Psalm 82 In Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[Nevo]

Please do excuse me if I have great faith and trust that the Lord and the prophet Joseph Smith understand the original meaning of the scriptures much better than do the modern scholars who do not pretend to work by the spirit of revelation.

 

Personally, I don't consider Joseph Smith's or even Jesus' statements about scripture to be necessarily infallible. Joseph was a human, with human limitations. Jesus was divine, "God with us," but had emptied himself of the trappings of divinity—including, it would appear, total omniscience—during mortality (see Philippians 2:7). In his book, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, the Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown examined "a range of the ordinary and religious knowledge manifested in the Gospel accounts of Jesus" and noted that "throughout there were signs of limitation." Fr. Brown went on to state:

 

"Those who depend on a theological a priori argument that, because Jesus was 'true God of true God,' he had to know all things have a difficult task in explaining such limitations. They must resort to the thesis that he hid what he knew and deliberately manifested limitations in order not to confuse or astound his hearers. That explanation limps, for his hearers are portrayed as confused and amazed in any case" (Brown, Introduction, 58).

 

Thus, I don't feel compelled to conclude, solely on the basis of certain statements of Jesus in the Gospels, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that David wrote Psalm 110, that demon possession was prevalent in first-century Palestine, or that all of Jesus' sayings about the afterlife and the end of the world are strictly accurate. I think some of Jesus' statements reflect a first-century worldview, while others transcend his time and place. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nevo

[Gray]

Is it possible for the scriptural accounts of the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the garden and on the cross to also be fictional but still be of value?

 

Certainly. For instance in one version of the crucifixion narrative, Jesus says, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." It can be a narrative about forgiveness, redemption, and bringing light into a dark world, and still not be about a literal event. 

 

And do you believe it's possible for the general resurrection of all the dead into immortality and heavenly glory to also be a fiction and still be of some value?

 

You can take the idea of resurrection literally or metaphorically or both. But if you just focus on the literal you're going to miss any deeper thematic meanings, which might include light after a long night of darkness, or the ability of the Transcendent One to make everything new. 

[Bob Crockett]

Personally, I don't regard Joseph Smith's or even Jesus' statements about scripture to be necessarily infallible.

Jesus is the essence of infallibility but the KJV is not.

Joseph Smith deserves a mention in a paper that says church manuals proof text.

[Bobbieaware]

Personally, I don't regard Joseph Smith's or even Jesus' statements about scripture to be necessarily infallible. Joseph was a human, with human limitations. Jesus was divine, "God with us," but had emptied himself of the trappings of divinity—including, it would appear, total omniscience—during mortality (see Philippians 2:7). In his book, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, the Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown examined "a range of the ordinary and religious knowledge manifested in the Gospel accounts of Jesus" and noted that "throughout there were signs of ligmitation." Fr. Brown went on to state:

"Those who depend on a theological a priori argument that, because Jesus was 'true God of true God,' he had to know all things have a difficult task in explaining such limitations. They must resort to the thesis that he hid what he knew and deliberately manifested limitations in order not to confuse or astound his hearers. That explanation limps, for his hearers are portrayed as confused and amazed in any case" (Brown, Introduction, 58).

I don't feel compelled to conclude, solely on the basis of certain statements of Jesus in the Gospels, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that David wrote Psalm 110, that demon possession was prevalent in first-century Palestine, or that all of Jesus' sayings about the afterlife and the end of the world are strictly accurate. I think some of Jesus' statements reflect a first-century worldview, while others transcend his time and place. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is how the adversary is planning to destroy the church: Rather than attempt to get individual members to disavow and leave the church all at once, he'll slowly and cautiously use semi-converted members to plant in the member's minds that large portions of the standard works cannot be relied upon as true and authentic, and this pernicious idea they will boldly propagate even though the Lord himself testifies otherwise in D&C sections 1 and 20. And then, one destructive step at a time, the adversary will use both outside pressure from a corrupt society and pressure from the same persuasive semi-converted members to beguile as many members as possible to begin to deny and then abandon the reality and truthfulness of eternal and indispensably important gospel principles. It's a cunningly brilliant plan worthy of the prince of darkness who stands in opposition to all that is holy. And as a matter of fact, just today I had an intelligent and persuasive member of the church tell me that the atonement of Christ and the general resurrection are most likely mere enobling fantasies that have only metaphorical value.

As far as whether you are right or wrong, I would think a wise Latter-day Saint should ere on the side of all scripture being true and reliable, rather than start down the slippery slope of picking and choosing what one thinks are the true and untrue portions of holy writ. And I can't imagine the Lord would condemn any man for thinking it wise to ere on the side of all scripture being true and efficacious. In Lehi"s vision of the tree of life, those who held tightly onto the iron rod were not commanded to locate and cut out allegedly rusty portions of the guidepost that saved their lives.

We have the standard works. We can wisely hold to the iron rod with all our concentration and might; or we can relax our grip on the portions we think are rough and unpleasant to hold, but by doing so risk wandering off into forbidden paths or falling into the river of filthiness. Those in the large and spacious building can point and mock all they want, but I will ere on the side of caution and regard the entire canon of our standard works as being that prophesied blessed rod of iron.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is how the adversary is planning to destroy the church: Rather than attempt to get individual members to disavow and leave the church all at once, he'll slowly and cautiously use semi-converted members to plant in the member's minds that large portions of the standard works cannot be relied upon as true and authentic, and this pernicious idea they will boldly propagate even though the Lord himself testifies otherwise in D&C sections 1 and 20. And then, one destructive step at a time, the adversary will use both outside pressure from a corrupt society and pressure from the same persuasive semi-converted members to beguile as many members as possible to begin to deny and then abandon the reality and truthfulness of eternal and indispensably important gospel principles. It's a cunningly brilliant plan worthy of the prince of darkness who stands in opposition to all that is holy. And as a matter of fact, just today I had an intelligent and persuasive member of the church tell me that the atonement of Christ and the general resurrection are most likely mere enobling fantasies that have only metaphorical value.

As far as whether you are right or wrong, I would think a wise Latter-day Saint should ere on the side of all scripture being true and reliable, rather than start down the slippery slope of picking and choosing what one thinks are the true and untrue portions of holy writ. And I can't imagine the Lord would condemn any man for thinking it wise to ere on the side of all scripture being true and efficacious. In Lehi"s vision of the tree of life, those who held tightly onto the iron rod were not commanded to locate and cut out allegedly rusty portions of the guidepost that saved their lives.

We have the standard works. We can wisely hold to the iron rod with all our concentration and might; or we can relax our grip on the portions we think are rough and unpleasant to hold, but by doing so risk wandering off into forbidden paths or falling into the river of filthiness. Those in the large and spacious building can point and mock all they want, but I will ere on the side of caution and regard the entire canon of our standard works as being that prophesied blessed rod of iron.

 

Or, an equally likely scenario, the adversary is trying to destroy the church by luring us in to post-enlightenment, anachronistically fundamentalist views on the nature of scripture. By making us think of them as historical documents when they were written by people with no handle on the modern historical method. By thinking of Biblical writers as if they were modern people instead of taking them as they really were. 

 

In any case, even fundamentalists loosen their grip on the iron rod when it comes to certain troublesome passages. No one can maintain rigid literalism for the entire canon.

 

Historical criticism shouldn't be the enemy of the Latter-day Saints. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, anything that is true is our doctrine. Doesn't matter if its source is science, history, mathematics or revelation. And when it comes to truths that are available through scientific or historical inquiry, revelation is not a substitute for doing our homework. 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

I simply point out that you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts, and you are somewhat dismissive of how the Church handles the Psalm in its manuals ("a sort of proof-text for the Latter-day Saint notion that humanity shares a genetic link with divinity and primarily the concept that each human being is a child of God)but don't mention Joseph Smith's interpretation, at least with respect to his sermon I cite. His interpretation, it seems obvious to me, is the reason why church manuals say what they do, and I dispute the "proof-text" label.

But, it comes down to whether Joseph Smith "proof-texted" Psalm 82 for his interpretation, or whether his famous sermon is inspired revelation.

I certainly admit to seeing things differently that LDS scholars who want to apply secular means to explain LDS "theology." (I think the term "theology" has its limits, as we might view Aquinas as a theologian but not Joseph Smith or Brigham Young for obvious reasons.)

Perhaps this is one of the hazards in demanding historicity for doctrine.

 

For me, historicity is interesting and informative, but it is the interpretation that is important.  One does not accept a philosophy because of its historicity.  The problem of course is that there is no standard available that lets us know the "true" interpretation which God intended, using very imperfect humans to convey his message.

 

I suppose one just could say that one must take it all with a "grain of salt" and rely on testimony and our own interpretation.  It is informative to find out the intent of the original text, obviously, yet who knows if the writer of that "original text" got it "right" or if someone like Joseph, or someone even after Joseph understood the principle "better".  Of course all we really have to go on for doctrinal "correctness" is our testimonies anyway.

 

So I see debating translations as informative and horribly interesting, but again, such discussions cannot ever prove doctrinal "correctness".  That only comes from the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

So the Savior's guilty of proof-texting... Whodda thunk? One would think a perfect being wouldn't have to resort to such dubious tactics.

And how do we know what the Savior "actually said" anyway?

[mfbukowski]

The Lord taught his apostles that if they remained faithful the Holy Ghost would bring all the things he taught them to their clear remembrance. So it wouldn't matter if the gospe.if John was written sooner or later.

Your post reminds me of a thought I've had that this discussion board ought to provide three separate forums -- one dedicated to believers, a second dedicated to unbelievers, and a third dedicated to those who are willing to "mix things up." How in the world can someone who believes the Bible is the word of God and another who believes it's just a cynical work of fiction ever hope to find common ground for meaningful dialogue?

I don't recall anyone guaranteeing that.

 

And incidentally "fiction" is not the same as an inspired writing by a fallible human being doing his best to express what he earnestly believes God told him to write.

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Is it possible for the scriptural accounts of the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the garden and on the cross to also be fictional but still be of value? And do you believe it's possible for the general resurrection of all the dead into immortality and heavenly glory to also be a fiction and still be of some value?

You seem not to understand faith.  You see only literalism and "fiction".

 

That is a very vulnerable position.  If you are requiring historical "evidence" for the literal truth of scripture, one could easily prove you wrong.  In fact every atheist on the internet could do so in about 5 minutes.

 

I have a firm testimony of Jesus Christ and the atonement because God himself has revealed its truth to me, not some obscure manuscript written by largely unknown authors which may have been redacted by scribes or not even uttered by Christ himself anyway.

 

Belief in the historicity of scripture is itself a religious belief, and I do believe and take it on faith that scripture is "historical" but occasionally flawed.   The reason atheists do not accept scripture is because they actually are literalists who take the rather naive position that scripture should have "evidence" for it to be "true"

 

Such a view is an extremely naive view of "truth" and is not based upon a reasoned philosophical theory of what "truth" is.

 

Sorry for the derail, next time I will read the thread before posting.  I am out.

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

You seem not to understand faith. You see only literalism and "fiction".

That is a very vulnerable position. If you are requiring historical "evidence" for the literal truth of scripture, one could easily prove you wrong. In fact every atheist on the internet could do so in about 5 minutes.

I have a firm testimony of Jesus Christ and the atonement because God himself has revealed its truth to me, not some obscure manuscript written by largely unknown authors which may have been redacted by scribes or not even uttered by Christ himself anyway.

Belief in the historicity of scripture is itself a religious belief, and I do believe and take it on faith that scripture is "historical" but occasionally flawed. The reason atheists do not accept scripture is because they actually are literalists who take the rather naive position that scripture should have "evidence" for it to be "true"

Such a view is an extremely naive view of "truth" and is not based upon a reasoned philosophical theory of what "truth" is.

Sorry for the derail, next time I will read the thread before posting. I am out.

When it comes to my testimony of the restored gospel, the only evidence I rely on is the spiritual l witness I receive through the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ. It's by that same means I have a spiritual witness Christ was in Jerusslem and did in reality speak those words of approval pertaining to Psalm 82's declaration that man can become like God, as recorded in John 10. There is record that the prophet Joseph Smith also spoke approvingly of Psalm 82 and John 10, to wit that man through the gospel may become like God.. The Spirit whispers to me these things really did happen, but simultaneously I'll cheerfully admit there is no evidence for these things of the kind that would satisfy an atheist who doesn't believe in the reality of the spiritual realm.

My questions to the poster were asked because it was previously disclosed there are now active members of the church who hold the opinion that the gospel and the scriptures are fiction but still of some value, despite not being moored in reality, because good philosophical principles are taught thereby. I don't know about you, but when active members of the church say they don't believe - either by evidence,or by faith or by spiritual witness - that Christ atoned for our sins, or that he rose from the dead, I'm hard pressed to imagine those possessed of such unbelief can be considered to have true testimonies of the gospel and saving faith. But I am glad they still attend church and believe good comes out of the church teachings because they are more likely to end up being truly converted if they remain within the fold.

I quote the following from Paul as a point of reference to understand what he thought of the heresy, apparently already current within the meridian church, that Christ did not literally rise from the dead with a physical body:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

I don't recall anyone guaranteeing that.

 

And incidentally "fiction" is not the same as an inspired writing by a fallible human being doing his best to express what he earnestly believes God told him to write.

How about the Lord guaranteeing that?

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14

[Bobbieaware]

And how do we know what the Savior "actually said" anyway?

As I said above, it's recorded in the Bible and the Spirit testifies to me that that part of the Bible is true. In addition, Joseph Smith said it happened, so that adds to the witness I have from the Spirit.

[Bobbieaware]

Or, an equally likely scenario, the adversary is trying to destroy the church by luring us in to post-enlightenment, anachronistically fundamentalist views on the nature of scripture. By making us think of them as historical documents when they were written by people with no handle on the modern historical method. By thinking of Biblical writers as if they were modern people instead of taking them as they really were.

In any case, even fundamentalists loosen their grip on the iron rod when it comes to certain troublesome passages. No one can maintain rigid literalism for the entire canon.

Historical criticism shouldn't be the enemy of the Latter-day Saints. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, anything that is true is our doctrine. Doesn't matter if its source is science, history, mathematics or revelation. And when it comes to truths that are available through scientific or historical inquiry, revelation is not a substitute for doing our homework.

How does Moroni's challenge in Moroni 10 fit into your post-enlightenment scenario? Does that now get thrown out the window as no longer pertinent and necessary because the scientific method renders the principle of revelation obsolete?

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Moroni 10

And just to be sure: Do I have it right that it's your belief the man Moroni, whom we are told wrote the above words from the Book of Mormon, never really existed but is a fictional character?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Senator]

And just to be sure: Do I have it right that it's your belief the man Moroni, whom we are told wrote the above words from the Book of Mormon, never really existed but is a fictional character?

 

All we can really do is grant that he is a real character through belief/testimony.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Senator

[Gray]

How does Moroni's challenge in Moroni 10 fit into your post-enlightenment scenario? Does that now get thrown out the window as no longer pertinent and necessary because the scientific method renders the principle of revelation obsolete?

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Moroni 10

And just to be sure: Do I have it right that it's your belief the man Moroni, whom we are told wrote the above words from the Book of Mormon, never really existed but is a fictional character?

 

 

You're right, I don't think Moroni is a historical person (I feel the same way about Moses, Abraham, Noah and Adam). But I also don't think that should have any bearing on the value of writings attributed to them or the stories about them. And I don't think that science in any way renders revelation obsolete. Maybe it can help us to think more carefully about it, at most. 

 

In my opinion, if we look at the Spirit as a means of appreciating sacredness rather than literal messages from a specific being, we make more sense of the experience, especially in light of spiritual experiences all over the world experienced by people from different faith traditions. I don't want to wrangle the Holy Ghost and make it support my own path and no other. We can all appreciate that sacredness, regardless of our specific tradition. 

 

I don't offer this as a scientific statement, but rather my best faith effort to interpret the inputs that I perceive, and make some sense of them. 

 

I think spirituality is enormously important, and really a large part of the beauty of the human experience. But of course spiritual experiences do not come with their own interpretations. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Duplicate post 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

When it comes to my testimony of the restored gospel, the only evidence I rely on is the spiritual l witness I receive through the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ. It's by that same means I have a spiritual witness Christ was in Jerusslem and did in reality speak those words of approval pertaining to Psalm 82's declaration that man can become like God, as recorded in John 10. There is record that the prophet Joseph Smith also spoke approvingly of Psalm 82 and John 10, to wit that man through the gospel may become like God.. The Spirit whispers to me these things really did happen, but simultaneously I'll cheerfully admit there is no evidence for these things of the kind that would satisfy an atheist who doesn't believe in the reality of the spiritual realm.

My questions to the poster were asked because it was previously disclosed there are now active members of the church who hold the opinion that the gospel and the scriptures are fiction but still of some value, despite not being moored in reality, because good philosophical principles are taught thereby. I don't know about you, but when active members of the church say they don't believe - either by evidence,or by faith or by spiritual witness - that Christ atoned for our sins, or that he rose from the dead, I'm hard pressed to imagine those possessed of such unbelief can be considered to have true testimonies of the gospel and saving faith. But I am glad they still attend church and believe good comes out of the church teachings because they are more likely to end up being truly converted if they remain within the fold.

I quote the following from Paul as a point of reference to understand what he thought of the heresy, apparently already current within the meridian church, that Christ did not literally rise from the dead with a physical body:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15

But you see that is a very poor argument.  I agree with you, but the argument itself is a poor one.

 

You quote scripture to show that scripture comes from God, so scripture ends up verifying itself.  That is a totally circular, question begging argument.  If you do not believe in scripture to start off with, it is not going to show how reasonable your position is at all- to an atheist it sounds like an argument from a literalist with no understanding of the philosophical theology of faith and why such a faith is "reasonable".

 

In short, we will never convert such a person with an argument like that.  That would never open them up to the spirit.

 

I was an atheist until I understood that faith itself was "reasonable", then the gateway opened to understanding religion.  In my opinion we have the most "reasonable" religion possible- the belief in what one could call the "Ideal Man".  That is a faith that humanists of all stripes could accept once they understand how reasonable philosophically such a position can be.  That then opens up the door to the spirit entering their hearts, because no one can receive the spiritual confirmation they need until they open themselves up.

 

That is what happened to me, so I know how it works.

 

The key to understanding the whole historicity argument is to understand that the BELIEF IN HISTORICITY IS ITSELF A RELIGIOUS POSITION which is ultimately verifiable only by testimony

 

That is the key.

 

That is the crux of the whole argument between Hamblin and Bokovoy- or really between Hamblin and Hamblin's caricature of Bokovoy's position on historicity.

 

Don't fall into that- it is all a misunderstanding.

 

People only take the position that "scripture is useful fiction" because they do not understand the distinction between historicity and the notion that the BELIEF in scriptural historicity is itself a religious position.

 

Historical "proof" of the atonement is impossible.  One cannot prove historically that it ever happened.  There can be no evidence even if we magically went back in a time machine and recorded all the events of the atonement.  All they would show is a man suffering in a garden, perhaps, the horrifying spectacle of a Roman crucifixion, and a body put into a tomb.  Even with a camera in the tomb- what would it show?  Who knows?  Do we have a competent physician available by time machine to certify the death of the individual on the cross?  A stethoscope to show that his heart ceased beating?   Was he drugged to appear to be dead?

 

And the hardest question of all- how does all that imaginary "evidence" show that somehow the death of that individual- if it happened- actually show that YOUR sins and mine are now reconciled with God?

 

It cannot be done!!  There is NO argument there whatsoever!  Arguing about translations of ancient documents is fascinating stuff, but it does not bring us one iota closer to becoming like Christ once one understands the inevitable argument which must follow to prove the "relevance" of such studies.

 

So my advice is to not judge those too harshly who say that the scriptures are "useful fiction", because they do not phrase it properly.  Clearly what they mean to say is that belief in the relevance of studies on the historicity of scripture is itself a position based on faith, and a religious position.

 

To me, that is the only position which makes sense. 

 

And understanding that simple distinction could end all this silliness.

 

That makes the difference between seeing those imaginary non-existent videos of the crucifixion as a bloody torture movie or as a treasured relic of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

You're right, I don't think Moroni is a historical person (I feel the same way about Moses, Abraham, Noah and Adam). But I also don't think that should have any bearing on the value of writings attributed to them or the stories about them. And I don't think that science in any way renders revelation obsolete. Maybe it can help us to think more carefully about it, at most. 

 

In my opinion, if we look at the Spirit as a means of appreciating sacredness rather than literal messages from a specific being, we make more sense of the experience, especially in light of spiritual experiences all over the world experienced by people from different faith traditions. I don't want to wrangle the Holy Ghost and make it support my own path and no other. We can all appreciate that sacredness, regardless of our specific tradition. 

 

I don't offer this as a scientific statement, but rather my best faith effort to interpret the inputs that I perceive, and make some sense of them. 

 

I think spirituality is enormously important, and really a large part of the beauty of the human experience. But of course spiritual experiences do not come with their own interpretations. 

Of course thinking that they "are not" historical people is a positive position in itself.

 

It is like saying "I do not believe that God exists" as opposed to being agnostic on the issue.

 

I do not know what you "really believe" here but my position is different than that.  I DO believe that all those people were "real" and "existed" and that we have records of all they wrote etc.

 

However I have no illusions about any of this.  I think my position is itself a faith-based position.

 

On the other hand, suppose my religious belief is "wrong".  Suppose they never existed, and all we have was written by well meaning individuals who thought they were inspired by God and wrote good things that bring us closer to becoming our ideal selves.

 

Suppose my "testimony" is only me talking to myself- my unconscious ideal self buried deep inside my brain which has evolved socially to allow me to survive and become "civilized" because humans need civilization to survive.

 

I cannot know the difference between those two positions.  It is like the brain in a vat thingy.  No one can prove that we are not brains in a vat.  Of course I think that is ridiculous, but strictly speaking, that position is correct.  Even guys like Bertrand Russel showed that was a position no one could prove was wrong.

 

For me, it doesn't matter.  I live my life as if my beliefs were "true", whatever that means in this looking-glass world, and just go on making choices and listening to the spirit.

 

I affirm the historicity of all this knowing the strength of my position with total confidence and is why I am such a jerk here sometimes.  It just doesn't matter. 

 

What ultimately matters is how I feel inside myself and I know for a fact that my life is better for affirming those beliefs which I affirm and can say fearlessly that "I know these things are true" because I know fully what all that means.

 

For better or worse, it has taken me 45 years of study to get to this position, looking at every possible way of doubting myself and every theory under the sun.

 

For me, the LDS beliefs are clearly the best faith model in existence to bring me to total happiness.   No one can do better, in my never humble opinion.

[Gray]

Of course thinking that they "are not" historical people is a positive position in itself.

 

Agreed.

 

It is like saying "I do not believe that God exists" as opposed to being agnostic on the issue.

 

I think the question of the existence of ancient historical figures, while never totally falsifiable, can at least be given rough probability estimates based on evidence. So at best I'm going to say that Person X "probably" isn't a historical figure, all things considered. But that could always be altered.

 

I do not know what you "really believe" here but my position is different than that.  I DO believe that all those people were "real" and "existed" and that we have records of all they wrote etc.

 

While it's possible they exist, I think it's more likely they are not based on "real" historical people. Not that it really matters of course - it has no bearing on the value of the scriptures. I don't find any value in making the leap of faith that these are real people, without some reasonable historical evidence. When it comes to the physical world I tend to default to wherever the evidence seems to point, for my own sanity. But I find a mythical Moses just as useful as a historical one, and ditto for Moroni.

 

That's just me. It may be valuable and helpful for you to operate on the assumption that they existed. At the end of the day what really matters is getting the spiritual message. I can't interact with a mythical Moroni any better than I can interact with a dead Moroni. I have access to neither version. All I have is the text. 

 

However I have no illusions about any of this.  I think my position is itself a faith-based position.

 

On the other hand, suppose my religious belief is "wrong".  Suppose they never existed, and all we have was written by well meaning individuals who thought they were inspired by God and wrote good things that bring us closer to becoming our ideal selves.

 

Suppose my "testimony" is only me talking to myself- my unconscious ideal self buried deep inside my brain which has evolved socially to allow me to survive and become "civilized" because humans need civilization to survive.

 

I cannot know the difference between those two positions.  It is like the brain in a vat thingy.  No one can prove that we are not brains in a vat.  Of course I think that is ridiculous, but strictly speaking, that position is correct.  Even guys like Bertrand Russel showed that was a position no one could prove was wrong.

 

For me, it doesn't matter.  I live my life as if my beliefs were "true", whatever that means in this looking-glass world, and just go on making choices and listening to the spirit.

 

 

I affirm the historicity of all this knowing the strength of my position with total confidence and is why I am such a jerk here sometimes.  It just doesn't matter. 

 

What ultimately matters is how I feel inside myself and I know for a fact that my life is better for affirming those beliefs which I affirm and can say fearlessly that "I know these things are true" because I know fully what all that means.

 

For better or worse, it has taken me 45 years of study to get to this position, looking at every possible way of doubting myself and every theory under the sun.

 

For me, the LDS beliefs are clearly the best faith model in existence to bring me to total happiness.   No one can do better, in my never humble opinion.

 

Personally I don't find some of those assumptions helpful (eg that Moses was a "real" historical person). I don't need that assumption to be my best self, nor do I need God to have human attributes. But I'm on board with your general approach, and I find it refreshing and well-considered. The point, I think, of spirituality is the journey in becoming more fully human. 

 

I don't think there is only one approach that can work for everyone. We all need our own workarounds. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

 

Of course thinking that they "are not" historical people is a positive position in itself.

 

Agreed.

 

It is like saying "I do not believe that God exists" as opposed to being agnostic on the issue.

 

I think the question of the existence of ancient historical figures, while never totally falsifiable, can at least be given rough probability estimates based on evidence. So at best I'm going to say that Person X "probably" isn't a historical figure, all things considered. But that could always be altered.

 

I do not know what you "really believe" here but my position is different than that.  I DO believe that all those people were "real" and "existed" and that we have records of all they wrote etc.

 

While it's possible they exist, I think it's more likely they are not based on "real" historical people. Not that it really matters of course - it has no bearing on the value of the scriptures. I don't find any value in making the leap of faith that these are real people, without some reasonable historical evidence. When it comes to the physical world I tend to default to wherever the evidence seems to point, for my own sanity. But I find a mythical Moses just as useful as a historical one, and ditto for Moroni.

 

That's just me. It may be valuable and helpful for you to operate on the assumption that they existed. At the end of the day what really matters is getting the spiritual message. I can't interact with a mythical Moroni any better than I can interact with a dead Moroni. I have access to neither version. All I have is the text. 

 

However I have no illusions about any of this.  I think my position is itself a faith-based position.

 

On the other hand, suppose my religious belief is "wrong".  Suppose they never existed, and all we have was written by well meaning individuals who thought they were inspired by God and wrote good things that bring us closer to becoming our ideal selves.

 

Suppose my "testimony" is only me talking to myself- my unconscious ideal self buried deep inside my brain which has evolved socially to allow me to survive and become "civilized" because humans need civilization to survive.

 

I cannot know the difference between those two positions.  It is like the brain in a vat thingy.  No one can prove that we are not brains in a vat.  Of course I think that is ridiculous, but strictly speaking, that position is correct.  Even guys like Bertrand Russel showed that was a position no one could prove was wrong.

 

For me, it doesn't matter.  I live my life as if my beliefs were "true", whatever that means in this looking-glass world, and just go on making choices and listening to the spirit.

 

 

I affirm the historicity of all this knowing the strength of my position with total confidence and is why I am such a jerk here sometimes.  It just doesn't matter. 

 

What ultimately matters is how I feel inside myself and I know for a fact that my life is better for affirming those beliefs which I affirm and can say fearlessly that "I know these things are true" because I know fully what all that means.

 

For better or worse, it has taken me 45 years of study to get to this position, looking at every possible way of doubting myself and every theory under the sun.

 

For me, the LDS beliefs are clearly the best faith model in existence to bring me to total happiness.   No one can do better, in my never humble opinion.

 

Personally I don't find some of those assumptions helpful (eg that Moses was a "real" historical person). I don't need that assumption to be my best self, nor do I need God to have human attributes. But I'm on board with your general approach, and I find it refreshing and well-considered. The point, I think, of spirituality is the journey in becoming more fully human. 

 

I don't think there is only one approach that can work for everyone. We all need our own workarounds. 

 

I have no problem with your position and I understand it fully I think.

 

Quite frankly I also have no problem with the idea that there never was a "real" Moses- it would not change anything in my life whatsoever if somehow that could be proven- which I think is impossible.  Belief in Moses or Moroni is non-falsifiable.  For me, "probability" is irrelevant because there are so many variables.  Moses might have existed but not have written anything attributed to him, etc.  There is no way to even know what all the variables are, so for me it's all or none.

 

But in the final analysis the all or none answer to all those questions is irrelevant, because I too can accept the gospel totally on the merits of it as a philosophy.

 

But I consciously decide not to do that.  I consciously decide that it is "best" and fits best with acting within callings etc to assume that they were "real",  Because of the uncertainties involved I have no problem making that assumption because of my testimony.  That is what puts it all over the line.

 

What I know for sure is that I perceive that there is an Intelligence out there watching out for me and teaching me to follow when I do what I think is right, and that Intelligence goes away when I do things that I think are wrong.

 

Also, I have rationally concluded that Mormonism is the best rational model I can imagine which fits with everything else I "know for sure" and I am certain that that Intelligence wants me to follow this path to happiness.

 

I have had unspeakable experiences, and that is about all I can speak about the unspeakable.  

[Stargazer]

Well, it's not quite the same issue, but I also believe the BOM to be a completely human production, most likely composed by Joseph Smith in an attempt to channel what he thought was authentic Native American history, through the lens of his own 19th century perspectives. I also view it as scripture.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but if you want to discuss it further I'd be open to doing so in a new thread. 

 

I don't want to derail, either, but I simply cannot keep myself from this comment: Wow, that's a doozy! 

 

If you start a new thread on that I will definitely have a look.

[Stargazer]

I don't want to derail, either, but I simply cannot keep myself from this comment: Wow, that's a doozy! 

 

If you start a new thread on that I will definitely have a look.

 

Quoting yourself is possibly a symptom of some dread mental condition, but I will do it anyway.

 

The doozy that I wrote of was afterwards expanded and developed in the conversation between Gray, BobbieAware and mfbukowski, and I don't know if all that qualified as a thread derail or merely a friendly liberality, but I will admit to an unexpected case of dumbfound, and mouth dropping open. 

 

"??????  You've got to be kidding me!" 

 

Scripture as divine fiction?  Abraham as a legendary figure without actual personhood?  Joseph Smith composed The Book of Mormon out of his own head, hoping to explain the American Indian?  And, remarkably enough, it's scripture? 

 

Anyone here ever read Silverlock, by John Myers Myers?  Well, if you haven't, I won't explain it, just go read it.  Or, if you don't want to locate a copy, check Wikipedia for a very limited precis.  Although it is a very fun read, just sayin'.

 

Anyway, I'm going to call this thing Gray was advocating the Silverlock Hypothesis. 

 

Aren't you glad to have a name for it?    And it's free of charge!  Tips accepted, however.

[Bobbieaware]

Quoting yourself is possibly a symptom of some dread mental condition, but I will do it anyway.

The doozy that I wrote of was afterwards expanded and developed in the conversation between Gray, BobbieAware and mfbukowski, and I don't know if all that qualified as a thread derail or merely a friendly liberality, but I will admit to an unexpected case of dumbfound, and mouth dropping open.

"?????? You've got to be kidding me!"

Scripture as divine fiction? Abraham as a legendary figure without actual personhood? Joseph Smith composed The Book of Mormon out of his own head, hoping to explain the American Indian? And, remarkably enough, it's scripture?

Anyone here ever read Silverlock, by John Myers Myers? Well, if you haven't, I won't explain it, just go read it. Or, if you don't want to locate a copy, check Wikipedia for a very limited precis. Although it is a very fun read, just sayin'.

Anyway, I'm going to call this thing Gray was advocating the Silverlock Hypothesis.

Aren't you glad to have a name for it? And it's free of charge! Tips accepted, however.

I will read up on Myers with interest.

While at church yesterday, I was reading the following verse from the Book of Mormon and immediately thought of Gray.

27 And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?

His is an interesting position to occupy because it conveniently allows an adherent to the concept to be a both a believer and an unbeliever at the same time. I suppose if one is careful to not be too open about it all, he could fit right in with hardcore atheists and fervent believers simultaneously -- sort of a radically extended version of Paul's being "all things to all men."Talk about hedging one's bets! But I'm also learning one must be careful to not be too harsh in condemning such seemingly outlandish thinking because, as mfbukowski points out, once one enters the cerebral and highly fluid realm of "pure thought" virtually anything and everything is possible. Cartoon characters and living flesh and blood human beings are all equally real because, after all. when you get right down to it, everything is just pure thought anyway. It brings to mind, "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a dream."

For a highly systematized, spiritually-centered version of this universe of "pure thought" see Mary Baker Eddy's amazing religious philosophy known as Christian Science. In Christian Science, after all things are said and done, the only thing that is real is an immaterial God who exists only in the form of pure Thought or Mind. Everything else in her reality is just an illusion. For example, in Christian Science healing one does not get healed of a disease that actually exists; rather, one gets healed when he realizes the disease that seems to be afflicting him doesn't really exist in first place. In this transcendent universe where only pure thought, pure goodness and pure love exist, everything else is just the stuff dreams and illusions. There's no understanding of an existence based on a real opposition in things, because the things that seem to stand in opposition to God don't really exist... Mind boggled yet?

As a trained philosopher, mfbukowski really understands this stuff, while I have only a most rudimentary layman's understanding. This is why mk doesn't get shocked or surprised when he encounters the kind of thinking espoused by folks like Gray. But as for me and my house, we'll continue to live in a universe where everything, including spirit and the forces of darkness that stand in opposition to God, are material and very real. I don't pretend to understand where Gray is actually coming from spiritually and philosophically, but thought the above might break the ice.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Nevo]

Scripture as divine fiction?  Abraham as a legendary figure without actual personhood?  Joseph Smith composed The Book of Mormon out of his own head, hoping to explain the American Indian?  And, remarkably enough, it's scripture?

 

Job, Jonah, Daniel (Danel), Esther. All legendary figures. But the books that carry their names still do pretty well as scripture.

[mfbukowski]

I will read up on Myers with interest.

While at church yesterday, I was reading the following verse from the Book of Mormon and immediately thought of Gray.

27 And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?

His is an interesting position to occupy because it conveniently allows an adherent to the concept to be a both a believer and an unbeliever at the same time. I suppose if one is careful to not be too open about it all, he could fit right in with hardcore atheists and fervent believers simultaneously -- sort of a radically extended version of Paul's being "all things to all men."Talk about hedging one's bets! But I'm also learning one must be careful to not be too harsh in condemning such seemingly outlandish thinking because, as mfbukowski points out, once one enters the cerebral and highly fluid realm of "pure thought" virtually anything and everything is possible. Cartoon characters and living flesh and blood human beings are all equally real because, after all. when you get right down to it, everything is just pure thought anyway. It brings to mind, "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a dream."

For a highly systematized, spiritually-centered version of this universe of "pure thought" see Mary Baker Eddy's amazing religious philosophy known as Christian Science. In Christian Science, after all things are said and done, the only thing that is real is an immaterial God who exists only in the form of pure Thought or Mind. Everything else in her reality is just an illusion. For example, in Christian Science healing one does not get healed of a disease that actually exists; rather, one gets healed when he realizes the disease that seems to be afflicting him doesn't really exist in first place. In this transcendent universe where only pure thought, pure goodness and pure love exist, everything else is just the stuff dreams and illusions. There's no understanding of an existence based on a real opposition in things, because the things that seem to stand in opposition to God don't really exist... Mind boggled yet?

As a trained philosopher, mfbukowski really understands this stuff, while I have only a most rudimentary layman's understanding. This is why mk doesn't get shocked or surprised when he encounters the kind of thinking espoused by folks like Gray. But as for me and my house, we'll continue to live in a universe where everything, including spirit and the forces of darkness that stand in opposition to God, are material and very real. I don't pretend to understand where Gray is actually coming from spiritually and philosophically, but thought the above might break the ice.

It would be an interesting exercise to search the Bible and BOM and see exactly how many words allegedly spoken by Jesus were in parables, as opposed to declarative statements of what might be construed as "doctrine".  Of course I believe the BOM and Bible are equally scriptural and contain the words of Christ, and this is a religious belief not based on evidence.

 

One might say that if Jesus didn't say it, it was "written by men" and I think that is pretty much a truism.

 

I suspect the majority of quotes of Jesus are parables, which are intended to be "fictitious" on their face.   No one is looking for "evidence" for the existence of the ten virgins or the prodigal son.  No one even thinks that such "evidence" is worth looking for.

 

So if the majority of the words of Jesus himself were never intended to be anything but "fiction", and everyone knows that, where does that put this question?

 

I think this is a horribly important question you raise for the future of the church.

 

What would the world be like if atheists and humanists and secularists and religious people could all agree on the importance of the values taught in scripture instead of  arguing about whether or not some events in the distant past ever "really happened"?

 

What would the world be like if we could agree with atheists who see our beliefs as "perfectly valid" and matching their own in many respects, with the exception of our religious position that indeed such events really DID happen, even though they are ultimately unproven?

 

Suppose we could show the pure rationality of the kind of human we can become by honoring our dead, and knowing our personal family history, that we should treat all people as we would like to be treated, that all people should do their best to be an "ideal human being", while our main difference is a small footnote about the history of where these ideas came from?

 

Sign me up!  That's the world I want!!

 

Incidentally, for the record I also KNOW that those forces of good and evil are very very real and material.  But even atheists understand that sometimes and to some degree in terms of "intuition" or "positive energy" etc.

 

Our difference with them there is that we know it is PERSONAL - that there are "beings" out there causing these feelings, but they feel the feelings just as we do, though I am convinced, not as intensely.

Edited May 26, 2015 by mfbukowski