The Problem Of Historicity

[Spammer]

how do you get outside of your senses to check if they really correspond?

We live in a bubble of human thoughts and perceptions and can never ever escape to see what's "really out there". Impossible. You would have to stop being human to check if human perception "corresponds" to anything outside of it.

I would love to know what it is like to be an Orca from their point of view, but it's impossible. I would love to see the colors of music but they don't exist for us.

I hear you. We can't step outside ourselves and check. Still, I know that something besides myself exists and that my thoughts and concepts are mysteriously related to my experience of it. That mysticism is sweet to me. It feels good. For me, postmodernism is a mental trap for which there is no escape. If postmodernism is "true" then all we have is our subjective states and no objective means to determine better or worse, right or wrong. Worse and wrong are relative and can produce greater personal utility for some individuals. Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that whether Book of Mormon lands and people really historically existed is irrelevant to your belief that they existed?

Yes and that is true for all Mormons BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE THEY RXISTED AT ALL AND WE STILL BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Please do me and yourself a favor and put a little of this wasted discussion board time into studying catastrophism.  Just a wee bit please.

 

Should Mormon Paleontologists and geologists do the same? Do you think they are ignorant? 

 

"For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth. This has not affected my testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Scientific truths are compatible with Gospel truths." - Wade E. Miller, Ph.D. in paleontology

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller

 

Poster removed from thread after multiple complaints.

[mfbukowski]

I hear you. We can't step outside ourselves and check. Still, I know that something besides myself exists and that my thoughts and concepts are mysteriously related to my experience of it. That mysticism is sweet to me. It feels good. For me, postmodernism is a mental trap for which there is no escape. If postmodernism is "true" then all we have is our subjective states and no objective means to determine better or worse, right or wrong. Worse and wrong are relative and can produce greater personal utility for some individuals.

That's the awesome responsibility of really getting that we live in an uncertain world where all we have to hang onto is ourselves and each other. That's all there is. But we have the spirit!

That's all that keeps us from existential angst.

[Spammer]

Yes and that is true for all Mormons BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE THEY RXISTED AT ALL AND WE STILL BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON.

This gets at the issue I keep harping on. If encountered a man whose personally fulfilling, deeply held beliefs included denial that Martin Luther King or my wife ever existed, or that undersea Atlanteans with gills did once exist, I would call him a crackpot.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Should Mormon Paleontologists and geologists do the same? Do you think they are ignorant? 

 

"For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth. This has not affected my testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Scientific truths are compatible with Gospel truths." - Wade E. Miller, Ph.D. in paleontology

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller

this post has been reported as off topic. No more flood discussions here.

[mfbukowski]

This gets at the issue I keep harping on. If encountered a man whose personally fulfilling, deeply held beliefs included denial that Martin Luther King or my wife ever existed, or that undersea Atlanteans with gills did once exist, I would call him a crackpot.

welcome to how nonmembers see us

[Spammer]

welcome to how nonmembers see us

Ok, if things exist (or don't exist) based on whether we believe they do (or don't) exist, I'm going to tell my wife that I have no idea whether she really exists and plan to spend her birthday gift funds on myself. I can tell myself and her that any resulting pain I experience is phantom pain existing only in my mind with no necessary correspondence with the world outside. I'll let you know how it goes.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Ok, if things exist (or don't exist) based on whether we believe they do (or don't) exist, I'm going to tell my wife that I have no idea whether she really exists and plan to spend her birthday gift funds on myself. I can tell myself that any resulting pain I experience is phantom pain existing only in my mind with no necessary correspondence with the world outside. I'll let you know how it goes.

Get a clue. I have no clue if your wife exists, but you do. You could post her name and her picture and phone number so I could talk to her, but I would still not know if she was lying or if you were divorced etc, or if you lived her.

All those alleged "facts" are in your brain, not mine. That is not objective reality to anyone but you, and even she doesn't know for sure if you really love her or are having an affair on the side.

If the BOM was about Atlantis, would you believe its truths? Because to non members it might as well be about Atlantis!

For all we know there was a tribe of Israel on Atlantis, and Jesus visited them, and then Atlantis was take to heaven as was the City of Enoch.

If someone believed that was historical, how would you react? Because as an educated postmodernist I don't see much difference in the two stories. It would take faith to believe either one of them, and you would only accept Atlantis if God clobbered you over the head and told you it was right.

[mfbukowski]

Ok gotta do stuff back later

But just a thought for all. What if the truth of the Book of Mormon was based on the historicity of Atlantis.

Differences?

Similarities?

Plato mentions Atlantis as existing and there are many legends.

Edited August 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Stevenson]

Yes and that is true for all Mormons BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVE THEY RXISTED AT ALL AND WE STILL BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON.

 

I think this might be where you're losing people. Throughout the history of the Church the Prophets have stressed the importance of actual concrete events as objectively happening. Off the top of my head m thinking of Pres. Hinckley talking about the First Vision and that it either happened or it didn't. 

 

Mormons have grown up being taught that the BOM people actually existed. The Church spent a lot of money in the 60s and 70s searching South America for BOM evidence. God has a body of flesh and bone. Joseph Smith possessed actual Gold plates. I can't really think of a modern day LDS General Authority talking about postmodernism and how historicity doesn't matter. When you are taught from birth that LDS events actually happened and you look at the world around you and are provided evidence for other historical events and taught that they actually happened, it's hard to turn around and say that evidence doesn't count.

[mfbukowski]

One more.

How can Mormons believe in a correspondence theory of truth if none of our truths correspond to anything?

Can you see how silly that is?

[mfbukowski]

I think this might be where you're losing people. Throughout the history of the Church the Prophets have stressed the importance of actual concrete events as objectively happening. Off the top of my head m thinking of Pres. Hinckley talking about the First Vision and that it either happened or it didn't. 

 

Mormons have grown up being taught that the BOM people actually existed. The Church spent a lot of money in the 60s and 70s searching South America for BOM evidence. God has a body of flesh and bone. Joseph Smith possessed actual Gold plates. I can't really think of a modern day LDS General Authority talking about postmodernism and how historicity doesn't matter. When you are taught from birth that LDS events actually happened and you look at the world around you and are provided evidence for other historical events and taught that they actually happened, it's hard to turn around and say that evidence doesn't count.

An excellent point.

But we can't remain with our heads in a hat. We have to change the way we see it, or lose it all.

It will take time, but it is happening.

Now I gotta punch my time clock and go to work.

I don't want to have to pay myself overtime.

[Spammer]

Get a clue. I have no clue if your wife exists, but you do. You could post her name and her picture and phone number so I could talk to her, but I would still not know if she was lying or if you were divorced etc, or if you lived her.

All those alleged "facts" are in your brain, not mine. That is not objective reality to anyone but you, and even she doesn't know for sure if you really love her or are having an affair on the side.

If the BOM was about Atlantis, would you believe its truths? Because to non members it might as well be about Atlantis!

For all we know there was a tribe of Israel on Atlantis, and Jesus visited them, and then Atlantis was take to heaven as was the City of Enoch.

If someone believed that was historical, how would you react? Because as an educated postmodernist I don't see much difference in the two stories. It would take faith to believe either one of them, and you would only accept Atlantis if God clobbered you over the head and told you it was right.

 

I keep bringing up the bare existence of objects and you keep deflecting to the issue of our subjective states that refer to those objects.  Does my apprehension and representation of my wife in my mind correspond to something real out in the world, whatever that something to which I attach my representations really is?  Of course.  The person I call my wife exists and the amalgam of subjective mental constructs I associate with that person are necessarily tied to her as an object in the world. Those constructs are solely in my mind, her existence in the world is not. So, if she concretely exists, then despite your protestations correspondence theory has at least some merit, and the postmodern fog lets at least some light through to convince us that we can actually connect with something external to ourselves.  Thank God for that.  Our representations may not correspond, but whatever it is in our experience and understanding that lies behind or beneath or beyond the representations in our minds that connects with external objects does correspond.  It's right at that point that historicity comes into play, so clearly historicity is not wholly irrelevant to religious belief if our beliefs refer to objects outside of ourselves.  Interpretations and our experiences are subjective but the objects of reality that relate to those experiences aren't and we can interact with them and know them with varying degrees of imprecision.  It's precisely at this point that the historicity of the posited collection of external objects we call Atlantis or Zarahemla or New York City becomes relevant.   

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[USU78]

welcome to how nonmembers see us

 

Radical materialists just fail to grasp what Kant understood and what he unleashed on the world of the late XVIIIth through XIXth Centuries:  There are more ways to comprehend/apprehend phenomena than five, and the senses are not as reliable as the Enlightenment thought they were.  The implications of this brought down empires and destroyed what was then left of feudalism [thought it took a while].

 

It isn't a question of irrationality . . . the question is one of humility in the face of the limits of our rationality.

 

This is my biggest knock on the radical materialists . . . the arrogance.

Edited August 14, 2014 by USU78

[brainburn]

Just come out and say what you want to say.

I put a lot of effort into explaining myself clearly the first time. I'll start a new thread when my ideas are good and ready. I need to be confident I won't be wasting my time having tangential conversations that aren't relevant to the philosophical mysteries I struggle with. I like to build my case in a way that anticipates and addresses as many objections as possible, while presenting the primary contention as simply as possible. Line upon line.

I have to say, too...

I can't help but be extremely intrigued by your unresponsiveness to the points made in my last post. Could be nothing... Just thought I should propose you express your thoughts on them...?

[ERayR]

It's right at that point that historicity comes into play, so clearly historicity is not wholly irrelevant to religious belief if our beliefs refer to objects outside of ourselves.

Interpretations and our experiences are subjective but the objects of reality that relate to those experiences aren't and we can interact with them and know them with varying degrees of imprecision.  

 

Question:  Isn't our interpretation all we have?  The event happened but it is now beyond our reach.

[danielwoods]

Doubting Thomas was told to "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." 

 

He was not told, "Just trust the spirit and your belief inside of you." Rather, Jesus made a direct connection (or correspondence if you will) to past historical events, and having faith. If Christianity is anything it is a faith that corresponds to historical events. 

[Spammer]

Question:  Isn't our interpretation all we have?  The event happened but it is now beyond our reach.

 

We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred.  The bare fact of the event's occurrence (if it really happened) is not subject to interpretation.  We're entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts.  The issue of historicity refers to purported facts such as New York City, my wife, and Zarahemla.  The historicity and factual basis of the first two is beyond question.  The OP is arguing that the historicity and factual basis of the last one is irrelevant to the LDS faith.  I disagree.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[ERayR]

We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred.  The bare fact of the event's occurrence (if it really happened) is not subject to interpretation.  We're entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts.  The issue of historicity refers to purported facts such as New York City, my wife, and Zarahemla.  The historicity and factual basis of the first two is beyond question.  The OP is arguing that the historicity and factual basis of the last one is irrelevant to the LDS faith.  I disagree.

 

No we do not have the knowledge that something happened.  All we have is a report by somebody that it happened.  There are falsified reports of happenings all the time.  Of course we can choose to accept that something happened and even what and how but we can not know.  We are very much a product of what we choose.

[Spammer]

No we do not have the knowledge that something happened. All we have is a report by somebody that it happened. There are falsified reports of happenings all the time. Of course we can choose to accept that something happened and even what and how but we can not know. We are very much a product of what we choose.

If you reread what I wrote, I provided a caveat noting that what I said only applies if the event really occurred.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

If the BOM was about Atlantis, would you believe its truths? Because to non members it might as well be about Atlantis!

For all we know there was a tribe of Israel on Atlantis, and Jesus visited them, and then Atlantis was take to heaven as was the City of Enoch.

If someone believed that was historical, how would you react? Because as an educated postmodernist I don't see much difference in the two stories. It would take faith to believe either one of them, and you would only accept Atlantis if God clobbered you over the head and told you it was right.

 

If someone believed Atlantis was historical but, like Zarahemla, not taken to heaven, I'd look for evidence of Atlantis' former existence.  No need to pray about it or read the sacred Book of Atlantis or wait for God to clobber me.  I believe that the ancient city of Carthage existed and that Rome and Carthage fought a series of wars.  Whatever evidence we have for ancient Carthage, if we had that for Atlantis, that would convince me.  

[ERayR]

If you reread what I wrote, I provided a caveat noting that what I said only applies if the event really occurred.

 

I know you provided that caveat.  you however said:  "We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred.We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred".  We don't have the knowledge we have someone elses report that something happened.

[Spammer]

I know you provided that caveat.  you however said:  "We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred.We have the interpretation and something else - knowledge that an event occurred".  We don't have the knowledge we have someone elses report that something happened.

 

Well, if you keep to the caveat as I intended it, then what I said stands.  Forget someone else's report about something you can't see or verify for yourself.  Do you have kids?  Think of the event "my child was born".  I'm referring to events like that or to the fact of your child's existence or to the fact of a place you know exists on authority, because you have pictures and the authority is reputable, but haven't personally visited (for me, that would be New York City or the ruins of ancient Carthage).  If you have a kid, his/her existence is not subject to interpretation.  The same goes for the existence of NYC or the ruins of ancient Carthage.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[Helen47]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/12/bilbo-i-mean-adam-was-a-historical-person-and-ken-ham-has-a-poster-to-prove-it/

 

 

Were Adam and Eve historical?