Loose Ends?

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like a good goal to me ...  (I certainly have more than enough faith that I'm certainly not dissatisfied with the current state of affairs: missing papyrus, catalyst, or whatever theory may account for the most of the available evidence,  I do, however, look forward to the millennium, when, I believe, much of this stuff will become a lot less opaque.  For example, Mormon and Moroni weren't perfect abridgers: every once in awhile, they left in a hint about what we don't have.  I'm sure the Brass Plates knock the socks off of our current Old Testament, and the Book of Mormon's sealed portion probably knocks the socks off of both our current Old and New Testaments (as great as they are, and as much as I revere the sacrifices that brough them forth)!

 

P.S.: For that matter, why wait for the Millennium?  Where the heck is Don Bradley's treatment of the missing 116 pages???

Well for me, I understand that objective evidence cannot possibly prove or disprove religious principles.

 

I know I am on firm philosophical grounding for that.   I know that religious experience is a perfectly "valid" way of defining one's place in the universe.  Atheist philosophers cannot disprove that and indeed even atheist philosophers hold "religious" views about living for social justice, or saving the whales or other causes which cannot be proven "good" or "bad" on any basis whatsoever.

 

Even Dennet the famous atheist said that he could believe in a God who is essentially a super-human and indeed the Mormon God can be described that way.

 

Rorty understood Mormonism, Thomas Nagel says he actually "hopes" that God does not exist, but all his philosophy points to the very firm possibility that he does exist.   Nagel has to have a firm faith that God does not exist and he realizes that his position is nearly "religious" and is on no firmer ground than religion is.

 

Dworkin wrote a book about "religion without God" because he could not bring himself to believe in a god of the creeds- indeed that is what all these philosophers have said.  A god without body parts or passions- a substance Trinity is just not rational.

 

That is even true of Nietzsche who pronounced, correctly I think, the creedal god as being "dead."   Indeed to me, he never lived.

 

It is creedalism all these atheists deny with good cause- their arguments do not work against Mormonism at all.

 

On the other hand, a humanistic God, a glorified human as an ideal image for people to hold as an ideal to emulate- to try become- is a perfectly rational religious perspective at least as rational as "social justice" or "saving the whales".

 

Wittgenstein, one of the most incredible minds in hundreds of years was technically an agnostic because he also could not make sense of creedalism but he himself was a mystic who believed in Christian values as a way of life, and he understood Catholicism as a personal path for life.

 

Whitehead, William James, John Dewey and others are in the same category.   That is most of the major thinkers of the 20th century!

 

Do we know that?   Why not?   Are we making something of that?  Why not?   Because they are the "philosophies of men". So what???   They confirm our point of view for Pete's sake!!!

 

We are on very solid philosophical ground as long as we drop worrying about history, stop worrying about scientific evidence for God, for me, stop worrying about the 116 missing pages, and get on with life.

 

What we need is Moroni 10:4-5- a religious experience we call a "testimony" and Alma 32 to "verify" the fulfillment we get from the gospel.

 

No one anywhere has ever had a better reason to believe anything of a religious or ethical nature than we have right there.   We just need to stop worrying about all this silly little stuff and arguing creedalism, and get on with spreading the gospel.   We can be the stone cut without hands and roll forth and fill the earth if we just forget worrying about whether or not Joseph had a hangnail or did things he was not supposed to do.

 

The strength of the church is in its "philosophy" and the fact that God confirms it by spiritual experience, and has done so for millions.   If we just forget arguing about silly stuff, there is nothing that could stop us.   If we are stopped it is because we kept squabbling about history and science.  We are our own worst enemies.

Edited March 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

Prove it is not.

 

Good luck with that.  Find the non-existent manuscript and show us its non-existence.  Or find it and show us it corresponds to what he wrote.

 

Can you see that it is folly even to follow this line of thinking?   Then stop following it.

 

The proposition is non-falsifiable, just like the proposition "God exists".

 

Get over it.   God is not about evidence, even if the church sometimes says it is.  Those are the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

 

Obviously you can make this as abstract as you need to in order to maintain belief, and words can mean whatever you need them to mean.  And obviously the ultimate defense for claims made by the Church isn't to defend them with evidence, but instead to convince people that there is no evidence so they shouldn't expect it or look for it, and therefore the only possible way to test a claim is to pray about it and go with what you feel the answer to your prayer is.

 

Unless there is some "evidence" that appears to support Church claims.  In that case, you should totally rely on that as well.

 

As for the Book of Abraham, the missing papyrus theory is interesting in that it suggests Joseph actually could translate Egyptian (with the help of God), and that if only we had the right source, then all would be right.  But based on the Facsimiles and Joseph's guesses as to what those mean, I think it's more likely that the missing papyrus theory is a pipe dream. 

 

But hey, like I said, whatever it takes...

[mfbukowski]

Unless there is some "evidence" that appears to support Church claims.  In that case, you should totally rely on that as well.

This is an extremely important point and I am glad you raised it, because I have just assumed everyone understood how wrong this statement above is.

 

I take it so much for granted that one should NOT use objective evidence for religious propositions even if one can, that it is like breathing air to me, so I never mention it.

 

I see your statement as a common position in the church which is totally inconsistent, and which I cannot abide.  To me, it is mushy thinking.

 

Either religious beliefs can be shown to be "true" or "false" by objective evidence or not.  Either religious experience is a "valid" and "rational" reason to accept religious beliefs or it is not.

 

In case no one has noticed, this is the exact point atheists and oddly, Evangelicals, make all the time.  We have no objective evidence for our beliefs, therefore they cannot be true.  That is what they say.

 

I disagree with that point because I think objective evidence CANNOT be used to prove OR refute ANY religious belief.  None.  Nada.  Zip.

 

One cannot, in short, both affirm Moroni 10:4-5 as the standard for confirming religious belief AND believe that objective evidence can also be used to prove religious beliefs.

 

There is no objective evidence for God, the bible, that it is wrong to kill people at random for fun, or any other religious or ethical proposition.   We cannot use objective evidence even if available to "prove" those things and at the same time affirm that spiritual truths can only be discerned spiritually.

 

It is inconsistent to do so.   You can't use one standard for one kind of "truth" and then switch it at will because it is convenient.

 

Either testimony is a valid way to find religious truth, or testimony is not, and one should use objective evidence as the standard for truth of religious propositions.

 

Without testimony as the standard, the atheists are right.  But then so are the logical positivists, but I don't expect you to see where that leads.

 

So this whole question ties into an entire consistent view of reality and all sorts of stuff.   It is not to be taken casually on convenience.

 

I am going to stick with the pragmatists and others who affirm the validity of religious experience as a rational basis for religion and not the positivists who think that without objective evidence, religion is bunk.

 

You can pick your side, and I will debate it with whomever, but for Pete's sake at least understand why this is an important point.  

 

If you affirm Moroni, you cannot consistently affirm the importance of objective evidence.  And bear in mind there is no objective evidence for the BOM to speak of, therefore no basis for any of our beliefs.   None.  Period.

 

No one seems to get that.  THAT is why this is an important point.

[mfbukowski]

Obviously you can make this as abstract as you need to in order to maintain belief, and words can mean whatever you need them to mean.  And obviously the ultimate defense for claims made by the Church isn't to defend them with evidence, but instead to convince people that there is no evidence so they shouldn't expect it or look for it, and therefore the only possible way to test a claim is to pray about it and go with what you feel the answer to your prayer is.

 

Unless there is some "evidence" that appears to support Church claims.  In that case, you should totally rely on that as well.

 

As for the Book of Abraham, the missing papyrus theory is interesting in that it suggests Joseph actually could translate Egyptian (with the help of God), and that if only we had the right source, then all would be right.  But based on the Facsimiles and Joseph's guesses as to what those mean, I think it's more likely that the missing papyrus theory is a pipe dream. 

 

But hey, like I said, whatever it takes...

So why ARE you a member anyway?

 

You want to teach your kids errors and how to pretend they believe?

[cinepro]

So why ARE you a member anyway?

 

You want to teach your kids errors and how to pretend they believe?

 

I'm a member because I was baptized at age 8; that seems to be the only requirement the Church looks for to include me in the membership numbers.

 

As for my kids, the church has done a much better job of teaching my kids errors and how to "pretend they believe" than I ever could.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I read the linked material, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not ruled out the catalyst theory, just as it has not ruled out the missing papyrus theory.  The linked material presents both theories as possibilities.   However, that's a far cry from saying that the Church of Jesus Christ has endorsed or adopted any particular explanation with respect to the existence of the Book of Abraham, except to say that however it came forth, it was by the gift and power of God.  I await further light and knowledge on particular methods and mechanisms involved in that process. To me, the opening poster suggested that the Church of Jesus Christ has indeed adopted a certain stance with respect to how the Book of Abraham came forth; I do not believe that to be the case, so that's why I asked the question(s) I did.  All the linked material does is present the possibilities, nothing more.

 

Apologies for any confusion.

That's my understanding as well.

 

It's like when people insist that the essay confirms that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction did not have the approval of God. In reality, the essay makes no such admission.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm a member because I was baptized at age 8; that seems to be the only requirement the Church looks for to include me in the membership numbers.

This reminds me of a statement made by a good sister of my acquaintance in a "Great To Be 8" meeting. She had taught Primary for many years.

 

She said that her grown son had told her he had been baptized without knowing what it was all about. She said, "I told him, 'You knew it when you were 8, because I taught it to you.'"

 

I suspect that's the case more often than not.

[Kenngo1969]

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating here and in this context.  When it comes to "evidence" tending to support the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we're all our own triers of fact.  Each of us decides on our own rules of evidence, we decide what evidence to admit, what evidence to exclude and why, how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence, and so on.  Yes, I was baptized at age eight, but one of my parents was just reactivating at the time and the other was inactive.  But I have maintained an active relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I think it can be analogized to Peter's response to Christ when Christ asked Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God." (See John 6:68-69).  Where else shall I go?  The Church of Jesus Christ has the words and ordinances of Eternal Life, and is the legitimate successor to the church Christ himself established in the meridian of time.

 

While I laud the faith of others and their devotion to their respective religious traditions, and while I believe that God doesn't give me bread and fish and fruit while giving my brothers and sisters in other religious traditions thorns and thistles and stones and serpents, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ because I believe it is where I can find the most abundant harvest of bread and fish and fruit.

[Kenngo1969]

This reminds me of a statement made by a good sister of my acquaintance in a "Great To Be 8" meeting. She had taught Primary for many years.

 

She said that her grown son had told her he had been baptized without knowing what it was all about. She said, "I told him, 'You knew it when you were 8, because I taught it to you.'"

 

I suspect that's the case more often than not.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, parents who do not rear their children in a particular religious tradition, opting, instead, to allow them to "make their own decision" when they reach whatever age parents feel their children are capable of making such a decision for themselves find that their children, rather than opting for any particular faith tradition, opt, instead, for no faith tradition.  Whoever wishes to do so may excoriate parents in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for attempting to "bring up their children in the way they should go" and to bring them up "in light and truth": I think such ridicule is preferable to having whole generations that are devoid of faith.

[pogi]

I'm a member because I was baptized at age 8; that seems to be the only requirement the Church looks for to include me in the membership numbers.

 

Are you active?  Why?