Poll Regarding Our View Of Where The Non-Spiritual Evidence Leads

[3DOP]

I am an equal opportunity believer in either or both for my fellow religionists, of whatever kind, Rory.  Some claim that faith itself is a gift.

 

However, I'd like to hear mfbukowski speak to that issue.

Bob

Thanks Bob. Me too about bukowski. 

 

If without spiritual evidence, you are an atheist, how could you believe in a church without spiritual evidence?

 

It seems to me that the question doesn't back up far enough. Its like there is an underlying assumption that non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God. I am not so sure all of you guys agree with us Catholics about that. I think maybe looking at it this way this will make it easier for some LDS to realize that for those who would be atheists apart from the gift of faith, that the non-spiritual evidence would undermine belief in the LDS church, by undermining belief in God.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think Bob sees the hat as likely muffling Joseph's voice making it hard to hear.

Maybe Joseph was disguising his voice in order to rescue a Lamanite princess. 

[Brian 2.0]

Let's say the death and resurrection of Jesus happened today and CNN and other news organizations were covering it. You have cameras on the tomb, doctors declaring him dead, then the resurrected Jesus interviewing on AC360.

There would be plenty of non-spiritual evidence supporting the idea of a literal resurrection of Jesus. Whether or not Jesus is "God" or something else would still be up for debate of course.

Such obviously isn't the case and most rely on spiritual witness to confirm the reality of a literal resurrection of Jesus and not non-spiritual evidence.

It's less about the event itself and more about what evidences are available as to how much stock one puts into non-spiritual evidence and spiritual witness.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

Does that extend to any organization of any kind?  Say to the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the Dept of Physics at the Sorbonne, the Dept of Mathematics at the Free University of Berlin, etc., or only to organizations judged to be based on irrational considerations?

 

Some doctrines are arguably more logical than others.  One of the reasons why scientists often perceive religion as outside their orbit or bailiwick is that religious beliefs are not normally subject to logical, scientific inquiry, and indeed are not even testable or falsifiable.  Could you narrow your statement somewhat?

 

Do you consider Mormon doctrine irrational?  Or humanistic?  Logical?

Science and religion speak different languages.

 

I suggest you watch the Rorty video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

 

Rorty was clearly one of the most important American philosophers of the 20th century and happens to be an atheist who understood the question perfectly.

[mfbukowski]

Does that extend to any organization of any kind?  Say to the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the Dept of Physics at the Sorbonne, the Dept of Mathematics at the Free University of Berlin, etc., or only to organizations judged to be based on irrational considerations?

 

Some doctrines are arguably more logical than others.  One of the reasons why scientists often perceive religion as outside their orbit or bailiwick is that religious beliefs are not normally subject to logical, scientific inquiry, and indeed are not even testable or falsifiable.  Could you narrow your statement somewhat?

 

Do you consider Mormon doctrine irrational?  Or humanistic?  Logical?

I was speaking of the poll, which uses the words "evidence" to mean scientific and historical evidence.

 

Sorry, I thought the context was clear.

 

Religious belief is perfectly logical and rational- for thinkers like Rorty and William James, John Dewey, Kierkegaard Wittgenstein and others because they understand that science has nothing to do religion.

 

DB was using the term "logical" as a layman would, as perhaps a Mr Spock character might.  Logic is equated with scientific reasoning in that context, but no you are right- I should have been more clear about that, thanks for pointing it out.

 

I was simply using the same language DB was, without qualifying my points.

[mfbukowski]

But as a practical matter, as Neal A. Maxwell used to note by quoting Austin Farrer:

 

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer on C. S. Lewis)

 

That is why organizations such as FARMS and FAIRMORMON can play such a useful role.  Not that they have all the answers, but that they keep  the discussion going on so as to allow a high level playing field.  That gives all parties time to reflect.

Frankly I think they provide a useful stepping stone to a more sophisticated understanding of what Kuhn and others might say about science and what we call "facts".  As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations. 

 

I think when one starts seeing science as its own kind of "myth" - as a humanly constructed view of the universe depending on the limits of human understanding for definitions- I think that the distinctions you are citing become unnecessary.  A true understanding of what "rational argument" really is makes one question the boundaries of what "rational" even means. 

 

As one very familiar with hermeneutics I think you are well acquainted with what language can and cannot do and how much "reality" depends on interpretation.  Just looking at the Copenhagen interpretation in physics, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for example, is illuminating.  Obviously when one starts speaking of history, what is "objectively true" because even blurrier by a few quantum levels.

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.^[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

These particular problems of course have been addressed to a degree- but the philosophical point is still valid is that when we try to see objective reality, most often we are looking at what Rorty would call a "Mirror" in which we see ourselves looking back.  (See Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature")

 

Even in science we end up seeing what we want to see.

[mfbukowski]

I thought that many LDS believe that disregarding spiritual evidence, they wouldn't believe in God. I am sure I have heard that. If that is your position, how could you say the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in any church? Not picking a fight, if you think the non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God, I agree.

 

Rory

Don't know if this was addressed to me- again what I was speaking about was using DB's qualification and definition of "evidence" to exclude spiritual evidence.

 

So yes, I think that spiritual evidence is indeed evidence and that no one could possibly believe in any invisible being without spiritual confirmation.  Such an idea makes no sense to me, absent spiritual verification.

[mfbukowski]

I am an equal opportunity believer in either or both for my fellow religionists, of whatever kind, Rory.  Some claim that faith itself is a gift.

 

However, I'd like to hear mfbukowski speak to that issue.

Bob

Did I explain it far enough or do you want more?

 

As my wife often tells me, I have a tendency to over-explain.  But because she is exceptionally brilliant I never know if she is right or not. 

 

She usually knows what I am going to say before I say it anyway. 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks Bob. Me too about bukowski. 

 

If without spiritual evidence, you are an atheist, how could you believe in a church without spiritual evidence?

 

It seems to me that the question doesn't back up far enough. Its like there is an underlying assumption that non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God. I am not so sure all of you guys agree with us Catholics about that. I think maybe looking at it this way this will make it easier for some LDS to realize that for those who would be atheists apart from the gift of faith, that the non-spiritual evidence would undermine belief in the LDS church, by undermining belief in God.

Man I really see I goofed up by using the term as the poll used it. 

Again, I think that religious belief is logical and rational even though there is no scientific evidence for it, and that indeed spiritual evidence is "rational and logical" and thereby I disagree with the language of the poll, which I was using in an unfortunate attempt to communicate.

 

The bottom line I think is that it is clear that many here disagree with the terminology of the poll.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks Bob. Me too about bukowski. 

 

If without spiritual evidence, you are an atheist, how could you believe in a church without spiritual evidence?

 

It seems to me that the question doesn't back up far enough. Its like there is an underlying assumption that non-spiritual evidence leads to belief in God. I am not so sure all of you guys agree with us Catholics about that. I think maybe looking at it this way this will make it easier for some LDS to realize that for those who would be atheists apart from the gift of faith, that the non-spiritual evidence would undermine belief in the LDS church, by undermining belief in God.

Man I really see I goofed up by using the term as the poll used it. 

Again, I think that religious belief is logical and rational even though there is no scientific evidence for it, and that indeed spiritual evidence is "rational and logical" and thereby I disagree with the language of the poll, which I was using in an unfortunate attempt to communicate.

 

The bottom line I think is that it is clear that many here disagree with the terminology of the poll.

My own perspective on this question is that the LDS religion is uniquely humanistic and rational at base, thus sharing with many atheists the notion that natural law prevails everywhere in the universe, and reject God as an uncaused Cause as just plain irrational -- not that it matters to a believer in the supernatural and miracles, but rather that LDS religion posits creation, humans, and God who are all organized but uncreated.  Not contingent, but coeternal. All part of the natural continuum, even if quantum mechanics must be part of the equation.  I doubt that Nietzsche would have been uncomfortable with that, and might have said that "God is dead -- except for the Mormon God."

 

Thus, I also think that LDS religion is very well suited to systematic, secular inquiry, without the danger of threat to one's faith.  Naturally, not everyone shares my sanguine opinion.  A lot of nervous nellies out there . . .

Edited February 16, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

My own perspective on this question is that the LDS religion is uniquely humanistic and rational at base, thus sharing with many atheists the notion that natural law prevails everywhere in the universe, and reject God as an uncaused Cause as just plain irrational -- not that it matters to a believer in the supernatural and miracles, but rather that LDS religion posits creation, humans, and God who are all organized but uncreated. Not contingent, but coeternal. All part of the natural continuum, even if quantum mechanics must be part of the equation. I doubt that Nietzsche would have been uncomfortable with that, and might have said that "God is dead -- except for the Mormon God."

Thus, I also think that LDS religion is very well suited to systematic, secular inquiry, without the danger of threat to one's faith. Naturally, not everyone shares my sanguine opinion. A lot of nervous nellies out there . . .

I would agree with this.

I think this is also why Mormons get flack from the rest of Christianity sometimes because the Mormon God is a "little-g-god" and not a "big-g-God." He's bound my eternal laws he did not make. He's so material, knowable, and a non-physically-omniscient being that the Mormon god almost borders on intelligent extra terrestrial rather than Supreme Being God.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

I would agree with this.

I think this is also why Mormons get flack from the rest of Christianity sometimes because the Mormon God is a "little-g-god" and not a "big-g-God." He's bound my eternal laws he did not make. He's so material, knowable, and a non-physically-omniscient being that the Mormon god almost borders on intelligent extra terrestrial rather than Supreme Being God.

Yes, and if it gets emphasized enough, the Mormons may end up with a new moniker, like Jerry Brown (known at one time as "Governor Moonbeam").  I'm just not sure what that new moniker will be.  Any suggestions?

[mfbukowski]

My own perspective on this question is that the LDS religion is uniquely humanistic and rational at base, thus sharing with many atheists the notion that natural law prevails everywhere in the universe, and reject God as an uncaused Cause as just plain irrational -- not that it matters to a believer in the supernatural and miracles, but rather that LDS religion posits creation, humans, and God who are all organized but uncreated.  Not contingent, but coeternal. All part of the natural continuum, even if quantum mechanics must be part of the equation.  I doubt that Nietzsche would have been uncomfortable with that, and might have said that "God is dead -- except for the Mormon God."

 

Thus, I also think that LDS religion is very well suited to systematic, secular inquiry, without the danger of threat to one's faith.  Naturally, not everyone shares my sanguine opinion.  A lot of nervous nellies out there . . .

I could not agree with you more, and I am pleased to know there is at least one other human out there in this world who sees this point fully.

 

Indeed when Neitzsche proclaimed the "death of god" (I have substituted a small "g" intentionally) he was precisely right- from a Moron perspective.  What he was speaking of is the death of the "Transcendent" god of the sectarians, the god without body, parts, or passions.  I see indeed this statement as paralleling Joseph Smith's revelation that all religions were an "abomination".  When seen in this context, both statements are virtually equivalent.

 

Rorty discusses Nietzsche at length, including this very point, but of course Rorty like Nietzsche is left without an understanding that the God of Mormons is an immanent, glorified human being.

 

Rorty bemoans the fact that he could worship a God who is a "friend" as opposed to the transcendent being manufactured by Greek philosophy mingled with scripture.  Indeed, the D&C repeatedly documents the Lord speaking to Joseph and early church members as "friends".

 

Just a few examples:

 

• Doctrine and Covenants 84:77

  77 And again I say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you friends, it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my friends in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power;

• Doctrine and Covenants 93:45

  45 Verily, I say unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., or in other words, I will call you friends, for you are my friends, and ye shall have an inheritance with me—

• Doctrine and Covenants 105:26

  26 Now, behold, I say unto you, my friends, in this way you may find favor in the eyes of the people, until the army of Israel becomes very great.

 

Rorty stresses that what Neitzsche was opposing was the "non-human" understanding of reality- the idea that humans could understand anything outside of human experience.  To me it is a tautology that humans can only understand what humans understand, but others seem to have serious problems with that concept.  Some think that truth is the "correspondence" of human experience with some reality beyond human experience, which somehow we are supposed to be able to compare to our experience to define it as "true".  I find that to be, to use a phrase which I know you will recognize, a "mass of confusion".  Incidentally the fact that that phrase will be familiar to you underlines the doctrinal nature of what I am saying. We simply do not believe in a transcendent god without body parts or passions, and indeed it is appropriate in my opinion to say that such a "god is dead" conceptually.  This also relates directly to our church believing in the "only true and LIVING GOD" which I contrast with the dead god of the sectarians.

 

So I am not saying that "Rorty and Nietzsche would have become Mormons if they only had the right missionaries",   but what I AM saying is that they both would be sympathetic to the view that any future religion would have to hinge totally on understanding a completely humanist reality.

 

In fact Rorty collaborated with a Catholic theorist named Gianni Vatimo on a book called "The Future of Religion" which makes this view explicit.  The Amazon reviewer says this:

 

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

I honestly think that if the church could ever fully grasp this potential unification with humanism, we could become the greatest force for good the world has ever seen, the "stone cut without hands" which will fill the earth.

 

I would give anything to see that happen, but so far, I think we could definitely miss the greatest opportunity we have because we are too mired in Neoplatonism and dualistic theology. 

 

What do we do, boss? 

[Nofear]

The evidence 'leads' us to believe what we already wanted to believe.

[mfbukowski]

I would agree with this.

I think this is also why Mormons get flack from the rest of Christianity sometimes because the Mormon God is a "little-g-god" and not a "big-g-God." He's bound my eternal laws he did not make. He's so material, knowable, and a non-physically-omniscient being that the Mormon god almost borders on intelligent extra terrestrial rather than Supreme Being God.

Well we know he is bound by laws- we don't know that he did not make the laws though.

 

I prefer to see this as an issue of his "self-determination" which means voluntarily taking a law upon oneself which one has made for oneself.

 

A simple example might be going on a diet.  Eating chocolate cake is not a "natural law", but if one has voluntarily decided to abstain from it, one would be untrue to oneself and not be progressing on becoming one's "best self" by "cheating" on the diet and eating chocolate cake.

 

Well of course for God- he ALWAYS is true to himself and his perfection consists in always manifesting and progressing and being "His best self".  To NOT do that would be for him to cease being what he is- God. 

 

So if God has voluntarily taken upon himself what we mortals might call the "laws of physics" or whatever we might call "natural law" in our limited ability to see anything beyond what we can see- we might verbalize and think of that as "God following laws"

 

But what we would NOT know that those laws that God voluntarily follows are laws he has created for himself. 

 

So seeing this way, if we want to call God "omnipotent" AND see him as "following laws" we might postulate that the laws he follows he has taken upon himself voluntarily.   In that way, he could break those laws if he wanted to - and is therefore omnipotent- but to do so would be for him to violate his "word"- the promise he has made to himself not to do so.  So indeed if he was to break his word, he would cease to be what he is - God, because Gods do not break promises.

[mfbukowski]

The evidence 'leads' us to believe what we already wanted to believe.

Exactly!  Human desires create what we define as "evidence".  There is no such thing as an objective observer.

[mfbukowski]

I find it totally ironic that the book I cited above, "The Future of Religion" speaks of religion in a "Post-Christian world".

 

We instinctively take that phrase in a negative way- how horrible a post-christian world would be!

 

And yet "Christians" do not acknowledge us as "Christians"!

 

Indeed I would say that a world in which the Restoration was dominant would be indeed a "Post Christian" world, taking into consideration how the term "Christian" has been co-opted by those who celebrate a dead theology.

 

In this context maybe it's about time for a post- "Christian" world!   If Mormons are not Christians, I am ready for a "Mormon" world centered on the true and living Christ- not the dead Christ of Greek philosophy.

Edited February 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Brian 2.0]

My own perspective on this question is that the LDS religion is uniquely humanistic and rational at base, thus sharing with many atheists the notion that natural law prevails everywhere in the universe, and reject God as an uncaused Cause as just plain irrational -- not that it matters to a believer in the supernatural and miracles, but rather that LDS religion posits creation, humans, and God who are all organized but uncreated. Not contingent, but coeternal. All part of the natural continuum, even if quantum mechanics must be part of the equation. I doubt that Nietzsche would have been uncomfortable with that, and might have said that "God is dead -- except for the Mormon God."

Thus, I also think that LDS religion is very well suited to systematic, secular inquiry, without the danger of threat to one's faith. Naturally, not everyone shares my sanguine opinion. A lot of nervous nellies out there . . .

I think this is why when a lot of members lose their belief in the Mormon faith for "intellectual" reasons they end up in an atheistic/naturalist position. Moving to a Protestant religion or any other faith is uncommon because they seem even less rational/logical than the Mormon position.

[mfbukowski]

I think this is why when a lot of members lose their belief in the Mormon faith for "intellectual" reasons they end up in an atheistic/naturalist position. Moving to a Protestant religion or any other faith is uncommon because they seem even less rational/logical than the Mormon position.

Well it had the opposite effect for me.  I was an atheist for all the reasons Nietzsche brings up, and believed in a totally humanist reality.  It had never crossed my mind that seeing God as human would reverse that.  Then I found Mormonism and it all clicked.  If man is the measure of all things, and God is a Man, then God becomes the measure of all things.  For me, this is the genius of Mormonism.

 

I am certain it would work for others as well.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, and if it gets emphasized enough, the Mormons may end up with a new moniker, like Jerry Brown (known at one time as "Governor Moonbeam").  I'm just not sure what that new moniker will be.  Any suggestions?

 

Mormonaturalists

Mormaterialists

Latter-day Secularists

 

any of those work?

Edited February 17, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[rodheadlee]

Some one forgot or was not around when a certain poster who always requested that option no matter what poll was. It was a long standing joke.

Ditto, I got chewed out for it too.

[rameumptom]

My view is, without the faith option, there is no evidence for or against the Church. No one can prove/disprove Joseph Smith and others saw anything or everything or nothing.

The evidences the anti-Mormons use are all about physical things, such as the KEP. But regardless of how you decide on that evidence, that has nothing to do with whether God revealed ancient Abrahamic teachings/ideas to Joseph.

So, it is even.

[Robert F. Smith]

I could not agree with you more, and I am pleased to know there is at least one other human out there in this world who sees this point fully.

 

Indeed when Neitzsche proclaimed the "death of god" (I have substituted a small "g" intentionally) he was precisely right- from a Moron perspective.  What he was speaking of is the death of the "Transcendent" god of the sectarians, the god without body, parts, or passions.  I see indeed this statement as paralleling Joseph Smith's revelation that all religions were an "abomination".  When seen in this context, both statements are virtually equivalent.

 

Rorty discusses Nietzsche at length, including this very point, but of course Rorty like Nietzsche is left without an understanding that the God of Mormons is an immanent, glorified human being.

 

Rorty bemoans the fact that he could worship a God who is a "friend" as opposed to the transcendent being manufactured by Greek philosophy mingled with scripture.  Indeed, the D&C repeatedly documents the Lord speaking to Joseph and early church members as "friends".

In honor of their father Abraham, who is buried there, the Arabs call Hebron Al-Khalil "The Friend (of God)."  Abraham's willingness to negotiate directly with God is legendary and has long been a part of Jewish tradition.

 

Just a few examples:

Rorty stresses that what Neitzsche was opposing was the "non-human" understanding of reality- the idea that humans could understand anything outside of human experience.  To me it is a tautology that humans can only understand what humans understand, but others seem to have serious problems with that concept.  Some think that truth is the "correspondence" of human experience with some reality beyond human experience, which somehow we are supposed to be able to compare to our experience to define it as "true".  I find that to be, to use a phrase which I know you will recognize, a "mass of confusion".  Incidentally the fact that that phrase will be familiar to you underlines the doctrinal nature of what I am saying. We simply do not believe in a transcendent god without body parts or passions, and indeed it is appropriate in my opinion to say that such a "god is dead" conceptually.  This also relates directly to our church believing in the "only true and LIVING GOD" which I contrast with the dead god of the sectarians.

 

So I am not saying that "Rorty and Nietzsche would have become Mormons if they only had the right missionaries",   but what I AM saying is that they both would be sympathetic to the view that any future religion would have to hinge totally on understanding a completely humanist reality.

 

In fact Rorty collaborated with a Catholic theorist named Gianni Vatimo on a book called "The Future of Religion" which makes this view explicit.  The Amazon reviewer says this:

 

I honestly think that if the church could ever fully grasp this potential unification with humanism, we could become the greatest force for good the world has ever seen, the "stone cut without hands" which will fill the earth.

 

I would give anything to see that happen, but so far, I think we could definitely miss the greatest opportunity we have because we are too mired in Neoplatonism and dualistic theology. 

 

What do we do, boss? 

I have long thought, Mark, that you should write the definitive article on the matter, and I may even have said so on this board.  Dialogue or Interpreter might be appropriate venues.  Dan Peterson has a deep understanding of philosophy and would readily understand the value of what you are saying.  You might try presenting a preliminary version of such a paper at the annual mtg of the SMPT this year, or the Mormon Theology Seminar.  The frank critique you will get is always helpful.

 

You are immersed in that material, fully conversant with it, and understand very well how to phrase the concepts so as to make them comprehensible to Mormon and non-Mormon intellectuals (I don't know about the hoi polloi).  I can think of a  number of Mormon scholars who would love to see such ideas advanced, and who could very easily provide their own unique take on such matters in a book-length compilation (even such mavericks as Sterling McMurrin and Hugh Nibley could have contributed, if still with us).  You'd be a great editor.  What would be a good book title for it?

 

And how about the slogan: Mormons and humanists unite!  You have nothing to lose but your Neo-Platonic chains!

[Robert F. Smith]

Mormonaturalists

Mormaterialists

Latter-day Secularists

 

any of those work?

I don't think they'd get past security on Temple Square.  Mormonaturalists sounds like Utah environmentalism, Mormaterialists is weird, and Latter-day Secularists sounds like a schismatic group.

 

How about "Extra-Terrestrial Mormons" (ET Mormons for short) who want to build temples on Mars and the Moon, just for a start, once human colonies are established there. Hey, Glen A. Larson  (LDS) took the Council of Twelve into outer space (Battlestar Galactica), so why not?

[mfbukowski]

In honor of their father Abraham, who is buried there, the Arabs call Hebron Al-Khalil "The Friend (of God)."  Abraham's willingness to negotiate directly with God is legendary and has long been a part of Jewish tradition.

 

I have long thought, Mark, that you should write the definitive article on the matter, and I may even have said so on this board.  Dialogue or Interpreter might be appropriate venues.  Dan Peterson has a deep understanding of philosophy and would readily understand the value of what you are saying.  You might try presenting a preliminary version of such a paper at the annual mtg of the SMPT this year, or the Mormon Theology Seminar.  The frank critique you will get is always helpful.

 

You are immersed in that material, fully conversant with it, and understand very well how to phrase the concepts so as to make them comprehensible to Mormon and non-Mormon intellectuals (I don't know about the hoi polloi).  I can think of a  number of Mormon scholars who would love to see such ideas advanced, and who could very easily provide their own unique take on such matters in a book-length compilation (even such mavericks as Sterling McMurrin and Hugh Nibley could have contributed, if still with us).  You'd be a great editor.  What would be a good book title for it?

 

And how about the slogan: Mormons and humanists unite!  You have nothing to lose but your Neo-Platonic chains!

That's a wonderful point about Abraham- I had not associated that story with God's humanity, but it is a very clear example of the difference between the Bible and the medieval church.  Transcendent beings comprised of immaterial "substance" do not bargain or wrestle.

 

Thanks for you very kind words.  If you don't mind, I would like to discuss this with you further by pm in a day or two- I have a few busy days ahead.  You have brought up some very intriguing ideas- thanks again!