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

[canard78]

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

 

 

I think the point DB is making is not that leaders have taught this but that members feel able to believe this and back it up by using selective quoting of leaders through history.

 

That's how I read this:

 

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 canard78

[jkwilliams]

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.

Robert, the problem here is that Nephi describes a specific process of producing metal from ore to make tools and weapons and then he tells us he taught his people how to do this. But, not only is there no evidence of high-heat technology like this in the Americas, there is evidence showing how the ancient Americans used a lower-heat technology. You are correct that "smelting" does not appear in the text, but what Nephi describes is a high-heat method of extracting metal from ore, which is an anachronism in ancient America. It's not a strawman or unreasonable skepticism to point that out.

 

 

 

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).

Why do you assume I haven't studied these issues intensely? Years ago one of my Latin American history professors at BYU explained the first day of class that his was not a class about Nephites and Lamanites. He went so far as to say that there was no evidence of Nephite or Lamanite civilization in the archaeological record, and anyone who said there was is lying. I was a bit taken aback by that statement, but nearly 30 years later, I tend to agree with him. As for Sorensen's new book, a friend is going to let me borrow the book. I'll let you know.

 

 

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.

Essentially, then, you are suggesting that a more or less lining up of long-term war and peace cycles is all we would see.

Edited October 31, 2013 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

As such, I've decided to be very careful trying to correct the perspectives and beliefs of my fellow Mormons.

 ...except on this board!

 

But this is how I approach it too; I don't even feel a need to be careful about it. As my brothers and sisters there is far more to the practical relationship (which is influenced by the Spirit) than the respective particulars of what we believe.

[canard78]

...except on this board!

But this is how I approach it too; I don't even feel a need to be careful about it. As my brothers and sisters there is far more to the practical relationship (which is influenced by the Spirit) than the respective particulars of what we believe.

Touché!

My tone and topics for discussions on a Sunday are entirely different to my discussions here. I figure it's fair game on this board but people don't go to church on Sunday to debate doctrine and history. I try to respect that.

[DBMormon]

I think the point DB is making is not that leaders have taught this but that members feel able to believe this and back it up by using selective quoting of leaders through history.

 

That's how I read this:

 

This!

[ERayR]

I'm sure you can enlighten me.

 

I can do some great things and have a reasonable understanding of the Book of Mormon but your enlightenment and understanding. . . well lets just say miracles are not what I do well.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Yep.  What I have a problem with is someone declaring others beliefs as incorrect because they don't align with their own.

 

I would say(and have said) "I'm sorry but that is not the way I understand that.  Here is where I am coming from and how I understand it". 

 

On the board I am sometimes more abrupt.  It depends on my perception of the history of the other poster.

[jkwilliams]

I can do some great things and have a reasonable understanding of the Book of Mormon but your enlightenment and understanding. . . well lets just say miracles are not what I do well.

Well, then I won't expect much from you again. A missed opportunity, perhaps.

[ERayR]

Well, then I won't expect much from you again. A missed opportunity, perhaps.

 

 

Ah such sorrow to have ones hopes raised only to have them dashed to pieces.

[CV75]

My tone and topics for discussions on a Sunday are entirely different to my discussions here. I figure it's fair game on this board but people don't go to church on Sunday to debate doctrine and history. I try to respect that.

Cool!

 

Then what do you think about these ideas for application the rest of the week and in real life interaction with your LDS brothers and sisters?

 

1. It might be OK to let people believe some false things as long as they believe the essential true things as well

 

2. Feeling motivated by such principles as D&C 58:27-28  vs. who should be made to stumble or “run faster than he has strength” (and what is the role of the Spirit in both?).

 

3. The motive to dispel false teaching should never outpace the motive to teach pure truth (but  motives aside, is it not the actual work and glory that really counts)?

 

4. The influence of what people believe about the Church is a weaker influence than the results they experience by acting on spiritual promptings (and what is the difference bewteen belief and a spiritual prompting?).

[jkwilliams]

Ah such sorrow to have ones hopes raised only to have them dashed to pieces.

Yes, I am disappointed.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. John

 

Yes we are close on many points.  You have mentioned not having a theory of truth, and I think that is the difference.  I have a very definite theory of truth, and it derives from Rorty and the Pragmatists.

 

Maybe you will never again find that Mormonism "works" for you, but at least if we are going to continue discussions it would be helpful if you really really understood that theory of truth insofar as it applies to "evidence" (science- objective statements about 'reality') and religion.

 

I know for a fact that this has increased the understanding of a couple of people on this very board, and as Canard recently posted a link to my earlier thread about "47 minutes which could change your life"

 

I know you think you know about Rorty, but if I could kidnap you I would shackle you in a room and make you watch this video with your eyelids propped open. 

(Hey, it's Halloween - I get a seasonal pass for bizarre metaphors!)

 

Please really do watch it, ok?  You can only watch the first portion, until the sound goes out for a minute or two which is about 45 minutes into it.  But I really think yoiu should watch the whole thing including the questions and answers.  The last question at the end of the tape is really good too.

 

Once you truly grok this, it can change everything- again, not that Mormonism will ever work for you again.  But at least you will understand my positions better on this question of "Truth vs Faith"

 

And DBMormon, this goes straight to the root of the OP imnsho.

 

Remember Rorty is himself an atheist, but he understands this distinction perfectly.  The guy has no axe to grind about religion- he just has a perfectly elegant theory.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

Edited October 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Mark, I'll take the time tomorrow. I am having a procedure in the morning, so I'll have all day afterward.

[canard78]

Mr. John

Yes we are close on many points. You have mentioned not having a theory of truth, and I think that is the difference. I have a very definite theory of truth, and it derives from Rorty and the Pragmatists.

Maybe you will never again find that Mormonism "works" for you, but at least if we are going to continue discussions it would be helpful if you really really understood that theory of truth insofar as it applies to "evidence" (science- objective statements about 'reality') and religion.

I know for a fact that this has increased the understanding of a couple of people on this very board, and as Canard recently posted a link to my earlier thread about "47 minutes which could change your life"

I know you think you know about Rorty, but if I could kidnap you I would shackle you in a room and make you watch this video with your eyelids propped open.

(Hey, it's Halloween - I get a seasonal pass for bizarre metaphors!)

Please really do watch it, ok? You can only watch the first portion, until the sound goes out for a minute or two which is about 45 minutes into it. But I really think yoiu should watch the whole thing including the questions and answers. The last question at the end of the tape is really good too.

Once you truly grok this, it can change everything- again, not that Mormonism will ever work for you again. But at least you will understand my positions better on this question of "Truth vs Faith"

And DBMormon, this goes straight to the root of the OP imnsho.

Remember Rorty is himself an atheist, but he understands this distinction perfectly. The guy has no axe to grind about religion- he just has a perfectly elegant theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

John and Bill. I had to sit and take really careful notes and pause it several times... But... This was one of the most significant things I've seen. It completely changed my approach to seeking truth. Really is worth an hour of your time.

[canard78]

Cool!

Then what do you think about these ideas for application the rest of the week and in real life interaction with your LDS brothers and sisters?

1. It might be OK to let people believe some false things as long as they believe the essential true things as well

2. Feeling motivated by such principles as D&C 58:27-28 vs. who should be made to stumble or “run faster than he has strength” (and what is the role of the Spirit in both?).

This you mean:

"27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward."

Inasmuch as men do good then I have no interest in breaking that which motivates them to do so.

So to also answer point 1, yes, if it leads them to more good I don't mind if they believe something that I do not.

If someone is preaching/teaching what I perceive to be false or unhelpful doctrine to others then I might intervene. Politely.

3. The motive to dispel false teaching should never outpace the motive to teach pure truth (but motives aside, is it not the actual work and glory that really counts)?

4. The influence of what people believe about the Church is a weaker influence than the results they experience by acting on spiritual promptings (and what is the difference bewteen belief and a spiritual prompting?).

Yes, I think I agree with you.

[jkwilliams]

What happens when spiritual promptings conflict with the teaching of the church?

[canard78]

What happens when spiritual promptings conflict with the teaching of the church?

Some would say that's not possible. I say it's fair game. The church is a vehicle and framework. God's individual interaction with each of his children trumps the teachings of a church founded by and for humans.

Nibley said:

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things."

Hugh Nibley

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1154

[CV75]

This you mean:

"27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward."

Inasmuch as men do good then I have no interest in breaking that which motivates them to do so.

So to also answer point 1, yes, if it leads them to more good I don't mind if they believe something that I do not.

If someone is preaching/teaching what I perceive to be false or unhelpful doctrine to others then I might intervene. Politely.

Yes, I think I agree with you.

Then you agree with me on 1 and 2 as well. Great!

[mfbukowski]

John and Bill. I had to sit and take really careful notes and pause it several times... But... This was one of the most significant things I've seen. It completely changed my approach to seeking truth. Really is worth an hour of your time.

Thanks for the endorsement of the video.  It puts into one hour what it took me 40 years of reading those guys he quotes, to "get"!

[canard78]

Then you agree with me on 1 and 2 as well. Great!

 

I think so. You seem to be saying that the effect of the belief is what matters most. If my neighbour believes things that I consider erroneous but that leads him to be closer to God, lead by the Spirit and to ultimately run as fast as he has strength and do good continually then I should pause for thought before destroying or changing the belief that leads him to do that.

[DBMormon]

John and Bill. I had to sit and take really careful notes and pause it several times... But... This was one of the most significant things I've seen. It completely changed my approach to seeking truth. Really is worth an hour of your time.

I will take a look, perhaps make a podcast episode on this topic.

[canard78]

I will take a look, perhaps make a podcast episode on this topic.

 

Maybe MFBukowski would like to participate. I'd offer to if I thought I understood it enough. I'd certainly be willing to talk about the effect watching it had on me and my persuit of truth.

[DBMormon]

I am open to others who want to be part of an episode.  let me know MFBukowski and you too Canard

[mfbukowski]

I am open to others who want to be part of an episode.  let me know MFBukowski and you too Canard

Absolutely!

[mfbukowski]

It takes an atheist to defend religion.

 

Go figure.