The Problem Of Historicity

[smac97]

I will add in connection with what you are saying, that I am confused as to who the "We" are that Mark is talking about.  Whom is the OP addressing?

 

I don't know.  Perhaps he thinks that the discussions on this board represent the apex of our study of the Restored Gospel.  I don't think this board is anywhere near that.  This board is a place to talk about all sorts of things, both significant and trivial.  Perhaps mfbukowski ("Mark?") is tired some seeing the same topics rehashed over and over. I share that fatigue, which is why I am very selective about the topics in which I participate. I am not a snob or anything, I am just not interested in re-hashing the same topics over and over, or in arguing about things that are principally unverifiable except through the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[danielwoods]

Essentially, things that are true, are not just true spiritually, but physically as well. Expanding that thought to history means, that true events (events that really happened) will have also left evidence of their existence. Events that are not true do not leave evidence. 

 

Applying this principle to spiritual teachings is this. If one claims this or that history is true, when at the same time this or that spiritual teaching is tied to that truth. If the history is not real (true), then it follows that the spiritual teaching is also not true. 

[stemelbow]

Essentially, things that are true, are not just true spiritually, but physically as well. Expanding that thought to history means, that true events (events that really happened) will have also left evidence of their existence. Events that are not true do not leave evidence. 

 

Applying this principle to spiritual teachings is this. If one claims this or that history is true, when at the same time this or that spiritual teaching is tied to that truth. If the history is not real (true), then it follows that the spiritual teaching is also not true.

And perhaps we all wish it were that simple....

[ERayR]

What about the facts that science has taught us? They are not important? 

 

Sit up and pay attention.  He didn't say they were unimportant just not important to proving the spiritual.  You seem to have this belief that science can prove or disprove religious (spiritual) things.

Edited August 13, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

Sit up and pay attention.  He didn't say they were unimportant just not important to proving the spiritual.  You seem to have this belief that science can prove or disprove religious (spiritual) things.

 

Global Flood theory contradicts science, and the Global Flood theory is not spiritual because the church does not have an official position.  How is the Global Flood spiritual? Global Flood proponents believe it was a literal event. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

Essentially, things that are true, are not just true spiritually, but physically as well. Expanding that thought to history means, that true events (events that really happened) will have also left evidence of their existence. Events that are not true do not leave evidence. 

 

Applying this principle to spiritual teachings is this. If one claims this or that history is true, when at the same time this or that spiritual teaching is tied to that truth. If the history is not real (true), then it follows that the spiritual teaching is also not true. 

 

And any interpretation of that evidence is strictly subjective and limited to the data we have.

 

How do you assure yourself the data is complete and you are interpreting it correctly?

[USU78]

Do you take one step back and question if your experience of blue is good evidence that a thing is blue?

 

Do you know that it is true that you love your significant other?  Would you doubt it if others told you you were mistaken?

 

Does the blue of our experience, either perceived through observation of mother's eyes or the dying day's western sky mean the same thing as the measured wavelength of quanta in motion?

[danielwoods]

And any interpretation of that evidence is strictly subjective and limited to the data we have.

 

How do you assure yourself the data is complete and you are interpreting it correctly?

 

Interpretation of evidence is both subjective and objective (when a group has an agreed interpretation). 

 

Interpretation of historical evidence, and subjective (internal) evidence have the same burden of "how do you know it's true?"

 

As Jesus said, if you don't believe me, then believe based on the works I do. (Jn. 10:38) So even Jesus tied spiritual truth to physical evidence. 

 

How do I assure myself that the data is complete? I don't, rather I'm always open to new data. And trust that with the data set that I have, I can make sound conclusions. 

 

How do I know that I am interpreting the data correctly? Principles of interpretation are used in every walk of life, I use the same principles. One of which is the role of historicity. That something that is true will also be true historically. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by danielwoods

[teddyaware]

Global Flood theory contradicts science, and the Global Flood theory is not spiritual because the church does not have an official position.  How is the Global Flood spiritual? Global Flood proponents believe it was a literal event.

Two questions:

1) I'm curious to know if you believe that the universal bodily resurrection of all the world's dead into a state of immortality also contradicts science?

2) If you don't believe the universal resurrection contradicts science, which one of the following two actions do think would be the more difficult for God to perform -- the raising of all the world's dead into a state of immortality, or covering planet earth with water?

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

Two questions:

1) I'm curious to know if you believe that the universal bodily resurrection of all the world's dead into a state of immortality also contradicts science?

2) If you don't believe the universal resurrection contradicts science, which one of the following two actions do think would be the more difficult for God to perform -- the raising of all the world's dead into a state of immortality, or covering planet earth with water?

I want in on this if ya don't mind...

Much harder to cover the earth with water. It's a piece of cake to resurrect dead mortals after they are gone. Snap of the fingers.

[teddyaware]

I want in on this if ya don't mind...

Much harder to cover the earth with water. It's a piece of cake to resurrect dead mortals after they are gone. Snap of the fingers.

You could be right. After all, although it's true even a single mortal human body (let alone a glorified resurrected body) is complex far beyond the present understanding of modern science, it probably would be much harder for God to rearrange enough of the gas molecules in the air to become H2O for a split second (you know, like when the Lord turned water into wine) so as to cover the earth. Although it's true human bodies are incredibly complex organisms, one must realize it would take an awful lot of transmogrified air molecules to become enough water to cover the earth, even if only for a split second.

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[MormonFreeThinker]

Two questions:

1) I'm curious to know if you believe that the universal bodily resurrection of all the world's dead into a state of immortality also contradicts science?

 

Scientists have resurrected extinct species. I do believe in a universal bodily resurrection, I believe that God is going to use science for that, a more advance science that we do not have. 

 

 

 which one of the following two actions do think would be the more difficult for God to perform -- the raising of all the world's dead into a state of immortality, or covering planet earth with water?

 

God can cover the planet with water, but the difference is that we already have evidence. The Global Flood contradicts science because of the positive evidence, for example, the Global Flood contradicts  

 

"the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils"  

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62

 

"The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example" - Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, Maxwell Institute 

[ERayR]

I want in on this if ya don't mind...

Much harder to cover the earth with water. It's a piece of cake to resurrect dead mortals after they are gone. Snap of the fingers.

 

Nope you have to find all that stuff the predators have scattered.

[mfbukowski]

What about the facts that science has taught us? They are not important? 

No they are not important at all.  In fact I am communicating this thought directly to your brain by revelation. 

 

 

Of course they are important.  So what?

[teddyaware]

Scientists have resurrected extinct species. I do believe in a universal bodily resurrection, I believe that God is going to use science for that, a more advance science that we do not have. 

 

 

 

God can cover the planet with water, but the difference is that we already have evidence. The Global Flood contradicts science because of the positive evidence, for example, the Global Flood contradicts  

 

"the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils"  

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62

 

"The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example" - Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, Maxwell Institute

You're sinking yourself. Why couldn't the same higher science cause the earth to be covered with water for a nano second -- enough time to accomplish the act but not enough time to disturb the earth's geology?

In this same vein, the Book of Moses tells us that Enoch caused the earth to quake, mountains to flee, rivers to be turned out of their courses, land masses to emerge from the sea and caused the whole city of Enoch's people to be literally lifted off planet earth and carried away into heaven. If you believe a higher science could do all these things as well, why would it be too difficult for God Himself to use this same higher science to cover the earth with water for a nano second?

13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

14 There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea. (Moses 7)

and again,

68 And all the days of Zion, in the days of Enoch, were three hundred and sixty-five years.

69 And Enoch and all his people walked with God, and he dwelt in the midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled.

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[MormonFreeThinker]

You're sinking yourself. Why couldn't the same higher science cause the earth to be covered with water for a nano second 

 

Okay, but who believes that the Global Flood only lasted a nano second? That is not 40 days. 

 

 

enough time to accomplish the act but not enough time to disturb the earth's geology?

 

Forget about Earth's geology for now, even if you don't believe the Earth is old, the order sequence of fossils contradict the Global Flood, that is the key evidence. Not even magic solves that contradiction, see 

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

Does the blue of our experience, either perceived through observation of mother's eyes or the dying day's western sky mean the same thing as the measured wavelength of quanta in motion?

Excellent point- of course it cannot possibly mean the same thing.  Any such statements have different subjects- one is about the experience of blue and the other is about how we define a certain wavelength which we believe that we experience as blue light.

 

Thomas Nagel makes the point that a physicalist account can never capture the full experience.  "Where" is the experience of blue in the physical description?  Where is blue at all?  Is it in our brains?  Is it in our spirits?  Is it in the brain states allegedly caused by electrochemical reactions?

 

Ultimately the answer is, "it depends on how you want to look at it", just like the question of whether or not light is a wave or particle.  Which is it?   Surely it must be one or the other?   No, it's neither- and both!

 

Statements about, as you say, measured wavelengths of light, cannot be made logically equivalent to saying anything about the experience of the color blue.  One set of statements is about light, the other is about color.  Any statement about either subject does not capture all we can say about the other subject. They are not logically equivalent statements, so statements about light can never be equivalent to statements about experience.

 

They are not saying the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

... and I agree. All I'm saying is that modern historical method, while often valuable and somewhat effective, has its very real limitations, and that if one relies solely on it for understanding the truth of the past, he will never be saved.

I think we agree on all these core issues- we just tend to let the words get in the way.

[ERayR]

Forget about Earth's geology for now, even if you don't believe the Earth is old, the order sequence of fossils contradict the Global Flood, that is the key evidence. Not even magic solves that contradiction, see 

 

 OK you got me.  I just went and threw my scripture in the trash. 

[mfbukowski]

Then we appear to be talking past each other.

 

I do not understand this. Faith is based on something, right? It should be based principally on promptings from the Spirit. The Spirit is therefore a form of evidence. It's probative value is not only not "irrelevant," it is vital.

Well I think we are just arguing about words here- which as a good Wittgensteinian, is what he would expect anyway.

If you want to count the "evidence" given by the spirit AS "evidence" I am behind you 100%. I was using "evidence" in the sense of objective evidence verifiable by others in an experimental way.

The Book of Mormon is presented as evidence. It was given "to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." How can the evidentiary value of The Book of Mormon be "irrelevant?"

When Nephi confronted the wicked judges as described in Helaman 8, he marshaled evidence. He spoke of "all the words which have been spoken by our fathers, and also the words which were spoken by this man, Moses" (v. 13), of how Moses "(bore) record that the Son of God should come" (v. 14), of how Moses testified, as did "all the holy prophets (v. 16). Nephi goes on to cite the testimony of Abraham, Zenock, Ezias, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Nephi presents these things as evidence. He even specifically refers to them as such (see v. 24 ("And now, seeing ye know these things and cannot deny them except ye shall lie, therefore in this ye have sinned, for ye have rejected all these things, notwithstanding so many evidences which ye have received..."). Testimony is, by definition, "evidence." I am therefore at a loss to understand how the probative value of such things are, in your view "irrelevant in matters of faith." If The Book of Mormon is "irrelevant," then why has so much effort been made in preserving, transmitting and translating it so that it is available in our day?

I previously brought up the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses to The Book of Mormon. What is the point and purpose of these writings, if not to provide evidence for The Book of Mormon? If these statements are not intended as evidence, then what is their intended purpose? Also consider D&C 76:22. What is the purpose of this statement, if not to provide evidence of Jesus Christ?

I do not understand this. Perhaps you can explain what you understand "historicity" to mean. I would really like to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you could also explain what you understand "evidence" to mean, and also "proof." I think you are using these words in ways which are different from my understanding of them. If so, and if I am incorrect in my understanding, I would like to be corrected on these points.

I don't understand what this has to do with historicity.

 

I think all the above is answered in the definition of "evidence" above.

I believe that the historicity of Jesus Christ is a necessary component of having meaningful faith in Him. If a person rejects that historicity (that is, if a person asserts that Jesus Christ is a fictional construct, that he never existed, that he is simply a literary figure and not actually the Son of God), then I don't see how such a faith can any meaning or effect. It would be like me believing that Atticus Finch was one of the greatest attorneys in the history of the United States, or that the current conflict in the Middle East will be resolved by The Avengers. Atticus Finch never existed, he lacks historicity, ergo he cannot be said to have been a great attorney. The Avengers are fictional, they lack historicity, ergo it would be foolish to believe that the conflict in the Middle East will be resolved by them. If Jesus Christ is fictional, if He lacks historicity, then faith in Him is futile. He never existed, ergo there was no great and eternal sacrifice, no Atonement, no redemption of men, ergo no need for faith in Him or adherence to the fictional precepts dressed up as coming from the Son-of-God-who-was-just-a-figment-of-the-imagination.

 

I take the existence of Jesus Christ to be factual, but I base that on the spirit, and acknowledge it is the BELIEF that he really existed that makes the difference.

 

Suppose we find out tomorrow that our understanding of how the constitution was written is drastically flawed, and that indeed we don't know who participated in writing it.   Would that make the Constitution garbage?  Would all the principles of government it contains now become "false"?  Of course not.

In contrast, if Jesus Christ really did exist, if He does have historicity, then there is all the reason in the world to have faith in Him.

 

Of course, and I believe that he DOES NOW exist as well.

 

But it is the belief that has power in my life- not the fact.

 

I cannot prove the fact to SOMEONE ELSE'S SATISFACTION but I don't care.  My life is immeasurably changed due to the BELIEF in his present existence and my interactions with him as a Friend.

 

Suppose I am making it all up?  Suppose it is all "in my mind"?   I do not believe that for an instant- but what if that is (impossibly, from my view) "true"?

 

My life is still just as immeasurably changed for the belief itself.

 

It's like believing that murder is wrong.  I know it is wrong.  It is that BELIEF that keeps me from shooting people on the freeway. 

 

I don't need any further "evidence" to desist from murder, and I don't care if historically there were cannibals who would disagree and provide historical evidence to the contrary.

[brainburn]

The whole point of this thread really is that I think it is silly for us to take up the critic's point of view and assumptions and then play their little game, which is what we are doing by playing the history game.

If we could show them that they are missing the point, our position would be much stronger.

We don't know how philosophically strong our position is. Many atheists see this, but they aren't going to help us figure it out.

I should have said this in the OP.

 

Edit:  In fact, I am going to edit the OP to include this.

I'm here for you, man. ;]

[mfbukowski]

You believe Jesus Christ exists? That He has historicity?

Also, how did you arrive at this "direct spiritual experience?" Did The Book of Mormon and other Scriptures have anything to do with this determination?

I guess I'm wondering if you subscribe to a macro view of "historicity," but not necessarily a "micro" one. That is, you believe that Jesus Christ really existed as an actual person, born to Mary, grew up Nazareth and its environs, actually walked around and interacted with people, actually fasted for 40 days, actually ascended the Mount of Transfiguration, actually performed miracles and taught vital truths, etc. You believe that these things actually happened, that they have "historicity," as opposed to being fictional stories. This is what I would call the "macro" view of the historicity of Jesus Christ. However, on a "micro" level, historicity becomes less vital. For example, it is immaterial to you whether the parable of the Good Samaritan describes an actual event or is a fictional account told to make a doctrinal point. It is also irrelevant to you if the NHM altars are or are not evidence of the historicity of the place described as "Nahom" in 1 Nephi 16:34.  Such evidence is interesting, perhaps, but not essential to faith in the Restored Gospel.

 

Does the foregoing paragraph accurately state your position?  I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am instead just trying to understand your position.  And since we seem to be misunderstanding each other, I thought the foregoing paragraph might help bridge the gap in communications between us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure, whatever floats your boat.  I DO believe that but I don't KNOW it from your evidence.

 

I KNOW he died for my sins because I feel it in my heart.  It is that feeling that makes me what I am, not hearsay from others.  Hearsay evidence doesn't work for me- direct experience does.  Does that help counselor? 

 

Add me to the list of witness in the case-

 

That's really the bottom line.

[Tacenda]

Oh boy, did you open a can of worms. 

[teddyaware]

Okay, but who believes that the Global Flood only lasted a nano second? That is not 40 days. 

 

 

 

Not only geology, but the fossil record. Even if you don't believe the Earth is old, the order sequence of fossils contradict the Global Flood, that is the key evidence. See 

 

In order for the earth to be baptized, it was only necessary for large portions of it be submerged for a nano second. Meanwhile, in the areas where the ark traversed, it could have taken longer for the flood waters to recede. This does happen all the time, you know? It floods in one part of the world but not in others?

Be that as it may, I choose to believe in the testimonies of Jesus, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Alma, Mormon, Peter and the others who testified of the reality of the flood, rather than on the testimonies of modern scientists who deny the miraculous power of God. And it must be understood that I believe the flood was a miracle, in the same way it will be a miracle when after the millennium, as the prophets testify, the entire surface of the earth will be exposed to unimaginably fervent heat and in very short order be geologically transformed from its present condition into a sea of glass, even into a celestial kingdom. Does modern science agree with the prophets when they testify that one day soon the earth will be transformed into an immense Urim and Thummim?

[brainburn]

In fact, I've been lurking this forum for a good while and this thread speaks with exceptional potential. Being raised a full-blown Mormon has had a massive influence on my life and getting the chance to really investigate... No... operate on some of the very sensitive nerves (primary principles concerning truth and experience) at the core of the many versions of Mormon paradigms is very helpful to my personal philosophy.

I think things are gonna get really deep and confusing very quickly. Hopefully, I can distill my point of view well enough this time to get some productive input on some theories I've been cultivating in my new thread. From everyone, but especially you, mf. :]

I'm excited for some real discussions on the "front lines" of philosophy as it relates to Mormonism, so to speak.

Edited August 13, 2014 by brainburn