when not living the gospel of love is baffling to me.  When I think of all the principles taught, I have a hard time understanding how a person would not be benefitted and improved thereby if lived.  It is unfortunately common for people to feel shame for not being perfect in obedience to the principles.  Shame is one of the greatest tools of the adversary in my opinion.  There is a difference between righteous guilt which always leads to hope, self-confidence and self-worth, and toxic shame which leads to doubt, feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy.  If it was feelings of shame which caused you to feel so poorly about yourself in the church, please know that shame is not part of the gospel. 

 

If you don't feel safe sharing, that is fine.  You can send me a private message if you'd like, or not, either way.

Probably you didn't mean it that way, but the underlying assumption here is that John is somehow deficient or is committing some horrible sin or something.

 

If I were him I would probably be insulted, but I think he is probably a better person than I am so that may be projection on my part.

[mfbukowski]

Believing in the Tooth Fairy was good, it is not true as in there being an actual Tooth Fairy.  This logic is a way to dodge historicity and simply say because something gives you value, you should never have to deal with it factuality.  Then Santa should still be still on the table.  My best most valuable Christmases were based on my believing something that was false even though it was true in that it brought value.

You know, now that I re-read this, I realize that we are on the same side of the issue, or at least I think so.

 

Sorry for being a jerk.  It's that old "natural man" getting the best of me again 

 

Maybe I could blame it on John? 

Edited October 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

John, there is so much here that I see as misunderstandings I really don't have the time or inclination to go into each in detail

 

First of all "things as they are" are exactly AS WE EXPERIENCE THEM, a true postmodernist would say that indeed each belief has a function and the way to determine which is "right" or "true" is to determine which works better.

If you are falling off a cliff, believing that it isn't there doesn't work too well.  So that position would be "false"

Hence my saying that I make judgments based on what I experience.

 

If you are looking for purpose in life, and believing in Nephites or believing that the Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima or that Jesus was resurrected give you that purpose in your life, all would be equally "true".  THAT would be the total Pragmatist position-  I am not a total Pragmatist, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. 

 

It is not "Oh well, whatever makes you happy!"  It is a theory of the nature of truth and what criteria makes truth true.  You have offered no reference to any other theory of truth.

I think I've been pretty clear: I make judgments based on my own experience and my understanding of what "objective" evidence says. I don't know that I have a formal theory of truth.

 

So this sets the pragmatic theory on its head and is exactly backwards:

Pragmatism argues that there IS "truth", and it is what we experience directly, so religious experience, IN ITS SPHERE is just as "valid" as scientific experience is IN ITS SPHERE.  

I would say that all scientific experience starts out as subjective- the first time Galileo looked through his telescope and no one else was around to corroborate his observations, they were indeed "subjective".  He might have seen a pink elephant as much as the rings of Saturn- at that moment there was no one to verify if what he saw was what anyone else saw.

OK, so far I agree with you.

 

Pragmatism erases the distinction between how things appear and how they are.  And really so does Phenomenology and Existentialism and all those guys you like to quote, in fact virtually every serious philosopher of the latter 20th century believes some form of that- unless they are in Catholic or Evangelical institutions, and their bread is buttered by belief in the old sectarian Neoplatonism.

Fine, believe what you like.  But for me it IS a religious position, and you have done nothing to argue against that.  THAT John is the category error.

 

Religious statements are not scientific statements

And no, I do not "privilege" one over the other.  You can't even conceive, I guess, that I see them as unrelated as baseball and house painting. Each are true in their spheres- which means within their individual vocabularies or literary contexts.

Obviously religious statements are not the same as scientific statements.

I would say each is valid in its own sphere, but that's nitpicking. I just don't see how it's a religious statement to express my judgment that a certain civilization likely did not exist based on the archaeological record. What does that have to do with religion? Nothing.

No, it's not "tentative".  If that is implying that somehow there IS a "final answer" it is not what I believe at all.  There IS no "final answer".  All we have are theories one of which works better or worse than another one.  Science is not "tentative" unless you want to say that it will ALWAYS be "tentative" at which point that becomes meaningless.  It is what it is- it is what many people experience today with the classification systems we have available within the cultural contexts we all have.  Nothing more nothing less.   What works today won't work tomorrow- what worked for Galileo and Copernicus and Newton needed to be re-created by Einstein

Emphasis added.

Again, a postmodernist would say it's all tentative and always will be and therefore is ultimately "meaningless." I don't believe that. I say it's tentative because I recognize that everything I experience is colored by my own biases, language, and previous experience. Will we ever reach something "real"? Beats me. That's outside of my area of interest.

You have proven your own error.  History has nothing to do with religion, and you know instinctively here.  THAT IS THE CATEGORY ERROR, thinking that one has to do with the other.

When have I said that? I have said simply that, based on my knowledge, I judge that certain things likely did not happen. There's nothing religious about that. I have acknowledged from the beginning that my judgment that there were likely no Nephites has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish I had said it was a religious issue.

My rejection of Mormonism has never been about history. I'm not a believing Mormon because I don't like who and what I was as a Mormon, and I don't believe Mormonism is, on balance, a force for good either now or in the eternities. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether there were ever Nephites..

 

AND THE HUGE PROBLEM- The issue is proving that the Nephites did NOT exist- not that they existed. You turned your original statement on its head. 

Frankly it does not matter to me if they existed in some sense or not- but I am not pointing out a logical problem with your argument.  You have changed from talking about proving that some people/event EXISTED to whether or not they did NOT EXIST.

The non-existence of ANYTHING cannot be proven- in fact it is a non sequitur.  Just naming the "Nephites" means they "exist" in some sense as much as Hamlet "exists", at the very least.  So even saying that the "Nephites don't exist" is contradictory in some sense.

I don't know how to respond to such a clear misrepresentation of what I have said. I only hope it wasn't deliberate. CFR on my EVER talking about proving anything did or did not exist. I have said repeatedly that I can't prove such things and am not interested in proving them.

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't constantly misstate what I've said. I know you don't care if there were Nephites or not. As I said, my religious beliefs don't have anything to do with the existence of Nephites, no matter how hard you try to make it so. And saying that the evidence tells me something likely didn't happen is not the same as proving anything doesn't exist. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

John I really do not want to offend or anything- I would love to get together with you and knock back a few...... non-caffeine diet pepsis     We are very similar in many of our positions on everything but the nature of the importance of these particular issues.

That's why I don't understand why you keep arguing with me about things we agree on. I agree with you that we aren't always doing our best, so we need the atonement, and you surprise me by criticizing my agreement with you. I have no interest in offending you either, but it's not fair to expect me to defend things I don't actually say.

 

But it seems that every time we start talking, I end up taking a lot more of my time answering you than I have available.  That's my fault, not yours, but I really am going to have to not respond to your responses to my posts, at least for a while.  Because I know there will be responses- and if I don't respond don't take it that I don't like you or think that I don't have a response to give.  We just don't seem to get anywhere!

The first step, I think, would be to at least acknowledge what I say instead of riffing on things I don't say, which is where things usually go.

 

I always have a response to you Mr. W- and that is the problem! 

 

And besides- I am sure no one else reads this stuff anyway!

... unless they are masochists.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 29 Oct 2013 - 9:48 PM, said:

Sounds like the old "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition on what is true and what is false.  And if that sort of double-dealing weren't enough, you seem to be touting some sort of Protestant sola sciptura rule, without however clearly delineating how that Scripture is to be interpreted.  I agree with Pogi that most of what you listed was pretty superficial.  It is also unnecessarily negative.  Any of us might go off the deep end telling everyone (or implying) what should be done,

I recommend humility and a willingness to frankly discuss such matters, without passing instant judgment on who is right and who is wrong.  Lest we assume what has to be proved, to the detriment of all.  Denver Snuffer has lately imagined (with enormous self-assurance) that he has it all figured out.  He doesn't.

Would the brethren claim all truth? No

Would the brethren claim all keys?  No.

Would they claim no one outside the Church has been called to do God's work?  No.

Would they claim being LDS gives us a better chance at celestial Glory? (This is the only one I am hesitant to guess their answer)  No.

I note that you didn't respond to my comments.  An  appropriate response from you might have been:  Yes, I probably do need to be more humble in my claims.  Perhaps I went too far in my assumptions about what the Brethren (as a group) in fact believe.  Perhaps I would not like to have such wild assumptions to be made about my motives.  Perhaps I should have applied the Golden Rule.  Etc.

 

Instead, you recklessly substitute folklore for a factual analysis of what the LDS doctrine really is and to what degree LDS people believe that doctrine.  Moreover, you seem unable to distinguish between the beliefs of some general authorities and others who don't share those views, and are unable to figure out which of those  opinions constitute official doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

If your assuming I think myself more righteous then others, you would be mistaken.  I would rather word it less righteous then others.  I have serious flaws for which I am pressing forward with steadfastness to correct but with me anyway it truly shall be an eternal work of Glory as I am millions of years away from being Christlike.

 

Now that is a completely separate issue from whether I think I am right about a point of view or a take on a certain policy.  I can be a terrible sinner and still be right on some discussion.

 

..........................................................  

We're making progress, DB.  A few  more hours on the couch and you should be just fine.

[Robert F. Smith]

I appreciate the liberality of allowing that people are "called of God" in other churches. But what can this mean in a setting where there is only one valid priesthood? Would it not mean that God calls some people to give and receive invalid baptisms? If that is what it means to be "called of God" in other churches, it seems like a very distant and less meaningful calling in comparison to those who are what I would prefer to designate as "truly called of God." I am Catholic, and believe in one valid priesthood. I am sure there are many numbers of Catholics who would similarly prefer by reason of a generous heart, to downplay the implications of a valid priesthood. I cannot think of a way that Mormons or Catholics can meaningfully represent themselves as believing that the ministers or people of other churches are "called of God". Such a statement seems incompatible with the fact that unless they ignore their "calling", they will never be baptized in this life (if LDS have the priesthood), or receive any of the other sacraments and ordinances which we believe God has exclusively given to our respective churches. 

 

Rory 

Hi Rory,

I always appreciate your clear and kind comments.

 

Others here have dealt with the universalist tendency in Mormonism, so I will just focus on valid priesthood here (which should not take away from the good works of sincere Roman Catholic priests), and fulfillment of prophecy..

I may have mentioned to you before that we Mormons are not supercessionists, and make the legitimate status of the lineal Aaronic Priesthood within Judaism part of our official doctrine (D&C 68:15ff, and 107:16ff).  This also applies to the gathering of Israel, which a Mormon apostle (Orson Hyde) instituted in 1841 with a dedicatory prayer on Mt Olivet in Palestine.  It also applies to the Great Jerusalem Temple Prophecy in Isaiah 2:1-3, which will be fulfilled in Jerusalem, in the State of Israel (see Jeffrey Chadwick in David R. Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey, eds., Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (SLC: Deseret Book, 2013).

 

Bob

[DBMormon]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 29 Oct 2013 - 9:48 PM, said:

I note that you didn't respond to my comments.  An  appropriate response from you might have been:  Yes, I probably do need to be more humble in my claims.  Perhaps I went too far in my assumptions about what the Brethren (as a group) in fact believe.  Perhaps I would not like to have such wild assumptions to be made about my motives.  Perhaps I should have applied the Golden Rule.  Etc.

 

Instead, you recklessly substitute folklore for a factual analysis of what the LDS doctrine really is and to what degree LDS people believe that doctrine.  Moreover, you seem unable to distinguish between the beliefs of some general authorities and others who don't share those views, and are unable to figure out which of those  opinions constitute official doctrine.

 

 

Robert you miss my point entirely.  I have never claimed the brethren taught these false doctrines but rather we as members have picked them up generally and that many members hold such views in spite of the brethren not teaching them.  Then I went on to ask if we should correct these openly or allow members to believe these false concepts as long as it keeps them strong in the faith.

[pogi]

Probably you didn't mean it that way, but the underlying assumption here is that John is somehow deficient or is committing some horrible sin or something.

 

If I were him I would probably be insulted, but I think he is probably a better person than I am so that may be projection on my part.

 

Ya, I can see how it might be interpreted that way, but that is certainly not what I was implying.  I was simply referring to the pressure that some people feel in the church to be perfect in every way.  It seems to happen more with women, but men are vulnerable as well.   When people find that they cannot live up to this seeming standard of perfection, it can be easy to feel inadequate or worthless when the adversary is whispering shame in your ear.  I know many who blame the church for these feelings of shame, but I don't think it is a fair judgment.   On the other hand, I don't think that it is a coincidance that Utah has the highest rate of antidepressant use in the nation for that reason, but that's just speculation.  I blame the culture not the church. 

Edited October 31, 2013 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

Probably you didn't mean it that way, but the underlying assumption here is that John is somehow deficient or is committing some horrible sin or something.

 

If I were him I would probably be insulted, but I think he is probably a better person than I am so that may be projection on my part.

 

Thanks for that, Mark. I don't worry about anyone thinking I'm deficient or not. I'm not perfect, but I do the best I can to follow my conscience and my beliefs.

[Tacenda]

Believing in the Tooth Fairy was good, it is not true as in there being an actual Tooth Fairy. This logic is a way to dodge historicity and simply say because something gives you value, you should never have to deal with it factuality. Then Santa should still be still on the table. My best most valuable Christmases were based on my believing something that was false even though it was true in that it brought value.

Yes it's the spirit of Christmas, make believe or not. I believe if the church isn't true, or if everything we say might not be right about the hereafter, there is a lot of good going on, that's why I think the leaders would keep it going even if they didn't believe. But I think they do.

[Robert F. Smith]

I never said there was "proof." I believe it is extremely unlikely that they existed, and that's based on my field of study in college and years of study afterward. But as I said, the bottom line for me is that, for me, the church isn't true by your definition because it made me quite unhappy. Everything beside that is pretty much window dressing. If it makes you happy, and you believe it has the capacity to exalt humans, that's excellent.

They could, I suppose, if you discount the cultural and technological descriptions in the Book of Mormon. Chuck the smelting of ore, etc., and it could work.

We have discussed such issues many times on this board in recent years, and FAIR has a good website dealing forthrightly with claims that the technology and culture of the Book of Mormon are not to be found in the Americas. As with biblical archeology, there are a good many things which are not known, and things which cannot be "proven." However, what I have found by and large is that the supposed shortcomings of the Book of Mormon (as with the Bible) are too often no more that straw men or unreasonable skepticism. The "smelting" of ore, for example: The word "smelt(ing)" does not occur in either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. However, we do find the word "ore" in the Book of Mormon several times, and Nephi even describes using a "molten" process to create tools from ore (I Ne 17:16, undoubtedly using the bellows described in 17:11), we should not be at all amazed since such Old World technology being practiced by Nephi in Arabia had already been available for centuries. I assume you realize that steel had been produced in the ancient Near East already for a half millennium by that time. Technology transfer to the New World would come as a matter of course, and need not have been permanent there (the mention of refining only occurs as late as Helaman 6:11). As to the account of the Jaredites mining for ore (Ether 10:23), we actually have tons of worked iron in Olmec sites from that very era.

 

 

Again, I've never said anything about proof. What I have said consistently, is that the culture and technology described in the Book of Mormon has no possible home in ancient America. Not only is there a lack of evidence, but there is specific evidence that shows that the technologies could not have been in use. Does that prove anything? No, but as I said, it makes it rather unlikely.

 

I'm just going by what the text says about "Nephites." Knowing what I do about ancient American, it's extremely unlikely that a civilization with the technologies and culture described in the Book of Mormon lived in the Americas at that time period,

..............................

But if I take the text seriously as describing actual people doing actual stuff, no, it doesn't work very well in the Americas. One thing I ask myself is, if there were no Nephites, how would ancient American development look different from what we see in the archaeological record?

What you are saying is simply not the case.

Taking the text seriously is an academic matter and requires intense study of the text and of geographical and archeological correlations. If you want to see what that means, I recommend a reading of John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex (Deseret Book 2013).

 

Finally, "how would ancient American development look different from what we see in the archaeological record?"

Probably not much in the general height of civilization of Mesoamerica.  Why?  Because the Olmec (Jaredite) civilization was the "mother culture" of all of Mesoamerica.  The overall characteristics of that continuous culture (literacy & iconography, calendar system, etc.) would still persist among the various cultures who were the neighbors of the non-existent Nephites.  The primary difference would be seen in the archeological record of (1) lack of peace during an extended period from the 1st century A.D., and (2) in lack of the effects of massive warfare at the end of the Nephite-Lamanite nexus.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert you miss my point entirely.  I have never claimed the brethren taught these false doctrines but rather we as members have picked them up generally and that many members hold such views in spite of the brethren not teaching them.  Then I went on to ask if we should correct these openly or allow members to believe these false concepts as long as it keeps them strong in the faith.

I really don't think so, DB.  Here are the quotes that I found:

 

DBMormon, on 29 Oct 2013, said:

Is it ok to let people believe false things as long as that keeps them in the faith or does the motive of trying to dispel false teachings and teaching pure truth have more weight even at the expense of losing members form the Lord's Church????

------------------------------   

yes, though I also believe I can back up my views with scriptures while I think the other point of view that I named as incorrect can only be backed by a leaders comment here or there but generally not by scripture.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith