A Different God?

[Russell C McGregor]

41 minutes ago, Rico said:

Russel,

If you write a personal diary, do you write it for an audience?  When Anne Frank wrote her famous diary, I don't think she was planning to publish it.  The 1832 FV document falls into this category.  Does that mean Joseph need not be honest in his statements there since he did not intend to let the world know about it?

No. It means that Joseph was likely being entirely honest in his writing.

People who are seriously interested in finding out what happened don't knee-jerk to an assumption of dishonesty whenever they see something that contradicts their expectations.

But it also means that he wouldn't need to spell out details for the benefit of those who wouldn't know what he was talking about

41 minutes ago, Rico said:

Now if you see more than one personage, please let our audience know.  Show me the relevant words in the 1832 FV text.

Certainly.

Quote

...a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me...

That "he" shows that Joseph knew how to use pronouns. So why did Joseph say "the Lord" twice in the same sentence?

Easy: because there were two Lords in view.

41 minutes ago, Rico said:

 Now if you want me to show you why I think there is only one personage, I will show it to you.

I don't care. I have about as much interest in you telling me how to interpret LDS texts as I have in Walter Martin telling me what Mormon doctrine "really" means.

41 minutes ago, Rico said:

The truth is hard sometimes.

Is that why you are so desperately fighting against it?

41 minutes ago, Rico said:

The truth is the other versions of the FV did not yet exist 1832.  If you bring in other documents that antedate it, you will only add clutter to the meaning of the text.   That may sound like rigged but that is the truth.

It's the truth that you're trying to rig the test, yes.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Calm,

Your explanation will satisfy a modalist.  Now whether Joseph was a modalist, that is not the argument.  I was referring to your explanation not Joseph.  Again, even a Patripassian will not oppose you.  Think about that, and let that sink in.

The only way your explanation sounds reasonable is because you cannot stick to the document in question.  You have to bring in other documents not relevant to the question.  In other words, you are bringing in your preconceived notions to the document.  That's called eisegesis.

 

There are no facts only interpretations

Sound familiar?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

You have to bring in other documents not relevant to the question.  

 

In determining what Joseph believes and therefore what he was trying to express about his experience, why would we need to stick to only one thing he wrote at that time of his life?

[Rico]

Storm,

Kevin said: "I've already given evidence for two (at least, since some accounts refer to others besides the two "many angels").  James Allen's  Two distinct actions: "The ^Lord opened the heavens to me, and I saw the Lord" which turn out to be consistent with later accounts if you assume that one title can be used by two different beings who exactly resemble each other.  

------

What he gave me was not his reading of the text, but someone else's interpretation.  Had he said, "I see two personages based on the words [insert text citation here]," he would have directly answered the question.

James Allen's interpretation also suffers the same problem.  It brings in other texts that clutter the meaning of the primary text we are dealing with.  Kevin's response is a compund of an interpretation of an interpretation.  Yet my question is really simple.  Naive perhaps for mfbukowski's sophisticated tastes.  "Here is document X, how many M's do you see?"  Why should anyone quote someone else when he can read the document himself?  To me, that's incomprehensible.  Whose eyes should one believe, his or or someone else's? 

Think of Orwell's "1984"....  "Wilson, how many fingers do you see, four or five?"

Now once you bring in other documents, you ignore the question and stop interacting with it.  You start talking past your interlocutor.  You are answering, not anymore the original question, but the "question you wished was asked" as per Robert Millet's tactic.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rico said:

 For a modalist, the Father and the Son are just different modes of the same Person.  

Yes, I know; I have for half a century.

Do you believe the various modalist interpretations of the Bible, give them primacy in interpretation and if not, why not?

We don't give the modalist approach primacy in LDS faith even if they believe they could find some round pegs to fit in square holes just as they have done much earlier and with much more intent for the Bible, so why in the world would we accept their interpretation as somehow relevant to our understanding of our scriptures.  

Edited April 18, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Rico said:

Now once you bring in other documents, you ignore the question and stop interacting with it.  You start talking past your interlocutor.  You are answering, not anymore the original question, but the "question you wished was asked" as per Robert Millet's tactic.

The answer is the answer. How is one to know which is the "original question" and which one the interlocutor was ignorant enough to ask?

Does one assume a knowledgeable interlocutor, an simple minded interlocutor or an impaired interlocutor? 

How does one read the mind of a stranger on a board?

Edited April 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, I know; I have for half a century.

Do you believe the various modalist interpretations of the Bible, give them primacy in interpretation and if not, why not?

We don't give the modalist approach primacy in LDS faith even if they could find some round pegs to fit in square holes just as they have done much earlier and with much more intent for the Bible, so why in the world would we accept their interpretation as somehow relevant to our understanding of our scriptures.  

Now is that answer the real one or the one he thought that you thought that you were not answering by answering the way you did?

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, Rico said:

What he gave me was not his reading of the text, but someone else's interpretation.  Had he said, "I see two personages based on the words [insert text citation here]," he would have directly answered the question.

What does it matter that he gives you someone else's interpretation? If he finds it compelling, then it becomes his own view.

Don't you think it's just a bit presumptuous for you to start dictating the terms of the discussion?

3 hours ago, Rico said:

James Allen's interpretation also suffers the same problem.  It brings in other texts that clutter the meaning of the primary text we are dealing with.

You are talking gobbledegook. There is not just one "primary text." Yes, the 1832 account is a "primary text." So is the 1835 account. Ditto 1839. None of them is a mere revision of any other; each of them was given by the sole eyewitness to the event. Thus, they are all primary texts.

Decreeing that one of those primary texts shall have your pontifical imprimatur as "the" primary text, and all mere Mormons shall acquiesce to your decretal and ignore the others may meet your polemical agenda, but I'm afraid it won't wash.

The interpretive community whose legitimate domain those texts are -- i.e. the community that accepts them and takes them seriously as revelatory documents -- finds that they can all be reconciled without doing violence to any of them. Therefore, the entire set of non-Latter-day Saints who are attempting to discuss this matter in good faith will find that to be good enough.

Anyone attempting to control the terms of the discussion falls outside that set, and is essentially wasting our time.

3 hours ago, Rico said:

 Kevin's response is a compund of an interpretation of an interpretation.  Yet my question is really simple.  Naive perhaps for mfbukowski's sophisticated tastes.  "Here is document X, how many M's do you see?"  Why should anyone quote someone else when he can read the document himself?  To me, that's incomprehensible.  Whose eyes should one believe, his or or someone else's? 

Think of Orwell's "1984"....  "Wilson, how many fingers do you see, four or five?"

Now once you bring in other documents, you ignore the question and stop interacting with it.  You start talking past your interlocutor.  You are answering, not anymore the original question, but the "question you wished was asked" as per Robert Millet's tactic.

Why are you putting those words in quotes? Whom are you quoting?

I'm pretty certain that's not what Millet said.

And if refusing to let you dictate the terms on which we discuss our sacred texts is a "tactic," then I'm prepared to own it.
 

[Steve Noel]

On 4/16/2016 at 0:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

Excellent book, excellent post.

I am so glad you decided to read it.  You will understand us well after reading it, and most importantly you will understand that we are familiar with the issues covered.

I promise your understanding of how we see these issues, at least, will be greatly enhanced and will perhaps see the folly of many of the anti-Mormon attacks which are commonly leveled against us.  Givens presents a sophisticated understanding of the issues and the faith, and his view contrasts so profoundly with the childish criticisms leveled against us by members of other faiths, I can't see how it could not change your perceptions of Mormons.

I am not sure if I mentioned this or not, but I recently did a review of this volume for Interpreter

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

The book also contains many references to early Christianity and how our doctrines directly reproduce many beliefs found in early Christianity which were eventually pronounced anathema by the Catholic Church.

Especially since you are not Catholic, I would be interested in your take on those points and why Evangelicals now ignore these true Christian doctrines thrown out by a church which the originators of Protestantism "reformed"- but seemingly incompletely

I guess my question would by why Evangelicals are still so Catholic.

I revised this more than once- sorry- I am finished

I will have to see what early doctrines he refers to. We share many beliefs in common with Catholicism. The reformation centered primarily on the authoritative role of Scripture and justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hmmm well there are certainly parts of the Book of Mormon that have modalist tendencies.

The point of Bruening and Paulson's lengthy essay, and the unpublished book was to check ALL of the Book of Mormon to provide an overall context rather than a few proof texts.   "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths"

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

And that is also why I found Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God such a revelation.  It provides a relevant and telling context for the Book of Mormon.

If you get a group of blind men examining an elephant, and announcing that they have found a spear, a rope, a tree trunk, a fan, a wall, and a snake, the issue is not who is lying, or mistaken, or whose side we should be on, but how well are they contextualizing what they have found.  The data they each have in hand does not speak for itself, but must be contextualized in light of their experience.  The solution is not to dismiss any broader context as irrelevant, but to embrace the broadest and most relevant context as essential towards resolving differences and ambiguities in limited observations.

Rico seems to want to reject broader contextualization of a few lines of the 1832 on the grounds that doing so means he can't use his own preconceptions and agenda as a means to control the outcome.  But context can make a huge difference, and no one can know in advance the difference a broader context will make.   "To a mouse, cheese is cheese.  That is why mouse traps work."

Scholarship is all about identifying the best, most telling, and most relevant contexts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

People who are seriously interested in finding out what happened don't knee-jerk to an assumption of dishonesty whenever they see something that contradicts their expectations.

This isn't about a "knee-jerk to an assumption of dishonesty" when somebody sees "something that contradicts their expectations."

Not unless "their expectation" is that the same person recounting the same incident be consistent.

(Nice straw man, though.) 

It is more helpful to talk about consistency and not about honesty, though, as the former is objective and the latter is subjective.

It seems clear that the accounts are not consistent in the number of personages that appeared to Joseph Smith.

The most straightforward reading of the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith saw one being, "the Lord," in the First Vision.

The only reason you wish to wrest the text to make it two is because: (1) Joseph Smith later wrote there were two beings who appeared; and, (2) Your knee-jerk assumption is that Joseph would be consistent in recounting the First Vision.

It is your expectations of consistency, I think, that are controlling your reading of the 1832 account.

I used to buy into the explanation that Joseph mentioned "Lord" twice, as you argue.

But when you actually read the account, Joseph mentions "Lord" not twice, but FIVE TIMES.

Using your method, should we conclude Joseph saw five beings, all of whom he denominates as "the Lord"?

This is the type of apologetic I used to embrace but have thankfully shelved in favor of intellectual honesty.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I will have to see what early doctrines he refers to. We share many beliefs in common with Catholicism. The reformation centered primarily on the authoritative role of Scripture and justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.

Primarily theosis and pre-earth life and pre-Nicene understandings of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree with the Catholic positions on these; what I do not understand is why. Any clarification you can provide on that would be helpful thank you.

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The point of Bruening and Paulson's lengthy essay, and the unpublished book was to check ALL of the Book of Mormon to provide an overall context rather than a few proof texts.   "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths"

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

And that is also why I found Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God such a revelation.  It provides a relevant and telling context for the Book of Mormon.

If you get a group of blind men examining an elephant, and announcing that they have found a spear, a rope, a tree trunk, a fan, a wall, and a snake, the issue is not who is lying, or mistaken, or whose side we should be on, but how well are the contextualizing what they have found.  The data they each have in hand does not speak for itself, but must be contextualized in light of their experience.  The solution is not to dismiss any broader context as irrelevant, but to embrace the broadest and most relevant context as essential towards resolving differences and ambiguities in limited observations.

Rico seems to want to reject broader contextualization of a few lines of the 1832 on the grounds that doing so means he can't use his own preconceptions and agenda as a means to control the outcome.  But context can make a huge difference, and no one can know in advance the difference a broader context will make.   "To a mouse, cheese is cheese.  That is why mouse traps work."

Scholarship is all about identifying the best, most telling, and most relevant contexts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 Thanks yet again for teaching me how to say it better.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This isn't about a "knee-jerk to an assumption of dishonesty" when somebody sees "something that contradicts their expectations."

Not unless "their expectation" is that the same person recounting the same incident be consistent.

(Nice straw man, though.) 

It is more helpful to talk about consistency and not about honesty, though, as the former is objective and the latter is subjective.

It seems clear that the accounts are not consistent in the number of personages that appeared to Joseph Smith.

The most straightforward reading of the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith saw one being, "the Lord," in the First Vision.

The only reason you wish to wrest the text to make it two is because: (1) Joseph Smith later wrote there were two beings who appeared; and, (2) Your knee-jerk assumption is that Joseph would be consistent in recounting the First Vision.

It is your expectations of consistency, I think, that are controlling your reading of the 1832 account.

I used to buy into the explanation that Joseph mentioned "Lord" twice, as you argue.

But when you actually read the account, Joseph mentions "Lord" not twice, but FIVE TIMES.

Using your method, should we conclude Joseph saw five beings, all of whom he denominates as "the Lord"?

This is the type of apologetic I used to embrace but have thankfully shelved in favor of intellectual honesty.

 

It is the inconsistencies that make it a more probable real incident. A word for word recitation is a indication of memorization or prevarication. IE; What was it that Saul/Paul actually saw on the road to Damascus?

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is the inconsistencies that make it a more probable real incident. A word for word recitation is a indication of memorization or prevarication. IE; What was it that Saul/Paul actually saw on the road to Damascus?

Paul is a bad example because it is not Paul recounting Paul's experience in Acts--rather it is somebody else putting those words in the mouth of Paul.

This is different from Joseph Smith who in the four accounts is relating first-hand the experience he himself had.

But I used to use the same argument back when I was a Mormon apologist.

After a while, I began to see that it wasn't really the same thing after all.

[thesometimesaint]

That doesn't help your cause. JS used a scribe too.

I'm not an apologist. I just know what I believe.

You're still looking in the wrong direction I see.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This isn't about a "knee-jerk to an assumption of dishonesty" when somebody sees "something that contradicts their expectations."

Not unless "their expectation" is that the same person recounting the same incident be consistent.

(Nice straw man, though.) 

Wrong. As usual.

Are you trying to provoke me, again?

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is more helpful to talk about consistency and not about honesty, though, as the former is objective and the latter is subjective.

It seems clear that the accounts are not consistent in the number of personages that appeared to Joseph Smith.

Not to those who don't project their own pervasive dishonesty upon Joseph.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The most straightforward reading of the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith saw one being, "the Lord," in the First Vision.

I agree that it is the laziest reading.

I also point out that it is artificial to insist on reading it alone. Someone who is genuinely interested in finding out what Joseph experienced will look at all the primary sources together.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The only reason you wish to wrest the text

I'm not the one wresting the text. I think you are projecting, again.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

to make it two is because: (1) Joseph Smith later wrote there were two beings who appeared; and, (2) Your knee-jerk assumption is that Joseph would be consistent in recounting the First Vision.

That's not a "knee-jerk assumption," it's proper historical methodology. If you assume that your sources are lying, then you can imagine whatever you like. Joseph saw a Klingon beaming down, and the Book of Mormon was written by Robinson Crusoe. If we allow our sources to control our conclusions, then it's not nearly as much fun, of course.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is your expectations of consistency, I think, that are controlling your reading of the 1832 account.

I used to buy into the explanation that Joseph mentioned "Lord" twice, as you argue.

But when you actually read the account, Joseph mentions "Lord" not twice, but FIVE TIMES.

Actually he mentions him seven (7) times.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Using your method, should we conclude Joseph saw five beings, all of whom he denominates as "the Lord"?

No, that isn't my method.

Nice straw man though.

It's only the two that are mentioned together that are grammatically distinct individuals.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is the type of apologetic I used to embrace but have thankfully shelved in favor of intellectual honesty.

 

Really?

So when do you plan to start exercising some?

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Paul is a bad example because it is not Paul recounting Paul's experience in Acts--rather it is somebody else putting those words in the mouth of Paul.

I personally don't think that questioning the credibility of the Bible is a useful argument to defend Joseph Smith.  Especially to those who doubt our belief in the Bible anyway.

The fact remains, except for whether he believed the true church was on the earth, there are no contradictions. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It seems clear that the accounts are not consistent in the number of personages that appeared to Joseph Smith.

The most straightforward reading of the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith saw one being, "the Lord," in the First Vision.

May I suggest that you  talk to the person who was responsible for teaching you logical thought.  Your logic is flawed and perhaps they can help you out.

I would suggest checking "inconsistency" in the dictionary.  

snip

This is the type of apologetic I used to embrace but have thankfully shelved in favor of intellectual honesty.

 I believe that  you honestly believe what your flawed logic is telling you.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by cdowis

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I agree that it is the laziest reading.

You have put your finger on the problem, Russ.

When you have to work too hard to "understand" a text, it is a sure sign you are almost certainly reading it against of the intent of the author.

Let this be a lesson to you. 

 

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

The fact remains, except for whether he believed the true church was on the earth, there are no contradictions. 

Then what do you make of that contradiction?

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

When you have to work too hard to "understand" a text, it is a sure sign you are almost certainly reading it against of the intent of the author.

 

So no reason to go to all that hard work to learn a new language to read an author's original words?  There seem to me few things harder to do than learn a new language.

[thesometimesaint]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You have put your finger on the problem, Russ.

When you have to work too hard to "understand" a text, it is a sure sign you are almost certainly reading it against of the intent of the author.

Let this be a lesson to you. 

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

[RevTestament]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Then what do you make of that contradiction?

If there is one LORD/YHWH, how can the Father and the Son both be YHWH?