cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: This is the easiest to refute and discharge among the evidences. I was not talking about the witness testimony, but their very existence. Go back to the OP and see what we are talking about. If you open a new thread, I would be happy to educate you as I have done with Dan Vogel.
Gray Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Large scale adoption of Prince's paradigm is not without significant challenges (you've even got Dehlin, the excommunicated "apostate", pointing that out). But holding to the status quo of the church's current paradigm certainly has significant challenges as well. But if you "stay tuned" through the entire interview, it's clear that Prince really, really wants everyone to stay in the church. Yes, which I think points to the need to ditch fundamentalism. Dehlin doesn't get it because he was raised with that fundamentalism too. It's an all or nothing kind of paradigm. If we stick to it, the choice that more and more people will take will be "nothing". 2
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, James Tunney said: He does want people to stay and I think he is really trying to give people who don't believe in historicity a way to do so. However, I think the church would have to basically discount almost everything Joseph Smith did and said in order to get to where Mr. Prince is. Joseph Smith was a literalist in many things that have been proven to not be the case. One would have to basically use the "speaking as a man" justification on almost everything for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the rest for that matter. Well, the church has already started laying down that framework with the gospel topics essays. 1
James Tunney Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: Well, the church has already started laying down that framework with the gospel topics essays. Well they don't really put them out front on the website and they weren't really advertised much when they came out. Also, I know of several people who were silenced when they spoke of the essays in sunday school, etc. So, I think the essays were more of a response to a possible future where the church cannot hide behind religious belief as a defense to fraud claims.
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: Smac: I'm probably poorly explaining Prince's view, but I imagine he has a view like the following. Joseph had an encounter with the divine. I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps you could clarify. Joseph Smith said this about the First Vision in 1820 (JS-H 1:25): "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision." "I had actually seen..." "...they did in reality speak to me..." Can Latter-day Saints ignore this stuff? Can they attribute it to Joseph Smith being mentally infirm/insane/deluded? Under the influence of alcohol or some other mind-altering substance? Can they say that Joseph Smith fabricated it with the intent to deceive? Can the Saints substantially re-define Joseph Smith's recitation of events so that it contravenes the plain words set forth above? That Joseph "had an encounter with the divine, but that encounter was not an actual visitation from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, because that never actually happened"? Moving on... Joseph then described the following events which took place in 1823: Quote 30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. 31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. The "Inspired Fiction" theory appears to require that the Saints reject these statements. "Fiction" means that there was no Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no thousand-year record kept by prophets, hence no abridgment of that record by Mormon (who never existed), hence no plates buried by Moroni (who never existed, either), hence no angel Moroni to visit Joseph or lead him to the Plates. So how do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? What about following verses?... Quote 33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. 34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; 35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book. ... 51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. 52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them. 53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. ... 59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected. Were there ancient artifacts "delivered ... up to" Joseph by an angel, or not? How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses (and the subsequent ones where Joseph actually obtained physical objection of the above-described artifacts)? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? And what about the Plates? Other people saw them. The Three Witnesses. The Eight. How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for their statements? Were these testators deluded? Insane? Lying? Drugged? Threatened/coerced? And what about the text of what we now have and call "The Book of Mormon?" Where did it come from, according to the "Inspired Fiction" folks? "Joseph had an encounter with the divine" just doesn't cut it with me. I'd like to get down to brass tacks, as far as possible, to understand what this means. Quote That's the beginning and end of all the direct intervention God had in the restoration. Joseph was then left to create symbols to help his followers create that same interaction with God he had. "Left to create symbols?" What does that mean? Is Prince saying that Joseph fabricated a sham artifact (the Plates) and then lied to everyone by passing them off to the witnesses as an ancient record which he had been led to uncover by an angel? Are you saying that? Did an angel named Moroni visit Joseph, or not? If Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates, why did he to that? Was he lying? Deluded/insane/drugged? Are you (or Prince) suggesting that God told him to fabricate an artifact and then lie to everyone by claiming it was an ancient artifact buried in a hill for centuries until an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where to find it? If so, why would God do that? And what is the point of this "interaction" if it centers on a lie? Joseph Smith claimed The Book of Mormon is a translation of a real ancient record describing real people and real events. Why would God "interact" with Joseph and tell him to construct a massive fraud about fictional records, fictional peoples, fictional events, etc.? Quote The Book of Mormon, LDS doctrine and teachings, LDS church organizational structure and priesthood, etc. All those are symbols Joseph used to help his followers (and us) connect to God. There isn't a need for those symbols to match up with actual, verifiable history and science, even though as part of a naturalistic world, they are couched and defined in those terms. Let's put aside the issues of "need{ing} ... to match up with actual, verifiable history and sicence," and instead focus on factual assertions apparently being made by Prinece (and/or you). We can come back to the "need" later. Quote He's using as his building blocks, not necessarily the "anti-Mormon" historical issues related to the Book of Mormon, but Biblical and religious theory in general. The Old Testament is best explained this way. The New Testament is best explained this way. The disciples had some sort of powerful connection with divinity in their encounter with Jesus Christ, but they likely didn't know how how to express it fully, either. And that's why you have NT theology evolving from Mark to John. Again, let's focus on factual assertions. The New Testament presents a number of amazing claims about Jesus Christ, such as miracles attending His birth, miracles performed by Him, His declarations about being the Son of God, His death and resurrection, His physical ascension into heaven, and so on. Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to reject the "historicity" of these things? Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Or that He was resurrected? Quote I think he probably doesn't want to damage faith, but he would probably favor naturalistic explanations for everything outside those brief "encounters" with Deity, that various prophets/scribes/mystics/gurus have had in human history. "Naturalistic explanations" is a rather unenlightening euphemism. What does it mean? What "brief 'encounters'" does Prince find legitimate / historical / real / yes-it-really-objectively-happened? I've presented a bunch of questions above about some of the founding events of the Restoration. It sounds like you are saying that Prince is publicly stating that the Latter-day Saints should reject many/most of the claims made by Joseph Smith, and instead adopt "naturalistic explanations for everything." But why should we do such things? And where does that leave Joseph? Quote Joseph Smith and Mormonism excels because of the a) powerful initial experience Joseph had and b) his ability to create symbols that helped his followers gain that same access. I can't see how this is so. The position you are describing requires us to reject virtually everything Joseph Smith declared as a prophet, and to brand him as a liar, a madman, or some combination thereof. To the extent "Mormonism excels," it has done so because it has embraced the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's admittedly amazing narrative, not rejected it (as Prince would apparently have us do). Thanks, -Smac Edited October 10, 2016 by smac97 1
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps you could clarify. Joseph Smith said this about the First Vision in 1820 (JS-H 1:25): "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision." "I had actually seen..." "...they did in reality speak to me..." Can Latter-day Saints ignore this stuff? Can they attribute it to Joseph Smith being mentally infirm/insane/deluded? Under the influence of alcohol or some other mind-altering substance? Can they say that Joseph Smith fabricated it with the intent to deceive? Can the Saints substantially re-define Joseph Smith's recitation of events so that it contravenes the plain words set forth above? That Joseph "had an encounter with the divine, but that encounter was not an actual visitation from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, because that never actually happened"? Moving on... Joseph then described the following events which took place in 1823: The "Inspired Fiction" theory appears to require that the Saints reject these statements. "Fiction" means that there was no Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no thousand-year record kept by prophets, hence no abridgment of that record by Mormon (who never existed), hence no plates buried by Moroni (who never existed, either), hence no angel Moroni to visit Joseph or lead him to the Plates. So how do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? What about following verses?... Were there ancient artifacts "delivered ... up to" Joseph by an angel, or not? How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for these verses (and the subsequent ones where Joseph actually obtained physical objection of the above-described artifacts)? Was Joseph deluded in writing about these things? Insane? Lying? And what about the Plates? Other people saw them. The Three Witnesses. The Eight. How do the "Inspired Fiction" folks account for their statements? Were these testators deluded? Insane? Lying? Drugged? Threatened/coerced? And what about the text of what we now have and call "The Book of Mormon?" Where did it come from, according to the "Inspired Fiction" folks? "Joseph had an encounter with the divine" just doesn't cut it with me. I'd like to get down to brass tacks, as far as possible, to understand what this means. "Left to create symbols?" What does that mean? Is Prince saying that Joseph fabricated a sham artifact (the Plates) and then lied to everyone by passing them off to the witnesses as an ancient record which he had been led to uncover by an angel? Are you saying that? Did an angel named Moroni visit Joseph, or not? If Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates, why did he to that? Was he lying? Deluded/insane/drugged? Are you (or Prince) suggesting that God told him to fabricate an artifact and then lie to everyone by claiming it was an ancient artifact buried in a hill for centuries until an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where to find it? If so, why would God do that? And what is the point of this "interaction" if it centers on a lie? Joseph Smith claimed The Book of Mormon is a translation of a real ancient record describing real people and real events. Why would God "interact" with Joseph and tell him to construct a massive fraud about fictional records, fictional peoples, fictional events, etc.? Let's put aside the issues of "need{ing} ... to match up with actual, verifiable history and sicence," and instead focus on factual assertions apparently being made by Prinece (and/or you). We can come back to the "need" later. Again, let's focus on factual assertions. The New Testament presents a number of amazing claims about Jesus Christ, such as miracles attending His birth, miracles performed by Him, His declarations about being the Son of God, His death and resurrection, His physical ascension into heaven, and so on. Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to reject the "historicity" of these things? Are Latter-day Saints at liberty to deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Or that He was resurrected? "Naturalistic explanations" is a rather unenlightening euphemism. What does it mean? What "brief 'encounters'" does Prince find legitimate / historical / real / yes-it-really-objectively-happened? I've presented a bunch of questions above about some of the founding events of the Restoration. It sounds like you are saying that Prince is publicly stating that the Latter-day Saints should reject many/most of the claims made by Joseph Smith, and instead adopt "naturalistic explanations for everything." But why should we do such things? And where does that leave Joseph? I can't see how this is so. The position you are describing requires us to reject virtually everything Joseph Smith declared as a prophet, and to brand him as a liar, a madman, or some combination thereof. To the extent "Mormonism excels," it has done so because it has embraced the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's admittedly amazing narrative, not rejected it (as Prince would apparently have us do). Thanks, -Smac so I guess the answer to my question in the OP is that you feel this is an untenable position.
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: I can't see how this is so. The position you are describing requires us to reject virtually everything Joseph Smith declared as a prophet, and to brand him as a liar, a madman, or some combination thereof. You sound like a strict literalist. The position described doesn't require a rejection of these stories that Joseph told, but it does require a change of assumptions. These experiences may have been very real and physical to Joseph Smith, that's how they are described, but that doesn't make them real and physical to the rest of us. Since none of us have access to what actually happened in the mind of Joseph Smith, we all read the writings and interpret these experiences through our lens of understanding about the world. My lens of understanding, my experiences, my cultural biases all point me to believing that the experiences that Joseph describes should not be used as evidence for exclusivity claims about the Mormon church. I tend to believe these experiences weren't physical/tangible experiences, but I'm not sure it matters what they were. Obviously they influenced Joseph Smith, and you can flip that around and say that Joseph Smith also influenced his narrative story telling. Some would say its a matter of faith, but I don't understand why we need to have faith that any literal experience happened or didn't happen. That's not the point of religion in my mind. The point of the religion is enrich the lives of the members, to inspire us to do better and to serve each other. That's at the core of the message for me. Your core may be different and thats fine with me. Its a big tent in my mind. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, James Tunney said: I don't believe in the bible. I think it's myth just like the book of mormon is myth. For me, a lack of historicity and concluding these works are works of fiction led me out. I guess I wonder how you can make it work. OOPs wrong poster- I confused you with someone else. I worked it out because I have had experiences I cannot explain any other way. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You sound like a strict literalist. The position described doesn't require a rejection of these stories that Joseph told, but it does require a change of assumptions. These experiences may have been very real and physical to Joseph Smith, that's how they are described, but that doesn't make them real and physical to the rest of us. Since none of us have access to what actually happened in the mind of Joseph Smith, we all read the writings and interpret these experiences through our lens of understanding about the world. My lens of understanding, my experiences, my cultural biases all point me to believing that the experiences that Joseph describes should not be used as evidence for exclusivity claims about the Mormon church. I tend to believe these experiences weren't physical/tangible experiences, but I'm not sure it matters what they were. Obviously they influenced Joseph Smith, and you can flip that around and say that Joseph Smith also influenced his narrative story telling. Some would say its a matter of faith, but I don't understand why we need to have faith that any literal experience happened or didn't happen. That's not the point of religion in my mind. The point of the religion is enrich the lives of the members, to inspire us to do better and to serve each other. That's at the core of the message for me. Your core may be different and thats fine with me. Its a big tent in my mind. What is a "physical/tangible experience" which is not "in your mind"? You got chairs and tables inside your head? What are "physical tanglible experiences" made of?
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: Yes, which I think points to the need to ditch fundamentalism. Dehlin doesn't get it because he was raised with that fundamentalism too. It's an all or nothing kind of paradigm. If we stick to it, the choice that more and more people will take will be "nothing". I'm not really buying into the "fundamentalism" claim. I don't think the LDS Church or its leaders or (many/most of) its members are the rigid "all or nothing" dogmatists you seem be describing here. I think there is room for principled disagreement on many issues in the Church, including "hot button" issues like the general location of the events described in The Book of Mormon (Central America v. "Heartland Model" v. Hemispheric), the scope of the Great Deluge (global v. localized), evolution, and so on. But the "Inspired Fiction" theory is, I think, not merely "principled disagreement." It necessarily requires a rejection (or at least massive recharacterization) of many important, perhaps even core, elements of the Restored Gospel, most notably the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his claims about angelic visitations, the restoration of the priesthood, the origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on. The Church's tent is big, but at the end of the day it still has boundaries. I think there are limits as to how liberally we can construe the doctrines of the Church. I think perhaps the three primary limitations are: A) the proximity of the teaching to the "core" teachings of the Church, B) how far the individual who holds "unorthodox" views goes in terms of persuading others in the Church to accept those views, and C) whether the individual sets himself/herself up as a voice of authority contrary and superior to that of the Brethren. This is why the scriptures speak of "apostasy." This is why the Church has an extensive mandate to guard against apostasy. This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated. While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it. He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated). A more recent example would be Denver Snuffer. An ancient example would be Korihor. Not all "heterodox" viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. So in that sense, I reject your characterization of the Church or its leaders/members as being "fundamentist" ("a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture"). There are points of doctrine, however, that are so important that substantially deviating from them (and encouraging others to join you) may constitute actionable "apostasy" (defined by the Church as "1, repeatedly act{ing} in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or 2, persist{ing} in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority"). We are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . ) Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad. Ezek. 13:22. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:9. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 2:1. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 2 Nephi 28:9. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. 2 Nephi 28:12. And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ. Jac. 7:2. Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor. Alma 1:16. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph. 4:14. Does the "Inspired Fiction" theory constitute "false doctrine?" Does openly advocating for it constitute "apostasy?" I have an opinion on such things, but I'll keep it to myself. Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 27 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not really buying into the "fundamentalism" claim. I don't think the LDS Church or its leaders or (many/most of) its members are the rigid "all or nothing" dogmatists you seem be describing here. I think there is room for principled disagreement on many issues in the Church, including "hot button" issues like the general location of the events described in The Book of Mormon (Central America v. "Heartland Model" v. Hemispheric), the scope of the Great Deluge (global v. localized), evolution, and so on. But the "Inspired Fiction" theory is, I think, not merely "principled disagreement." It necessarily requires a rejection (or at least massive recharacterization) of many important, perhaps even core, elements of the Restored Gospel, most notably the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his claims about angelic visitations, the restoration of the priesthood, the origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on. The Church's tent is big, but at the end of the day it still has boundaries. I think there are limits as to how liberally we can construe the doctrines of the Church. I think perhaps the three primary limitations are: A) the proximity of the teaching to the "core" teachings of the Church, B) how far the individual who holds "unorthodox" views goes in terms of persuading others in the Church to accept those views, and C) whether the individual sets himself/herself up as a voice of authority contrary and superior to that of the Brethren. This is why the scriptures speak of "apostasy." This is why the Church has an extensive mandate to guard against apostasy. This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated. While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it. He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated). A more recent example would be Denver Snuffer. An ancient example would be Korihor. Not all "heterodox" viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. So in that sense, I reject your characterization of the Church or its leaders/members as being "fundamentist" ("a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture"). There are points of doctrine, however, that are so important that substantially deviating from them (and encouraging others to join you) may constitute actionable "apostasy" (defined by the Church as "1, repeatedly act{ing} in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or 2, persist{ing} in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority"). We are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . ) Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad. Ezek. 13:22. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:9. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 2:1. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 2 Nephi 28:9. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. 2 Nephi 28:12. And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ. Jac. 7:2. Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor. Alma 1:16. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph. 4:14. Does the "Inspired Fiction" theory constitute "false doctrine?" Does openly advocating for it constitute "apostasy?" I have an opinion on such things, but I'll keep it to myself. Thanks, -Smac Your attempts at boundary maintenance are no more or less valid than what Prince had to say in his interview. You sit here doing the same thing he's done just at the opposite end of the spectrum. So I'd recommend caution as you start to toss around the "apostasy" accusation. 4
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You sound like a strict literalist. Well, no, I am not a strict literalist. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The position described doesn't require a rejection of these stories that Joseph told, How does that work? The central premise of the "Inspired Fiction" theory is "fiction." As in no Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no 1000-year record kept by prophets, hence no abridgment by a non-existent Mormon, hence no burying of the Plates, hence to discovery of the Plates centuries later by Joseph Smith acting pursuant to instructions from a non-existent resurrected Moroni, and so on. The "Inspired Fiction" theory presents a real dichotomy, not a false one. Latter-day Saints encountering this theory are forced into an either/or situation. They can listen to and accept the explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon as explained in scripture and in historical records from Joseph Smith, or they can reject that explanation and in its place accept an alternate one posted by folks like Prince. We're not dealing with nuanced distinctions about details here. This is not an issue where a modern theory can be reconciled with Joseph's narrative. It's an either/or situation. A dichotomy ("a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different"). Either Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni (the Church's teaching), or he was not (an implicit assumption of the "Inspired Fiction" folks). Either this angel led Joseph to discover a set of ancient metal plates buried in a hill for centuries (the Church's teaching), or not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Joseph Smith either obtained possession of ancient metal plates (the Church's teaching) or he did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). The Three Witnesses either saw an angel descend from heaven and show them these plates (the Church's teaching) or they did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Either there was an ancient historical figure named "Lehi" as described in The Book of Mormon (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). Either there was a migration of Lehi and his family and friends from the Arabian Peninsula to the Americas (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach). These are factual assertions presented by, on the one hand, Joseph Smith and his successors, and by the Church, and on the other hand are being rejected as factually false by the "Inspired Fiction" folks. So with respect, I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory necessarily requires a rejection of these things. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: These experiences may have been very real and physical to Joseph Smith, that's how they are described, but that doesn't make them real and physical to the rest of us. But we aren't talking only about "experiences." We are talking about artifacts. Physical, tangible objects. And we are talking about a historical record of peoples and events which the Church declares to have existed/occurred, and which the "Inspired Fiction" folks are declaring did not exist/occur. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Since none of us have access to what actually happened in the mind of Joseph Smith, we all read the writings and interpret these experiences through our lens of understanding about the world. But we aren't only talking about about "what actually happened in the mind of Joseph Smith. Again, we are talking about artifacts. Physical, tangible objects. And there are witnesses to these artifacts. And then there is the text itself. So when "we all read the writings and interpret these experiences through our lens of understanding about the world," we have to reach conclusions about more than Joseph Smith's "mind." Artifacts. Testimony of others about artifacts. The text itself. All of these things are outside the parameters of "the mind of Joseph Smith." 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: My lens of understanding, my experiences, my cultural biases all point me to believing that the experiences that Joseph describes should not be used as evidence for exclusivity claims about the Mormon church. I tend to believe these experiences weren't physical/tangible experiences, but I'm not sure it matters what they were. Okay. Can you explain your position in a bit more detail? If you reject the teachings of the Church on these issues, if you reject the version of events described by Joseph Smith, then what is your alternative explanation for things like the Plates? The witnesses? The text? I would like to see a coherent explanation for the "Inspired Fiction" approach to the Restored Gospel, one that addresses - rather than deflects/ignores - the ramifications of that theory. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Some would say its a matter of faith, but I don't understand why we need to have faith that any literal experience happened or didn't happen. What about the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ? What about his suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross? What about His physical resurrection? What about His literal ascension into heaven? Are these "experiences" that can be ignored by people who profess faith in Christ? Are these events which can be rejected as never having happened? It seems to me that whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God is both an issue of fact and faith. If Jesus Christ never existed, or if He was just another rabbi with some interesting things to say, then that matters to me. A lot. Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: That's not the point of religion in my mind. I think you have a point generally, but not specifically. The point of the LDS Church and its teachings are to convey information about real events both ancient (like the birth of Christ, His life, His death and resurrection and ascension into heaven) and modern (Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ personally appearing to Joseph Smith, Joseph later receiving other angelic visitations, Joseph being led by one of these angels to uncover an ancient prophetic record buried in the earth for centuries, Joseph translating these records "by the gift and power of God," and so on). "Religion" in general may have the vague, nebulous "point" or purpose you describe, but that's now how the LDS Church presents itself. It is singular in many respects. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The point of the religion is enrich the lives of the members, to inspire us to do better and to serve each other. That's at the core of the message for me. Your core may be different and thats fine with me. Its a big tent in my mind. I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error. Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the "inspired fiction" meme in fellowship in the Church. We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us. It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue. The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires a rejection of The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work for me, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Your attempts at boundary maintenance are no more or less valid than what Prince had to say in his interview. My position comports with the teachings of the LDS Church. Prince's position appears to contradict it in some key respects. So I think my position is not symmetrical to his. 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: You sit here doing the same thing he's done just at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am advocating a position which comports with modern scriptures and with the teachings of the LDS Church. So I'm comfortable with being on whatever end of the "spectrum" that represents. 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: So I'd recommend caution as you start to toss around the "apostasy" accusation. I was being cautious, and I made no "accusation": Quote Does the "Inspired Fiction" theory constitute "false doctrine?" Does openly advocating for it constitute "apostasy?" I have an opinion on such things, but I'll keep it to myself. Thanks, -Smac 1
rongo Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Nah. The consensus appears to be that Prince does not meaningfully comment or the historicity issue. Whether through happenstance or deliberation, the four-hour interview just does not cover that topic. I am befuddled by that. I cannot comprehend why someone as informed and intelligent as Prince would choose to A) only give superficial attention to the obvious and important issues arising from his proposal (that we can/should reject/disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon), and B) ridicule those who focus on one of the key issues of his proposal (the historicity of The Book of Mormon) as acting foolishly ("It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point."). It's very simple. No matter what degrees and gravitas one has, all of us, in the end, believe what we want to. Because it's what we want to believe. The "brights" among us insist that they have solid, concrete, scientific reasons for their belief, while the fundamentalists among us rely on blind faith, but the reality is that both of us are really choosing to believe what we want to believe, because we want to believe it. With that, there is objective truth independent of what we do or don't believe, but this is litigated and handled at the individual level, in the individual heart. This very individual process is largely non-transferable. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? If the church still exists 100 years from now, it will only be because it has been able to successfully shift its members belief paradigm from a literal black & white worldview to one based on Prince's nuanced belief paradigm. Edited October 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
rongo Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: If the church exists 100 years from now, it will only be because it has been able to successfully shift its members belief paradigm from a literal black & white worldview to one based on Prince's nuanced belief paradigm. There will always be demand for churches with literalist mindsets. Even in 100 or 500 years. In Germany 20 years ago (Germany was then and is now much more secular and atheist-leaning than North America), it was still easy to find people who wanted a literal worldview who craved authoritarian religion. These people were/are a minority of the population, and they aren't all Mormons (JWs, Pentacostals, Seventh-day Adventists, etc.), but there is a demand. It's also not like anyone should be surprised by the secularization of the world and the decrease in religious belief. Even in the Book of Mormon, the latter-day Church is prophesied to be comparatively small in number, but "nevertheless . . . also upon all the face of the earth" (1 Nephi 14:12). The Church will probably end up shrinking and contracting, but will still fulfill its destiny to be the stone cut out of the mountains without hands that will fill the whole earth. 3
Duncan Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 6 hours ago, smac97 said: Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He says: "{T]hat's a stupid battle?" "{Y}ou missed the whole point? That's his assessment? I am fine with people presenting reasoned arguments against historicity. But it sounds like he is not even attempting to address the issue of historicity and why so many deem it to be an important, even essential, component of LDS belief. Instead, he dismisses the entire issue as "stupid" and people who disagree with him about it as having "missed the whole point." Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added): That is, to me, a very cogent argument. If historicity is as inconsequential as Prince wants us to believe, then how far does he go with that reasoning? Are people who feel a need to have faith in a historical (as opposed to a fictional/fabricated) Jesus Christ fighting a "stupid battle?" Have they "missed the whole point?" I don't think so. I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value. For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon. Does Prince attempt to address the apparent foundational importance of historicity regarding The Book of Mormon? Does he attempt to address the points and arguments re: historicity which have been raised by various scholars, including those published in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures? Does he address the substantial flaws and errors in the "Inspired Fiction" school of thought? No, no and no. Back to Prince: He has reduced huge swaths of studied and thoughtful LDS belief to "it's all literal," that Mormons cannot or will not distinguish "literal scripture from allegorical scripture." That's absurd. He is creating a caricature of the historicity position. A straw man. He is foisting an unreasoned, all-or-nothing, hyper-literalist position onto people who disagree with him in order to make them sound ignorant and unreasonable. I find this disappointing. I would have expected more from a person of his intellect and stature. Back to him. "What it {The Book of Mormon} has done" is declared itself to be a real ancient record describing real people and real events and real miracles. I think these remarks from Kent Jackson merit some attention (from the same source as above): Until and unless people like Prince begin to seriously engage and address the issues raised by Kent Jackson, Elder Oaks, Daniel Peterson, Jack Welch, and a host of others (instead of blithely dismissing their perspective as, in Prince's words, "stupid" and "miss{ing} the whole point"), I'm not going to devote much effort to taking them seriously. Back to Prince: The Book of Mormon inspires faith in Jesus Christ. Not a metaphorical Christ. Not an admirable-but-fictional Christ. Not a self-help-guru-in-ancient-Jerusalem Christ. A real, actual Jesus Christ. The literal Son of God. Who was really, actually born and grew up, who taught vital truths pertaining to God and man's relationship with Him, who had power over the elements, who performed miracle after miracle, who atoned for our sins, who was condemned and tortured and killed, who was physically resurrected in glorified form, who conquered death, who is the source of truth and light and salvation. And how does The Book of Mormon "do that?" By being the "keystone of our religion." By being the catalyst through which spiritual impressions about important truths can come. By "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." By being evidence, a second witness of Jesus Christ, and also evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. By having evidence of its historicity presented front and center for nearly two hundred years (the text itself, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.). Prince's reasoning eviscerates all of this. If we can dismiss The Book of Mormon as a fable with some nice moral axioms, then we can likewise dismiss Christ as merely a rabbi from thousands of years ago who had some thoughtful things to say. Prince's reasoning is to reduce Jesus Christ to the level of Anthony Robbins, or Atticus Finch, or Captain America, and The Book of Mormon to the level of Awaken the Giant Within, or To Kill a Mockingbird, or a series of comic books. No thanks. Back to Prince: I can respect that position. I have a harder time respecting this position. There are huge swaths of scholarship about The Book of Mormon. Scholarship that engages the text for what it claims to be. Scholarship that is the result of years of study and thought and analysis by many different people who are well-versed in relevant fields. Scholarship by people who are extremely familiar with the actual text of The Book of Mormon (as opposed to, say, the embarrassing stuff we've seen from otherwise well-credentialed scholars like Michael Coe). "I've heard of..." That's it? Denise Hopkins is a Professor of Biblical Theology at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. As far as I can see, she has no experience or expertise with The Book of Mormon. At all. She has apparently never published any scholarship about it (I am open to correction on this point). So what, precisely, is this bit of name-dropping supposed to prove? Sounds like a classic fallacious Appeal to Authority: I am glad that you are able to make the "Inspired Fiction" concept work for you. I really am. As I have said previously, I would much rather have you in the Church and rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon than out of the Church. I would also extend to you every measure of friendship and fellowship. However, I have also said this: This is why I respond to pretty much every thread which appears to be evangelizing the "Inspired Fiction" line of thought. I don't think it's a benign approach to the truth claims of the LDS Church. Thanks, -Smac wow, that is everything and bag of chips!
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, churchistrue said: There are many threads where BOM historicity is argued. I don't care to get into that. The question I have here, is whether this metaphorical version can work for people who can't get on board with historicity. To an extent, yes, and there is a Restoration church which is doing just that: The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church), and they not only allow for religion as a metaphor or myth, but they also ordain women, and accept all sexually active LGBTQ persons as full members. So there is already an alternative. The ultimate question is: Is it viable? Can a religion built on a non-historical, metaphorical foundation survive? The mainstream churches and synagogues which have adopted that approach are not only not growing, but they are dying on the vine. It appears to be no more than a temporary fix. It is not clear, anyhow, that those who do not believe in literal religious explanations need a substitute form of religion. One can meditate without making a religion out of it. Scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson are quite happy to believe that this life is the only conscious life there is, and then we die, and there is no afterlife. It is a choice, and we need to respect those who make such choices. Where it gets dicey is when such "enlightened" thinkers begin to preach their new "religion" of secularism, ignorantly denouncing religions about which they know nothing. Dr. Tyson makes a similar point about religion: He objects to religious believers allowing their religious beliefs to dictate national policy and legislation which harms the rest, e.g., anti-LGBTQ beliefs, climate change denial, etc. Edited October 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
The Nehor Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: Yes, which I think points to the need to ditch fundamentalism. Dehlin doesn't get it because he was raised with that fundamentalism too. It's an all or nothing kind of paradigm. If we stick to it, the choice that more and more people will take will be "nothing". The problem is at that point it becomes a question of tactics. What method will keep the most people in? Instead I would prefer to ask what happened in reality. I really doubt there is a lot of saving faith in this middle approach so I don't want to encourage it. Don't get me wrong. I do not think we should throw people out of the church who believe that way but I do not think we should encourage it or teach it or present it as a viable and equal alternative. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, James Tunney said: Well they don't really put them out front on the website and they weren't really advertised much when they came out. Also, I know of several people who were silenced when they spoke of the essays in sunday school, etc. So, I think the essays were more of a response to a possible future where the church cannot hide behind religious belief as a defense to fraud claims. Nonsense, James. That's the old "They really didn't mean it" response. I think that we must take them at their word, and that the essays are not part of a hidden-in-plain-sight plot. I know of no evidence which would support such an absurd claim. It is, however, part of the old "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" pattern among ill-wishers. Edited October 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The problem is at that point it becomes a question of tactics. What method will keep the most people in? Instead I would prefer to ask what happened in reality. I really doubt there is a lot of saving faith in this middle approach so I don't want to encourage it. Don't get me wrong. I do not think we should throw people out of the church who believe that way but I do not think we should encourage it or teach it or present it as a viable and equal alternative. If by reality you mean a look at scripture using a historians tools, the results will be less than kind to those taking a literalist approach.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: I've always been very impressed with Greg Prince, I'll have to check this out. I don't think fundamentalist Mormonism is sustainable in the long term. But it's hard for a lot of people to let go of fundamentalism. It's a security blanket. But I think in the end fundamentalism ends up eating itself. If you read the scriptures literally, you missed the whole thing. The only actual "fundamentalism" for Mormons is polygamy fundamentalism practiced by splinter groups. The only other legitimate use of "fundamentalism" is with respect to Protestant fundamentalists who believe in an inerrant and infallible Scripture -- which is their only source of doctrine (sola scriptura). Such christian fundamentalists do believe in some pretty silly ways of interpreting Scripture, such that they allow for only a very recent creation and reject both geology and biology in understanding such matters. These fundamentalist notions are anathema to Mormonism. 1
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm not really buying into the "fundamentalism" claim. I don't think the LDS Church or its leaders or (many/most of) its members are the rigid "all or nothing" dogmatists you seem be describing here. I think there is room for principled disagreement on many issues in the Church, including "hot button" issues like the general location of the events described in The Book of Mormon (Central America v. "Heartland Model" v. Hemispheric), the scope of the Great Deluge (global v. localized), evolution, and so on. You say that, but then you follow it up with a pretty rigid-looking approach that insists on literalism below: 2 hours ago, smac97 said: But the "Inspired Fiction" theory is, I think, not merely "principled disagreement." It necessarily requires a rejection (or at least massive recharacterization) of many important, perhaps even core, elements of the Restored Gospel, most notably the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his claims about angelic visitations, the restoration of the priesthood, the origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on. The story of the restoration as it has been traditionally told is rife with primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture. You can't separate that out from the way stories were told in the early history of the church. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: The Church's tent is big, but at the end of the day it still has boundaries. I think there are limits as to how liberally we can construe the doctrines of the Church. I think perhaps the three primary limitations are: A) the proximity of the teaching to the "core" teachings of the Church, B) how far the individual who holds "unorthodox" views goes in terms of persuading others in the Church to accept those views, and C) whether the individual sets himself/herself up as a voice of authority contrary and superior to that of the Brethren. This is why the scriptures speak of "apostasy." This is why the Church has an extensive mandate to guard against apostasy. This is why Amasa Lyman was excommunicated. While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it. He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated). A more recent example would be Denver Snuffer. An ancient example would be Korihor. All this really means is "I'm right, you're wrong. You ought to be punished for disagreeing with me." It speaks to the fundamental insecurity that drives fundamentalism in the first place! 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Not all "heterodox" viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. So in that sense, I reject your characterization of the Church or its leaders/members as being "fundamentist" ("a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture"). Mainstream Mormonism (that is to say, the most popular expressions of Mormon culture) is still a fundamentalist affair. To prove the point, just consider how you might react if I say that there was no historical Adam and Eve, or no historical Nephi or Abraham.How well would such a statement go down in the average Sunday school meeting That makes most Mormons recoil It's true that not all fundamentalists are created equal, and mainstream Mormonism is not as rigidly fundamentalist as most Evangelical sects are. Still, in the underlying philosophy that drives Mormonism, I see great potential for less rigid approaches to scripture. We claim to follow all truth, no matter what the source. Hopefully that means eventually we start taking seriously the advances in academic Biblical studies. Right now we're still stuck in the scholarship that existed in the early 19th century or earlier. The culture is pretty anti-intellectual when it comes to the academic study of scriptures. I find that to be odd because we encourage education in just about every other area of life. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: There are points of doctrine, however, that are so important that substantially deviating from them (and encouraging others to join you) may constitute actionable "apostasy" (defined by the Church as "1, repeatedly act{ing} in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or 2, persist{ing} in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority"). We are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine: This is an excellent example of the meaning of the word fundamentalism. Read up on the rise of the Evangelical movement - their philosophy is no different from yours (although their doctrines certainly are) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . ) Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad. Ezek. 13:22. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:9. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 2:1. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 2 Nephi 28:9. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. 2 Nephi 28:12. And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ. Jac. 7:2. Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor. Alma 1:16. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph. 4:14. Does the "Inspired Fiction" theory constitute "false doctrine?" Does openly advocating for it constitute "apostasy?" I have an opinion on such things, but I'll keep it to myself. Thanks, -Smac I chuckle when people throw around the words apostasy and heresy. It's just a dressed up way of saying "I disagree with you". I interact with evangelicals from time to time and they're very fond of the word "heresy" and "heretic." 2
rockpond Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: My position comports with the teachings of the LDS Church. Prince's position appears to contradict it in some key respects. So I think my position is not symmetrical to his. I am advocating a position which comports with modern scriptures and with the teachings of the LDS Church. So I'm comfortable with being on whatever end of the "spectrum" that represents. I was being cautious, and I made no "accusation": Thanks, -Smac Yes, like Scott you like to word things carefully so that you can make implications about people without the responsibility of actually making an accusation. You'll note I followed your example and didn't say that you had accused him of apostasy. And, since Prince didn't promote the "inspired fiction" idea (or even claim a belief in it) I guess he is in the clear. I listened to the podcast and didn't hear him advocate any positions that contradict church teachings or scripture. You feel he did because (without listening to him) you believe that he contradicted your understanding of the teachings/scriptures. But your interpretation of those teachings and scriptures holds no more weight than his. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 18 minutes ago, Gray said: If by reality you mean a look at scripture using a historians tools, the results will be less than kind to those taking a literalist approach. I think that you are wrong about this, but I would like to see an actual demonstration of the inimical use of such professional tools. As to those odd-bods taking a "literalist approach," I don't think that the Brethren accept a view which excludes figurative and metaphorical interpretation. 1
Recommended Posts