Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Scott, I'm not sure what version of history of the church you are using, but the section you are quoting, but here is what is actually recorded (see here): You'll notice that most of your bolded section " That Christ, who is called both the “Firstborn” and the “beginning” of God’s creation in both the Bible and early Christian texts, should be born on the day commemorating the creation is especially significant, for it was through him that God created the earth" is commentary not in the original source. It appears to be added by John Tvedtnes at Mormon Interpreter (see footnote 60). I don't think the commentary can be supported from the text itself however and apparently neither does John sense he did not draw the conclusion from the quote that Jesus was born April 6. Sorry. In my copy-and-paste from his footnote, I failed to notice that part of it was Tvedtnes's own commentary. I should have checked the primary source. Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Let me simply juxtapose two lines of the above statement and see how substantial the rest of the comment is. Given the first statement, I fail to see how the second one is justified. Sometimes people say "you can't prove a negative" which is really kind of a sloppy way of saying that a statement is non-falsifiable. The statement "The revealed date for Jesus' birth is April 6" is completely non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be considered "false". No one knows with precision what doctrine IS, or what "revelation" IS, and yet the claim is to know with certainty what doctrine and revelation is NOT. How do you pull that one off? The very concept is totally absurd to me- that something which is in principle unknowable could be considered "false"Indeed and I didn't call it false. I've been careful in most of my posts to clarify that the best evidence points to it being incorrect. You'll note that I said "based on the evidence given to date" and "most likely."
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Sorry. In my copy-and-paste from his footnote, I failed to notice that part of it was Tvedtnes's own commentary. I should have checked the primary source.It seems to be common. This guy apparently missed it too:http://scottwoodward.org/jesus_christ_dateofbirth.html
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 It seems to be common. This guy apparently missed it too:http://scottwoodward.org/jesus_christ_dateofbirth.htmlIt would have been easier to differentiate if there had been a paragraph break between the quotation and Tvedtnes's comment. But that's no excuse. I should have checked the primary source. 2
canard78 Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 In this case, I'm agreeing with you that "the thread title is worded poorly and that the thread opened with an adversarial tone not conducive to good discussion." That said, if DBMormon were to acknowledge that he used reckless and inflammatory rhetoric in this instance and concede that it was a misstep, I would readily acknowledge such contrition and pardon him for it. But he has not. In fact, he doubled down on it when I brought it up earlier. For someone who likes to accuse people of uncharitable readings this post was beautifully ironic.
Senator Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 The very concept is totally absurd to me- that something which is in principle unknowable could be considered "false" How could the same be considered "true"? 1
canard78 Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 I think no one means to imply that poets are prophets.The problem as I see it is that all discourse is essentially poetry since words are symbols of experiences, and not things.As I see it in that sense we all are poets, and that includes prophets.This thread itself is about as good an example of arguing about semantics and ambiguous meanings as any I have seen. It's poetry, but very bad poetry. You might have missed the middle part of the conversation. Scott was suggesting I should hold both poets and prophets to the same standard and was calling me uncharitable when I didn't. I have simply been trying to point out that the church itself teaches a different standard. One is taught to be the mouthpiece of God, the other is currently trying to find a good rhyme for his next couplet.
Senator Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Interesting. But your disdain for the Prophet is not probative. I truely do not believe cinepro disdains the Prophet
cinepro Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I truely do not believe cinepro disdains the Prophet Well let's see: dis·dain verb (used with object) 1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn. 2. to think unworthy of notice, response, etc.; consider beneath oneself: to disdain replying to an insult. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disdain Apart from my shock in having anyone, especially Scott Lloyd, suggest that everything Joseph Smith taught explicitly and precisely should be automatically afforded the status of "revelation", I would have to say that neither of the above definitions reflect my feelings towards Joseph Smith and his teachings. Edited May 28, 2014 by cinepro
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Well let's see: Apart from my shock in having anyone, especially Scott Lloyd, suggest that everything Joseph Smith taught explicitly and precisely should be automatically afforded the status of "revelation", I would have to say that neither of the above definitions reflect my feelings towards Joseph Smith and his teachings.Well that was the charitable reading of what you said. You should have seen the uncharitable version. Edited May 28, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
cinepro Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Sorry. In my copy-and-paste from his footnote, I failed to notice that part of it was Tvedtnes's own commentary. I should have checked the primary source. Interestingly, Tvedtnes has this to say about Bednar's talk in the comments section of the article: I, too noticed Elder Bednar’s remarks. I guess we’ll have to group him with those who read D&C 20:1 as a revelation. But, as noted, apostles, too, have the right to have opinions. April 29, 2014 at 9:04 am So I'm not sure Tvedtnes himself was arguing for an April 6, 1 BC date. 1
cinepro Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Well that was the charitable reading of what you said. You should have seen the uncharitable version.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Interestingly, Tvedtnes has this to say about Bednar's talk in the comments section of the article:So I'm not sure Tvedtnes himself was arguing for an April 6, 1 BC date.From the comment in the footnote he seemed to be (April 6, anyway). But from the body of the text, he seemed just to be arguing for a springtime birth. I'm not sure now myself what he's saying, to be perfectly frank. And I agree with Seeking Understanding that his footnote commentary is not supported in the text.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Well let's see: Apart from my shock in having anyone, especially Scott Lloyd, suggest that everything Joseph Smith taught explicitly and precisely should be automatically afforded the status of "revelation", I would have to say that neither of the above definitions reflect my feelings towards Joseph Smith and his teachings.It just struck me as an odd notion that he would teach something like the precise anniversary date of Christ's birth without having had it divinely revealed to him. That would seem like sheer deceit to me. But it's a moot point now anyway, since the statement I had in mind was not what I thought it was.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 How could the same be considered "true"?Seriously? The only way revelation can be proven! Alma 32. The criterion for the truth of revelation is not "evidence", and never was. There is a certain wonderful completeness to the belief that April 6 is the Lord's birthday and that many important things happened on this wonderful day which we now call "April 6". It is a glorious concept! Failing to understand this criterion for the truth of revelation is precisely what stands in the way of a theistic revolution. Mankind needs both theism AND revelation, personal and otherwise. ALL revelation is ultimately personal anyway, or there is no reason to believe any of it. Either all of life should be based on scientific evidence or one should allow that ultimately values and what gives one's life meaning is deeply personal. You can't go half way. If you have ONE value in your life that is based only on a certain knowledge of a principle that cannot be proven- perhaps like "murder is wrong", then that is an admission that values are not based on evidence. Values and what is important in life are never based on scientific evidence- or any evidence for that matter. They are purely matters of the heart, and as such can only be judged by the heart.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 You might have missed the middle part of the conversation. Scott was suggesting I should hold both poets and prophets to the same standard and was calling me uncharitable when I didn't. I have simply been trying to point out that the church itself teaches a different standard. One is taught to be the mouthpiece of God, the other is currently trying to find a good rhyme for his next couplet.I did miss that. In that case, I retract the comment because I don't feel like going back to figure out which of you I agree with.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 I did miss that. In that case, I retract the comment because I don't feel like going back to figure out which of you I agree with. I should mention that I don't feel canard has accurately characterized my viewpoint. But I don't feel like revisiting this either.
Senator Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Seriously? The only way revelation can be proven! Alma 32. The criterion for the truth of revelation is not "evidence", and never was.Seriously. If the critierion used to find the truth of revelation does not verify the revelation, can we conclude that the revelation has been falsified? I'm just trying to understand. It would seem to reason that if something that is not falsifiable could never be proven false, the by the same criteria it can never be proven true either.
mfbukowski Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Seriously. If the critierion used to find the truth of revelation does not verify the revelation, can we conclude that the revelation has been falsified? I'm just trying to understand. It would seem to reason that if something that is not falsifiable could never be proven false, the by the same criteria it can never be proven true either.Well that is an excellent point, which hinges on the meaning of the word "truth", doesn't it? So from that point of view, I agree that my remarks have been ambiguous because I did not qualify what kind of "truth" I was talking about. There are of course many theories of truth, and many sources to read up on should one be interested in doing so. Without summarizing the history of philosophy, I will just reference the textbook explanation which comes closest to my personal views, here. Rather than getting into it in detail, it appears that the most prevalent theory most subscribe to here includes the possibility that evidence can prove the truth of revelation one way or another. I was taking issue with that definition of truth and proposing another. I was actually taking issue with the idea that evidence can "prove" much of anything true OR false, except scientific statements. The usual scientific view of "truth" is the correspondence theory of truth, which is inconsistent with the possibility that any religious "truth" exists, since religious truths are unprovable in that view. My point was that people on this thread were in effect maintaining that religious truth could be shown with evidence. It cannot. My view is the Pragmatic/Deflationary theory of truth which holds that indeed religious statements can be "true" or "false" according to criteria which are mirrored perfectly in Alma 32. So yes, you are right- I was using truth in two competing senses, so you were right to call me out on it. On the other hand, the reason I was doing that to show that there are other senses in which statements like "It is a revelation that April 6 is Jesus' birthday" can full well be considered "true"- and that sense is in an Alma 32 sense- because the idea is "sweet" to us personally. So thanks for teaching me that I need to be more explicit next time when I am attempting to illustrate multiple senses of the word "true".
Senator Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Well that is an excellent point, which hinges on the meaning of the word "truth", doesn't it? So from that point of view, I agree that my remarks have been ambiguous because I did not qualify what kind of "truth" I was talking about. There are of course many theories of truth, and many sources to read up on should one be interested in doing so. Without summarizing the history of philosophy, I will just reference the textbook explanation which comes closest to my personal views, here. Rather than getting into it in detail, it appears that the most prevalent theory most subscribe to here includes the possibility that evidence can prove the truth of revelation one way or another. I was taking issue with that definition of truth and proposing another. I was actually taking issue with the idea that evidence can "prove" much of anything true OR false, except scientific statements. The usual scientific view of "truth" is the correspondence theory of truth, which is inconsistent with the possibility that any religious "truth" exists, since religious truths are unprovable in that view. My point was that people on this thread were in effect maintaining that religious truth could be shown with evidence. It cannot. My view is the Pragmatic/Deflationary theory of truth which holds that indeed religious statements can be "true" or "false" according to criteria which are mirrored perfectly in Alma 32. So yes, you are right- I was using truth in two competing senses, so you were right to call me out on it. On the other hand, the reason I was doing that to show that there are other senses in which statements like "It is a revelation that April 6 is Jesus' birthday" can full well be considered "true"- and that sense is in an Alma 32 sense- because the idea is "sweet" to us personally. So thanks for teaching me that I need to be more explicit next time when I am attempting to illustrate multiple senses of the word "true". I appreciate the clarification.
mfbukowski Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) I appreciate the clarification.And lest anyone think my view is weird, idiosyncratic or irrelevant to this deep discussion, let me quote something from that article The deflationary theory has been one of the most popular approaches to truth in the twentieth century, having received explicit defense by Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, and Quine, as well as sympathetic treatment from many others. (According to Dummett 1959, the view originates with Frege.) The following passages all contain recognizable versions of the doctrine, though they differ on points of detail.I do not understand how anyone can allege a statement can be false if one does not know what truth is Edited May 29, 2014 by mfbukowski
Thinking Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I do not understand how anyone can allege a statement can be false if one does not know what truth is It's not that we know that Jesus wasn't born on April 6th (after all there's a 1/365 chance that He was - cue Jim Carrey). The questionable part of Bednar's statement is that he said that we know that it's April 6th.
mfbukowski Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 It's not that we know that Jesus wasn't born on April 6th (after all there's a 1/365 chance that He was - cue Jim Carrey). The questionable part of Bednar's statement is that he said that we know that it's April 6th.You totally missed the point. How do know he is wrong?
cdowis Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 It's not that we know that Jesus wasn't born on April 6th (after all there's a 1/365 chance that He was - cue Jim Carrey). The questionable part of Bednar's statement is that he said that we know that it's April 6th. OK, assuming that he made a mistake........... now what?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 OK, assuming that he made a mistake........... now what?Indeed. Now what. Well for starters lets look at this from Bernard in the OW thread:These words are not enough?https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=engThe Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.Where is the loophole? Are we sure that the Lord has directed only men to hold priesthood offices or is Elder Oaks just repeating what he assumes to be true (similar to Elder Bednar here). I've applied Alma 32 to Elder Oak's statement and found it to be false for me. I've also searched the scriptures and known revelations and have found no reference to where the Lord directed "only men" to hold the priesthood. Further, in a talk with 16 footnotes, Elder Oaks didn't have one for this central point that he made. Does Elder Oaks know a reference?
Recommended Posts