Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

sure.  but there is a lot of things in scripture that have been done away (eating pork as bad for instance) so scripture that is unmentioned and not enforced on any level may nnot apply.  Same with older outdated doctrinal teachings.

What about D&C 77 telling us the earth has a temporal existence of only 7000 years?
What about D&C 138 (also D&C 137) telling us that Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses ARE literal people?
What about D&C 29 telling us that Eden was an actual place?

Are these scriptures also to be done away with and considered outdated?

[DBMormon]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I recommend that you speak for yourself rather than purveying nonsense about which you know nothing.  By all means keep interviewing people and reading a variety of sources, but not just taking the most baleful attitude.  There are other ways of looking at this whole issue.  Whatever your analysis, please make it fact-based.  Mormonism has no problem with science, despite what you seem to believe.

I find you being rude here and am unsure why.  Why assume another knows nothing.  Let me pose a concept and you help me see that it is untrue.

I will use a dichotomy to expose a truth to you.  Here is a video link to a 3 hour debate between James White and John Shelby Spong

What they are debating is not important nor should distract us.

The issue is this.  

James White is a literal believer.   He knows he is right.  He is confident that the outer authority in his life (for him the bible) is dependable and can not lead him astray.  He has so much certainty and is deeply bothered by folks who he feels know nothing.  He is irritated by them and is so sure of himself that anyone who disagrees is obviously not as informed or as proficient.   There is not a question that he does not feel he has a adequate answer to.

On the other hand

John Shelby Spong is a mystical believer.  By that I mean he realizes there are a whole lot answers and a whole lot more questions than most people think.  It means he does not interpret scripture literally the way its authors of scripture imposed it (he does not take the authorities too seriously).  He rests his authority within himself and does not pass it off to those higher mortal authorities or to any authoritative writings as dependable for having the answer.  Rather these authorities are simply tools not designed to hand him absolute truth but rather to help him engage in the mystery.  He does not take Jesus literally nor does he even care to engage looking for that answer.   Rather his spirituality is based in the questions and a recognition that what we think we know isn't known and is still a mystery.

Many in our faith either out of ignorance or our of pride assume the mystical believer is wrong, uninformed, or mentally challenged, or intentionally set to device.  but he who does this misses a great insight.

Every day people like James white are moving through a faith development process and head towards the paradigm of Spong.  Everyday people lose literal belief and become mystical believers.  But that road only goes one way.  To try to convert or prove the mystic wrong is a failed exercise.  I am asserting that there are zero examples of one who once landing at the mystical paradigm converts back to literal belief.   And I feel with the number being zero or at most such a small number as to be rounded down to zero for  me a great truth is found here.  In terms of how one believes and interprets this "narrow path" only goes one way.  One is sometimes led to ask why?   

Robert I used to find you cordial but in recent months you have taken more of a speak down to attitude.  I am sad to see that.  

I suggest here when we find one way paths in our lives that we open ourselves up to the possibility that such movement is towards truth, and if we are not there where that individual is that we at least be open to asking if they have something I can learn from.  
 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Let me set this up.  I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue.  I grant that.  I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can.  Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence.  In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ.

For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down
- Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship

                  -  I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here .  Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether.

                  - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in.

                  -  I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author.

                 -  I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand

                 - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished.

                 -  I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets.  And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. 

                -  Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true.  Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth.  perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth.  
 

 

Let me finish by saying there are dozens more.  I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true.  Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up.

Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them.  On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have.  

Here are my questions

- Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? 

I'm not really all that literal about my beliefs, so I'm not sure if my answers matter to you.  But I'll try.  I think I dismiss some evidence as I weigh it in the long run. Sometimes that still puts my conclusions in the less likely area, I'm sure, though.  I think with any conclusion I draw on anything (which seems to be fewer and fewer as I get older) my intentions and motivations about what's compelling me to draw the conclusion is a mixed bag.  I try to remain pretty open by thinking I could be all wrong on most things I think. 

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

- Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty?

Not really.  One conclusion I've gotten more firm on in time is my personal spiritual experiences are mine.  They don't do much in terms of giving me conclusions about "truth" as we like to call it.  I'd categorize them, for the most part, as impressions that help guide me in my journey.  But there's nothing foolproof here.  I could very well be missing the mark on any given spiritual experience.  I try to keep that in mind, feeling pretty willing to adapt. 

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

- Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.?

It is mine.  I dont' know how to escape it, though.  I think I could easily see myself exit the Church, if you will, but if I do I dont' know that much will change for me in terms of my spiritual life.  I'd still feel compelled to serve, as they say.  I'd still try something.  I'm growing more and more perplexed why we insist on the Church being true, or that the religion being true.  It helps.  the mindset I get when I ponder and thinking in life, makes me feel better.  I don't know if I would do just as well in another religion, but I can't really imagine I would.  So I stay. 

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

-  People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit.  For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail.  (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.)  Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church.

meh...I'm far less convinced of people disproving the Church than I am of anyone proving it.  don't get me wrong.  I absolutely think the standard Church position on many things as it pertains to scripture and history is wrong.  I'm convinced about things like the BoM was less a translation from an ancient document and more an inspired writing that perhaps talks in part of a people's history. 

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do?

Well apparently we have no where to go.  For me, I guess there is that.  What else would I do?  I doubt in the long run there is anything out there that would give me more or make me feel more productive in life.  So I stay.  I'm, fo course, open to consider other options.  Most other options tend to be, "well you don't need a Church at all"  Which I guess is true, but that's not saying anything other than I can do fine without being a part of something bigger, or I could try my hand at something big by joining something else, but in each case I could do that and still be in the Church.  So...I'm left staying. 

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Other thoughts or questions?

Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us.

It's a splendid idea for a topic of conversation. 

[DBMormon]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What about D&C 77 telling us the earth has a temporal existence of only 7000 years?
What about D&C 138 (also D&C 137) telling us that Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses ARE literal people?
What about D&C 29 telling us that Eden was an actual place?

Are these scriptures also to be done away with and considered outdated?

I don't take them literally as a blanket statement of declared belief

[Danzo]

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

- Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? 

 

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I know what I put forth were conclusions.  I admitted as much.   These are my conclusions.  To present the evidence for those would take pages and pages and is not the point.  I present only once evidence for a conclusion (the link for the flood)  

I was confused by the question on top.  

Difficult to answer if you aren't sure what "evidence" (unknown) is contradictory to my "conclusion" (unknown)

 

 

If I didn't know better, I might think that your questions were really very thinly disguised arguments.

 

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do?

Thanks for the post.  This is where I'm at right now.  Currently, I'm not actively attending.  I do go to activities and I try to contribute to the local ward, but its hard.  I read a lot of books and try to find spiritual nourishment through other outlets.  I consider myself Mormon, but a far different kind.  

If the local ward had some more nuanced people in it and we could have some good discussions about metaphorical value of scriptures, or the mistakes our leaders make and how we can be true to morality even when disagreeing with leaders, these kinds of discussions I could add a lot of value to.  

For now, I don't really fit in with the members like I used to, and I don't fit in with the ex members either.  I'm still very orthoprax, and probably will continue to be for my immediate family (orthodox spouse) and for my extended family.  If every week at church could be like Sunstone or Dialogue, then I would really fit in well!  

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the post.  This is where I'm at right now.  Currently, I'm not actively attending.  I do go to activities and I try to contribute to the local ward, but its hard.  I read a lot of books and try to find spiritual nourishment through other outlets.  I consider myself Mormon, but a far different kind.  

If the local ward had some more nuanced people in it and we could have some good discussions about metaphorical value of scriptures, or the mistakes our leaders make and how we can be true to morality even when disagreeing with leaders, these kinds of discussions I could add a lot of value to.  

For now, I don't really fit in with the members like I used to, and I don't fit in with the ex members either.  I'm still very orthoprax, and probably will continue to be for my immediate family (orthodox spouse) and for my extended family.  If every week at church could be like Sunstone or Dialogue, then I would really fit in well!  

The problem is that no one feels comfortable saying anything that doesn't fit the norm. I guarantee there are at least a handful of active members in your ward that believe similar things that you do. 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I don't take them literally as a blanket statement of declared belief

Joseph Smith SAW Adam and Eve.
Joseph Smith had Moses and Noah's hands laid upon his head.
Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses.

These men can tell you what they looked like.  That's how real these supposedly mythological beings are.
I'd call that a declared belief.

Must be nice to be able to ignore any scriptures that you don't like.

[Bernard Gui]

On October 13, 2016 at 1:31 PM, DBMormon said:

- Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty?

Yes. They are more real than any other thing I have experienced. They had more impact on the way I have conducted my life than any other influence. Any doubts I have had pale when compared with the light provided by these experiences. Of course there are things I do not understand, but I am confident in the existence of a loving God who is revealed in the scriptures. He knows me as an individual. In time, all will be revealed.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

After reading Gerald Lund's book "Hearing the Voice of the Lord" I believe he would have say this is the "line upon line" idea. I thought of that as I read Bill's post and was glad to see you saw the idea as well. He talks about there being a divine plan and that line upon line we get little bits of it.  I cannot find the quote right now that I wanted to share,  but he said something along the lines of because it is line upon line sometimes we may receive from the Lord what seems like contradictory evidence, but as we keep trying to follow Him the it will gradually be shown to us. 

I've shared this hear before: at one point I felt inspired to parent my son a specific way. At another point down the road I felt inspired to parent in the exact opposite way and this time it made a huge difference. I pondered over why I wasn't just prompted to do it that way in the first place. Very clearly the Lord told me, "You don't know my whole plan for him." 

I don't know the whole plan of others who feel their church is the right church, but I do know that all of us learn line upon line if we have ears that hear.

I think part of this is, that principle which is sensed to be true by the power of the light of Christ may be superseded by the greater truth revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith SAW Adam and Eve.
Joseph Smith had Moses and Noah's hands laid upon his head.
Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses.

These men can tell you what they looked like.  That's how real these supposedly mythological beings are.
I'd call that a declared belief.

Must be nice to be able to ignore any scriptures that you don't like.

I think this illustrates the ultimate critical problem. Any way you slice it, the LDS Church has hitched its cart to a very literal interpretation of certain events and people. 

It's a nice idea (for some) to imagine there is some evolved version of Mormonism that can move beyond such literal claims and change while still somehow remaining the same "Mormonism", but I think most current LDS leaders (and members) can't see the path to such a "narrative." 

In the end, this may be where the Church is forced to take a stand.  They've already given up ground on evolution, but there is only so far they can go before they run into serious problems with the claims of Joseph Smith and subsequent Church leaders.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cinepro

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I think this illustrates the ultimate critical problem. Any way you slice it, the LDS Church has hitched its cart to a very literal interpretation of certain events and people. 

It's a nice idea (for some) to imagine there is some evolved version of Mormonism that can move beyond such literal claims and change while still somehow remaining the same "Mormonism", but I think most current LDS leaders (and members) can't see the path to such a "narrative." 

In the end, this may be where the Church is forced to take a stand.  They've already given up ground on evolution, but there is only so far they can go before they run into serious problems with the claims of Joseph Smith and subsequent Church leaders.

Given that they use "Origin of Man" as a reference to read in the New Era, i'm not sure they've given up all that much ground on Evolution when it's all said and done.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think this illustrates the ultimate critical problem. Any way you slice it, the LDS Church has hitched its cart to a very literal interpretation of certain events and people. 

It's a nice idea (for some) to imagine there is some evolved version of Mormonism that can move beyond such literal claims and change while still somehow remaining the same "Mormonism", but I think most current LDS leaders (and members) can't see the path to such a "narrative." 

In the end, this may be where the Church is forced to take a stand.  They've already given up ground on evolution, but there is only so far they can go before they run into serious problems with the claims of Joseph Smith and subsequent Church leaders.

For me it is very simple.

Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith (and others) saw or met these ancient prophets.
So:
1. They did and these people were real
2. They were mistaken about what they witnessed despite canonization
3. They didn't  do these things and so they are lying

I'll take door number one.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

For me it is very simple.

Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith (and others) saw or met these ancient prophets.
So:
1. They did and these people were real
2. They were mistaken about what they witnessed despite canonization
3. They didn't  do these things and so they are lying

I'll take door number one.

 

I'm sure the Church apologists could come up with options 4, 5 and 6 if needed. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by cinepro

[Bob Crockett]

Bill:

I think what Bob Smith might be trying to tell you is that your understanding of Bushman, Givens, Mason et al. doesn't really relate to what they have actually said.  If I could be so bold as to offer a critique of what you do, it appears you rely upon podcasts rather than books to form your conclusions about the church and what it teaches.  I personally know Bushman and Mason (they and I have been or are members of a Howard Hunter Foundation Board at Claremont) and they don't say what you attribute to them.  In the past you've made assertions about what Brad Wilcox teaches; I've gone to his books (rather than podcasts) to quote statements which take exception to your interpretation but you've not responded.  

In my post above, I asked about your "narrative," which is basically buzzword jargon like the word "paradigm" to mean very little.   Bob Smith accurately points out that your assertion of Church teachings is basically a yokelization of what the Church really teaches.  Again, I suggest that actually reading Mormon Doctrine or Doctrines of Salvation or B.H. Roberts' works or Bushman's books might give you a more grounded perspective on the Church's teachings.   Jettison podcasts; they aren't helpful.  In Mike Wallace's interview of Gordon B. Hinckley he got him to say that caffeinated sodas are against Church doctrine when, in fact, they are not.   Podcasts are, really, meant for yokels; they get people to say things without preparation and studied editing.

As far as Bob Smith's rudeness is concerned, I agree, but he is an equal-opportunity fellow.  When I am so bold as to condemn the MesoAmerican theory of the Book of Mormon, I have to say, "Thank you Sir, May I Have Another" with a smile (a reference to Animal House) as I get whacked on the behind with a frat paddle.  I advise you to have a not-so-thin skin and do the same.  

I further suggest that you ground yourself in the Bible.  Did you know that the prophet Nathan changed his mind about advising David to go ahead and build the temple?  Or that the prophet Joshua was fooled into executing a treaty with a group of people he was commanded to wipe out?  Or that God let David have a grandmother who was a Moabite after Moses said that one cannot be a member of the house of Israel if he has Moabite blood in him to the 10th degree?  Or that Peter refused to eat with Gentiles after receiving his famous vision about bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles?   What implications does that have for your view of how prophets should or should not act, or do you just throw out the Bible in favor of a prophet who is more along the lines of Obe Wan Kenobe?

I'll tell you what.  I'll volunteer to do a podcast of a one-hour interview of you.  I'll give you the topics in advance.  Or you can give me the topics upon which you'd like to be interviewed.  No more than an hour.  It will be your podcast for you to broadcast.  Then you'll see what little meaning podcasts have as you say things you don't really mean.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Bill,

Please pardon this off-topic post, but if I don't put it here, I'm afraid you won't see it.

This is a reminder that there is a CFR on the table from the last time you posted here.

You asserted that John Dehlin has a source who says that next year, there will be a revised Church handbook in which the policy that surfaced last November about gay marriage will be excluded. I said that I was aware of rumors Dehlin had posted earlier but that he had said he doubted they were true. I asked if you were referring to something from him that was more solid, or if you were merely referring to what he had posted earlier. You replied that you were going to leave me guessing.

Thereafter, I made a CFR for you to document your assertion. You then disappeared from the board.

So, the question I put to you, now that you have returned, is this: Are you going to respond to the CFR or do you intend to ignore it?

Incidentally, I have tried since then to find Dehlin's earlier post -- I think it was on Facebook -- but have been unsuccessful. This leaves me to wonder if he has removed it.

 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The problem is that no one feels comfortable saying anything that doesn't fit the norm. I guarantee there are at least a handful of active members in your ward that believe similar things that you do. 

You might be right, i've given some pretty unorthodox testimonies, and had some people tell me thanks and some decent conversations have come from it, but nothing to where I've completely connected with someone else's unorthodoxy.  There is a spectrum of disbelief, and you're right that people are scared to share.  We are so good at putting on appearances in Mormon culture, myself included.  

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I have had unmistakable revelation before, that was remanded and overruled later by unmistakable revelation. One example: once I had a disciplinary council for a member, and was thrilled to have clear guidance from God beforehand (prior to the council) as to the outcome and guidance. This changed during the disciplinary council itself with another unmistakable and clear guidance that was completely different from my previous one. Rather than say that one was "true" and one was "false," I know for myself that both were "true." In our discerning of revelation, as we progress along our way in mortality, things change and the promptings and guidance we receive can change based on a lot of factors. And all of them are sometimes true --- true for the times, true for the circumstances, etc.

 

 

I know people who received a clear "no" answer when praying to find out if the Book of Mormon is true, but who later in life received a clear "yes" answer. Instead of saying that they didn't do it right, weren't sincere, etc. the first time, I believe that the Holy Ghost may actually have told them "no" at that time for a variety of reasons (timing, circumstances, etc.). Similarly, I can see the Holy Ghost leading people to stay where they are (and feel right about it) for the time being for a variety of reasons (timing, circumstances, unknown hazards, etc.). 

I think that sometimes the "no" answers we receive are because of our faulty understanding of what we are praying about.  If I were to pray and ask if the church was true I may receive a no answer.  But this could be based on incorrect assumptions on my part of what it meant for the church to be true.  Later in life, having learned more and grown spiritually, I may receive a yes to the same question as my understanding of what a true church is has grown.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ksfisher

[Gray]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith SAW Adam and Eve.
Joseph Smith had Moses and Noah's hands laid upon his head.
Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses.

These men can tell you what they looked like.  That's how real these supposedly mythological beings are.
I'd call that a declared belief.

Must be nice to be able to ignore any scriptures that you don't like.

How would you determine if those experiences were visions vs visitations? 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith had Moses and Noah's hands laid upon his head.
Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses.

CFR on Noah laying his hands on Joseph Smith's head, and JFS seeing Noah...

Not that I doubt you, just like to see the sources please...

[Kevin Christensen]

Bill set points out a set of fundamentalist readings (that is, interpretations) and declares, without demonstration that they are any good, that they are absurd (which may be true but fails to consider a longstanding range of LDS thinking that differs) or is contrary to evidence which does not appear here.

Why the show?  Well, Archimedes observed that if you provide him with a lever and a place to stand, he can move the world.  However, I'm not standing there, certainly not on the sandy beach against which the lever is being applied.   Indeed, I see no persuasive reason why any Mormon must or should stand there. Jesus, a rather significant authority, states in 3 Nephi that to call anything doctrine beyond faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit and enduring to the end, is to build on sand.  In D&C 1, we have a formal statement that the "authority of my servants" does not preclude human weakness and error, nor does it exclude revelation to "others", ("Holy men ye know not of") and bluntly observes that asking questions and seeking is a prerequisite to revelations, which means, that is is reasonable for reasonable LDS to assume that not every opinion stated by ANYONE let alone, Yokels (to borrow Bob's apt term) ought to be a binding crisis point for any Mormon.

Bill asks:

- Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? 

I saw neither evidence nor a consideration of my current conclusions.    For instance, I've often cited Margaret Barker's essay on Isaiah 53, the fourth Servant Song, as being based on Hezekiah's bout with the plague.  Yet I've never seen the evidence she cites accounted for by anyone who dates 2nd Isaiah as beyond the reach of Nephi, Jacob, and Abinadi. Neither my own conclusions nor the evidence I find most significant appears here.

- Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty?

Well, I did write an essay called A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience, which puts my views into perspective.  It's linked on my Profile for the curious.

- Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.?

I've often pointed out that the "only true" notion does not appear in D&C 1, which says something quite different, much more tolerant and robust.  The common notion strikes me as coming from Position 2 of the Perry Scheme, and is there developmental issue, something human, rather than binding and doctrinal for LDS.  D&C 1 portrays something expressly imperfect, incomplete, and non-exclusive with respect to truth, inspiration, and virtue.

-  People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit.  For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail.  (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.)  Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church.

This assumes without demonstration that a set of notions that appear clearly outside of what Jesus declares as "my doctrine" and therefore, what he bluntly described as a "sandy foundation" should be somehow defining and binding for LDS.   "All data are theory-laden"  There is an ideology that drives the urge to setup the situation this way.  Expose that ideology to see what is really going on here.  Kuhn observes that in paradigm debate, the most important issues are which paradigm is better, and which problems are most significant to have solved.  I don't see Bill's paradigm here as even considering that it is a paradigm, let alone the best one, or even a good one, and it strikes me as overlooking all sorts of things that I think are more significant to address and solve.  The more brittle a paradigm is, the easier it is to shatter.  That seems to be the point of this one... it is easy to shatter where that vulnerability to shattering seems what is desirable and useful for adopting it.  Frankly, I have used Deutero-Isaiah in my essays for many years, but don't feel obligated to accept every aspect of it. The Book of Mormon does not depend on late reading of the Babel story, nor on a global flood.  Nibley shot those notions down back in the 1950s in essays published in The Improvement Era.  Texts do not interpret themselves any more than fossil bones or geologic strata do.  If you pay attention to the History of science, and the growth of knowledge, it ought to become obvious that knowledge does and should change.  If those changes don't utterly discredit the notion of science, why should changes in our understanding of how to best interpret some texts come as such a shock to the system?  Unless the problem is the system of thought adopted, rather than the texts to which that system of thought is directed.

Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do?

Find a different paradigm of Mormonism that is better, in which reason and logic function better.  And read carefully D&C 1, 3 Nephi 11, Thomas Kuhn, and the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Gray]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I find you being rude here and am unsure why.  Why assume another knows nothing.  Let me pose a concept and you help me see that it is untrue.

I will use a dichotomy to expose a truth to you.  Here is a video link to a 3 hour debate between James White and John Shelby Spong

What they are debating is not important nor should distract us.

The issue is this.  

James White is a literal believer.   He knows he is right.  He is confident that the outer authority in his life (for him the bible) is dependable and can not lead him astray.  He has so much certainty and is deeply bothered by folks who he feels know nothing.  He is irritated by them and is so sure of himself that anyone who disagrees is obviously not as informed or as proficient.   There is not a question that he does not feel he has a adequate answer to.

On the other hand

John Shelby Spong is a mystical believer.  By that I mean he realizes there are a whole lot answers and a whole lot more questions than most people think.  It means he does not interpret scripture literally the way its authors of scripture imposed it (he does not take the authorities too seriously).  He rests his authority within himself and does not pass it off to those higher mortal authorities or to any authoritative writings as dependable for having the answer.  Rather these authorities are simply tools not designed to hand him absolute truth but rather to help him engage in the mystery.  He does not take Jesus literally nor does he even care to engage looking for that answer.   Rather his spirituality is based in the questions and a recognition that what we think we know isn't known and is still a mystery.

Many in our faith either out of ignorance or our of pride assume the mystical believer is wrong, uninformed, or mentally challenged, or intentionally set to device.  but he who does this misses a great insight.

Every day people like James white are moving through a faith development process and head towards the paradigm of Spong.  Everyday people lose literal belief and become mystical believers.  But that road only goes one way.  To try to convert or prove the mystic wrong is a failed exercise.  I am asserting that there are zero examples of one who once landing at the mystical paradigm converts back to literal belief.   And I feel with the number being zero or at most such a small number as to be rounded down to zero for  me a great truth is found here.  In terms of how one believes and interprets this "narrow path" only goes one way.  One is sometimes led to ask why?   

Robert I used to find you cordial but in recent months you have taken more of a speak down to attitude.  I am sad to see that.  

I suggest here when we find one way paths in our lives that we open ourselves up to the possibility that such movement is towards truth, and if we are not there where that individual is that we at least be open to asking if they have something I can learn from.  
 

 

That's a great debate - I watched it several weeks ago. As an aside, in Mormonism we often speak about people's "countenance" saying something about their closeness to God or the Holy Spirit. Spong definitely has the countenance of one filled with the love of God. His opponent  (White) didn't seem to have that, maybe because he was so busy arguing for something that is not loving by its very nature. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Gray

[DBMormon]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith SAW Adam and Eve.
Joseph Smith had Moses and Noah's hands laid upon his head.
Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses.

These men can tell you what they looked like.  That's how real these supposedly mythological beings are.
I'd call that a declared belief.

Must be nice to be able to ignore any scriptures that you don't like.

Once you understand that men all through the ages claimed be someone other than who is posited as having written the book of scripture and that those folks doing so have insinuated they have interacted with the divine makes space for a nuanced view.  What Joseph did is no different then others who have done so before.  It doesn't negate that he has put us in touch with the divine.  Whether Joseph literally saw these men or not matters little to me.... what does matter is Joseph has given me symbols that encourage me to interact with the divine.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

Once you understand that men all through the ages claimed be someone other than who is posited as having written the book of scripture and that those folks doing so have insinuated they have interacted with the divine makes space for a nuanced view.  What Joseph did is no different then others who have done so before.  It doesn't negate that he has put us in touch with the divine.  Whether Joseph literally saw these men or not matters little to me.... what does matter is Joseph has given me symbols that encourage me to interact with the divine.

Part of LDS doctrine is that satan is capable of creating (and does create) imitations of truth.  I have no idea if you believe that's true or not, but from my perspective (as someone who does believe it's true), there are people who have interacted with the divine and there are people who claim they have but actually haven't.  From that perspective, one is very much different from the other.

And if one is very much different from the other, treating them all the same can't really help us interact with the divine.  Imitations of the divine are sent specifically to remove us from the divine.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bill,

Please pardon this off-topic post, but if I don't put it here, I'm afraid you won't see it.

This is a reminder that there is a CFR on the table from the last time you posted here.

You asserted that John Dehlin has a source who says that next year, there will be a revised Church handbook in which the policy that surfaced last November about gay marriage will be excluded. I said that I was aware of rumors Dehlin had posted earlier but that he had said he doubted they were true. I asked if you were referring to something from him that was more solid, or if you were merely referring to what he had posted earlier. You replied that you were going to leave me guessing.

Thereafter, I made a CFR for you to document your assertion. You then disappeared from the board.

So, the question I put to you, now that you have returned, is this: Are you going to respond to the CFR or do you intend to ignore it?

Incidentally, I have tried since then to find Dehlin's earlier post -- I think it was on Facebook -- but have been unsuccessful. This leaves me to wonder if he has removed it.

 

I know who Dehlin's source is.  I have been "in the room" when this source shared their insight.  Part of an anonymous source is to remain anonymous.  As a journalist I am sure you can respect that.  So lets just say I have an inside perspective from time to time.  you can believe what you want but that is as much as I am willing to say officially.