A Reason for Faith

[Rivers]

https://deseretbook.com/p/rsc-reason-for-faith-navigating-lds-doctrine-and-church-history?taxon_id=477&variant_id=133263-hardcover

Here's a new book by Laura Hales which is continuing the trend of tackling the difficult aspects of church history, doctrine, culture etc.  Its great to see Deseret Book sell these types of books.

Has anybody had a chance check this one out this one yet? 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Rivers

[James Tunney]

I don't find any reason to privilege Joseph Smith or today's leaders over anyone else. So, faith, or assuming someone is correct or assuming the best mormon view of its history or anyone's history is simply not possible. I think mormons are great people but they dont get a free pass. Faith requires one to assume a conclusion prior to getting evidence when it should be the other way around. Too much trusting behavior causes too much mischief, too much fraud. Show me some evidence and I will give it a fair hearing.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I don't find any reason to privilege Joseph Smith or today's leaders over anyone else. So, faith, or assuming someone is correct or assuming the best mormon view of its history or anyone's history is simply not possible. I think mormons are great people but they dont get a free pass. Faith requires one to assume a conclusion prior to getting evidence when it should be the other way around. Too much trusting behavior causes too much mischief, too much fraud. Show me some evidence and I will give it a fair hearing.

Lol.

What is a hypothesis,  other than making a proposed conclusion before testing it?

Making that hypothesis requires faith.

Walking across the room requires faith that your legs are not going to give away.

Going to school requires faith that you will graduate and get a better job, or whatever your ob jective is.

Planting a crop requires faith that the plants will grow.

Alma 32 shows us the exact same methodology.

 

[Rivers]

I just read the detailed description.  Laura Hales is not the author but the editor.  Its a compilation of essays by a variety of LDS scholars. 

[James Tunney]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Lol.

What is a hypothesis,  other than making a proposed conclusion before testing it?

Making that hypothesis requires faith.

Walking across the room requires faith that your legs are not going to give away.

Going to school requires faith that you will graduate and get a better job, or whatever your ob jective is.

Planting a crop requires faith that the plants will grow.

Alma 32 shows us the exact same methodology.

 

I've walked across the room at least thousands of time without my legs giving way and I've seen the sun rise many, many times. As a result I have confidence in these facts even though there is a remote possibility that they won't follow the past. However, Mormonism's history is extremely troubling, especially given the utter lack of evidence for BofM historicity. So, yes one must exercise some faith in a lot of things, but according to Alma 32, at a certain point faith becomes knowledge. With mormon history, the official view is still unfortunately not even remotely close to being knowledge. It's highly questionable, if not clearly not what it claims to be.

[Duncan]

Just now, James Tunney said:

I've walked across the room at least thousands of time without my legs giving way and I've seen the sun rise many, many times. As a result I have confidence in these facts even though there is a remote possibility that they won't follow the past. However, Mormonism's history is extremely troubling, especially given the utter lack of evidence for BofM historicity. So, yes one must exercise some faith in a lot of things, but according to Alma 32, at a certain point faith becomes knowledge. With mormon history, the official view is still unfortunately not even remotely close to being knowledge. It's highly questionable, if not clearly not what it claims to be.

Are you related to Gene Tunney?

[Rivers]

14 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I've walked across the room at least thousands of time without my legs giving way and I've seen the sun rise many, many times. As a result I have confidence in these facts even though there is a remote possibility that they won't follow the past. However, Mormonism's history is extremely troubling, especially given the utter lack of evidence for BofM historicity. So, yes one must exercise some faith in a lot of things, but according to Alma 32, at a certain point faith becomes knowledge. With mormon history, the official view is still unfortunately not even remotely close to being knowledge. It's highly questionable, if not clearly not what it claims to be.

Yes. Mormon history is troubling. Which is why this book and others like it are being written.  I'm glad to see these types of book in LDS bookstores.  Its good that all the problematic things about the church are being tackled head on.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I've walked across the room at least thousands of time without my legs giving way and I've seen the sun rise many, many times. As a result I have confidence in these facts even though there is a remote possibility that they won't follow the past. However, Mormonism's history is extremely troubling, especially given the utter lack of evidence for BofM historicity. So, yes one must exercise some faith in a lot of things, but according to Alma 32, at a certain point faith becomes knowledge. With mormon history, the official view is still unfortunately not even remotely close to being knowledge. It's highly questionable, if not clearly not what it claims to be.

History is irrelevant to Alma, but it is pointless to get into it with you

Your criticisms have been handled a hundred times over this board. Perhaps you should just do some research on other threads about History and the alleged problems.. There are probably hundreds. I I thought your point was about faith.

[Kevin Christensen]

8 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I don't find any reason to privilege Joseph Smith or today's leaders over anyone else. So, faith, or assuming someone is correct or assuming the best mormon view of its history or anyone's history is simply not possible. I think mormons are great people but they dont get a free pass. Faith requires one to assume a conclusion prior to getting evidence when it should be the other way around. Too much trusting behavior causes too much mischief, too much fraud. Show me some evidence and I will give it a fair hearing.

Too much skeptical or cynical behavior also causes much mischief, in assuming the worst without investigation, causing a lack of trust and a failure to explore possibilities.  For instance, I noticed that the those who built the CERN supercollider did not say, "First show us proof of the Higgs boson, and then we'll see about spending billions of dollars and decades of effort by thousands of people, show us proof and then we'll build it."

My life experience teaches me to appreciate Joseph Smith's insight that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."

And my life experience also provides me with several ways to privilege Joseph Smith's insights, and to credit the Book of Mormon.  I started, of course, by experimenting on portions of the word, watching the results carefully over time, noting the expansion of my mind, moments of enlightenment, the fruitfulness of the experiments, sometimes in my seeing things and making connections that no one ever had before myself, sometimes in learning from other scholars people things that I never would have found on my own, considering the simplicity and beauty, the enlargement of my soul, and the future promise.  Among other things, I noticed that the epistomology in Alma 32 is the same as that described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Others pointed out how closely Joseph Smith's thought anticipated Process Theology.  And there are all sorts of remarkable convergences between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world that I can't help but notice, tend to be discovered by people who experiment upon the word, giving time and nurture in good soil, rather than by those who insist on coercive proof before investing any effort, and showing by that lack of effort of effort, the lack of even a desire to believe. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm about half way through the book.  It's a good resource overall.   In some cases I'd say things that aren't said, and refer to sources and arguments that are not mentioned, but for those with questions, who at least want to "prove the contraries" it's a good starting point.  Steve Smoot has a good review on his website.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[James Tunney]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

History is irrelevant to Alma, but it is pointless to get into it with you

Your criticisms have been handled a hundred times over this board. Perhaps you should just do some research on other threads about History and the alleged problems.. There are probably hundreds. I I thought your point was about faith.

It is about faith. One cannot exercise faith in something that has a questionable foundation in my point of view. You can choose to believe otherwise or have faith that it'll all make sense in the future. You are free in your subjective beliefs to do so. However my "subjective" viewpoint says otherwise. Maybe you should take on a reading assignment about religious psychology and sociology? It's all there and it has been decided a long time ago.

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

It is about faith. One cannot exercise faith in something that has a questionable foundation in my point of view. You can choose to believe otherwise or have faith that it'll all make sense in the future. You are free in your subjective beliefs to do so. However my "subjective" viewpoint says otherwise. Maybe you should take on a reading assignment about religious psychology and sociology? It's all there and it has been decided a long time ago.

explain to me how  sociology fits into this, religious psychology maybe but sociology???

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

It is about faith. One cannot exercise faith in something that has a questionable foundation in my point of view. You can choose to believe otherwise or have faith that it'll all make sense in the future. You are free in your subjective beliefs to do so. However my "subjective" viewpoint says otherwise. Maybe you should take on a reading assignment about religious psychology and sociology? It's all there and it has been decided a long time ago.

I have a minor in physiological psychology and am a student of sociology and am a social constructivist. I  would suggest some study in philosophy, especially of atheist philosophers like Rorty and James and Thomas Nagel and Wittgenstein who would disagree with you.

If you care what I think I am posting extensively on two other threads right now

[James Tunney]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

explain to me how  sociology fits into this, religious psychology maybe but sociology???

Social psychology actually. More specifically the peer group experiments that show how perception can be changed for good or bad based on group pressure. A fact or object may be perceived one way without the group and an entirely different way within the group due to group pressure to conform. In these experiments it is shown that it only takes a small faction to change group orthodoxy, letting all know that the emperor is naked as it were. This is why dissenters like dehlin and Kelly and runnells need to be swiftly dealt with so perception isn't changed by the vocal minority.

However, if I'm seeing something and perceiving it a certain way, courage to follow those perceptions is needed regardless of group pressure to conform. Now this is the heart of religious conversion one way or another. Missionaries attempt to change someone's perception and get them out of one group think paradigm to another. However, is this valid? If the basis of one's particular group think paradigm lacks substance then should one look elsewhere? Or should one go on an everlasting reading assignment in order to stay in one particular group think paradigm?

[James Tunney]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have a minor in physiological psychology and am a student of sociology and am a social constructivist. I  would suggest some study in philosophy, especially of atheist philosophers like Rorty and James and Thomas Nagel and Wittgenstein who would disagree with you.

If you care what I think I am posting extensively on two other threads right now

Thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps you could answer me this question (it may seem off topic but it is the main reason I think mormonism isnt correct). Anyway, do you believe God intentionally obscures or misleads in order to test faith?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I've walked across the room at least thousands of time without my legs giving way and I've seen the sun rise many, many times. As a result I have confidence in these facts even though there is a remote possibility that they won't follow the past. However, Mormonism's history is extremely troubling, especially given the utter lack of evidence for BofM historicity. .........................

.................................

And you base that authoritative statement on what, James?

[James Tunney]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And you base that authoritative statement on what, James?

The usual: archeology, anthropology, linguistics, and dna. Also, internally, the book fits in nicely with 19th century Christianity and where it was heading at the time. Finally, there are a lot of internal mistakes such as implausible population growth, logistical problems with their warfare, etc. that make it look like a 19th century creation.

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

The usual: archeology, anthropology, linguistics, and dna. Also, internally, the book fits in nicely with 19th century Christianity and where it was heading at the time. Finally, there are a lot of internal mistakes such as implausible population growth, logistical problems with their warfare, etc. that make it look like a 19th century creation.

I think you mean early 19th century but what was it about that period and not others that make it a creation from that time period?

[Jeanne]

I haven;t read any of your responses yet but I must say that her topics sound very interesting and putting things upfront for people who are still unaware.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps you could answer me this question (it may seem off topic but it is the main reason I think mormonism isnt correct). Anyway, do you believe God intentionally obscures or misleads in order to test faith?

I am sorry I do not understand the question.

Mormonism does not hold that position.  That presumes that there is a world beyond our understanding which we cannot perceive that God would "obscure". 

Of course we have trials caused by circumstances that we cause or that are beyond our control.  Those become tests if we allow them to be.

[James Tunney]

On 6/4/2016 at 2:35 PM, Duncan said:

I think you mean early 19th century but what was it about that period and not others that make it a creation from that time period?

It answered religious controversies from that time period such as infant baptism etc.   

[James Tunney]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry I do not understand the question.

Mormonism does not hold that position.  That presumes that there is a world beyond our understanding which we cannot perceive that God would "obscure". 

Of course we have trials caused by circumstances that we cause or that are beyond our control.  Those become tests if we allow them to be.

You don't understand the question but then answer it anyway? Don't you think it's questionable that plates were supposedly created but not even used in the translation? Also, why didn't God allow us to verify the translation by allowing us to have the plates today? Isn't that an intentional God created obscurity to test faith?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

It answered religious controversies from that time period such as infant baptism etc.  See generally http://www.

That's good because Pres. Benson said it was written for our day

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

but that doesn't mean Joseph wrote it 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Nemesis
Temple content

[Damien the Leper]

David Bokovoy, thankfully, has taken her and Kent Jackson to task on their ridiculous rationalizations concerning Deutero-Isaiah and post-exilic material in the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

You don't understand the question but then answer it anyway? Don't you think it's questionable that plates were supposedly created but not even used in the translation? Also, why didn't God allow us to verify the translation by allowing us to have the plates today? Isn't that an intentional God created obscurity to test faith?

To me it was all clearly straight revelation. No translation no need for it. I believe the plates existed but function merely as a catalyst for Joseph to receive Revelation because he thought that he needed them. I think that is clear in the case of the book of Abraham where we have the papyrus which is clearly not a translation in the ordinary sense. I think the idea that Revelation has anything to do with historical or scientific evidence is mistaken.

What I did not understand in the original question was how anyone could believe that God would deliberately deceive his children. The test of faith comes in living everyday and doesn't need to be complicated with such silliness.

Edited June 5, 2016 by mfbukowski