Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 I didn't read all of the conversation, but both sides of the argument are pretty clear. One side says that Callister and other church authorities oversimplify when they claim that a spiritual witness about the Book of Mormon signifies that the LDS church is also true. In a world where there is objective religious truth, which the proponent of this argument clearly is arguing from, then the LDS church and the CoC can't both be true, so the BOM's truthfulness doesn't ensure that the LDS church is true as it's also integral to the CoC. Another obvious problem is that there have been hundreds of developments in the LDS church since the BOM, so just because you have a witness about the BOM or Joseph Smith doesn't necessitate that you accept everything after, like current church authorities suggest. It's a pretty simple argument. The other side is a more complex argument that doesn't take the idea of objective religious truth for granted, and therefore all religions can operate within their own paradigms and still be true. Therefore, Callister's claim is valid and isn't invalidated by much of anything. Isn't there a middle ground where we recognize the oversimplification and still accept the idea that contradicting religions can serve as true for varying populations, purposes, etc.
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 8 hours ago, rockpond said: Ha. And you think the other versions of Mormonism consider us "the original"? #myopic If their logic is sound, what would be the third (and fourth, since they have three, not two) foundational component they apply to the LDS Church that separates it from them?
rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, CV75 said: If their logic is sound, what would be the third (and fourth, since they have three, not two) foundational component they apply to the LDS Church that separates it from them? I'm not sure if I'm following your pronouns but I think the missing piece in the Callister/Hinckley statements is that we never departed from the prophetic call and authority over the intervening decades. That's what presumably separates the different sects of Mormonism.
rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I didn't read all of the conversation, but both sides of the argument are pretty clear. One side says that Callister and other church authorities oversimplify when they claim that a spiritual witness about the Book of Mormon signifies that the LDS church is also true. In a world where there is objective religious truth, which the proponent of this argument clearly is arguing from, then the LDS church and the CoC can't both be true, so the BOM's truthfulness doesn't ensure that the LDS church is true as it's also integral to the CoC. Another obvious problem is that there have been hundreds of developments in the LDS church since the BOM, so just because you have a witness about the BOM or Joseph Smith doesn't necessitate that you accept everything after, like current church authorities suggest. It's a pretty simple argument. The other side is a more complex argument that doesn't take the idea of objective religious truth for granted, and therefore all religions can operate within their own paradigms and still be true. Therefore, Callister's claim is valid and isn't invalidated by much of anything. Isn't there a middle ground where we recognize the oversimplification and still accept the idea that contradicting religions can serve as true for varying populations, purposes, etc. Thanks Benjamin for stepping in and explaining my position very clearly. And I do recognize and accept the middle ground that you commented on at the end. I hope that was clear from my statements but perhaps it wasn't.
rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: There is no point to see. I answered that in those posts to Hope Do I have to repeat every post for every poster? Logic is a sub-discipline of philosophy. It is essentially mathematics. I do not understand your use of "logical" because you do not understand what it is. You sound like Mr Spock calling every odd opinion "logical" as if it trumps anyone who disagrees. I am sorry you cannot articulate your point. If anyone else understands it, I invite them to step in and translate for me. Please see Benjamin's post and my reply. He got my point quite clearly.
Gray Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, CV75 said: The Church established on April 6,1830 is the only one Joseph stayed with. It is not a "Y" because the COC split away based on some other founding principle(s) than the two in the OP. As an aside: the phrase used in the OP is "God-given," and the God-given gifts and keys through Joseph Smith in his call as a prophet are what make him a prophet and founding figure. The Community of Christ did not carry the keys Joseph Smith shared with the apostles, and which remained with that original Church; in other words they constructed a "different Joseph" than we have (LOL). Do a search of "keys" on the COC website http://www.cofchrist.org/search?q=keys, and see what you come up with! Then do the same with lds.org. Very eye-opening... The other churches needed to add additional claims/rationale to support their narrative and distinguish themselves as "not that church." Joseph left no clear succession plan. The RLDS/COC carried on with the teachings of the church that had been taught publicly, and published in the D&C. The LDS church went with the unpublished teachings on polygamy. There is no clear way to say that one is the successor church and one is not. The RLDS changed their name. The LDS required everyone to get baptized again. Today, neither one is the same church as the original Church of the Latter-day Saints. Not that that's a bad thing, but you can't really make a case for one being the "break off" and the other being the "original" church. Edited November 9, 2016 by Gray 2
Atheist Mormon Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 On 11/3/2016 at 10:43 AM, cdowis said: Skousen points out that, between Oliver Cowdery's copying to the printer's manuscript, and the typesetter, there are an average of six errors per page. And this does not include dictation and transcription errors. Yeah...This is normal. Imagine a far diffcult task of copying OT/NT manuscripts 2 thousand years ago.
Guest Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 On November 3, 2016 at 10:38 AM, stemelbow said: I think there could possibly be too much overlap between what is man-made and what is not. This all or nothing approach is hard to maintain on such grounds, in my view. For instance the title page of the BoM suggests, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God". This clearly suggests there are man-made parts in the book as well as things of God. The other point is, we don't know the process of the translation. We don't know how much Joseph's own imprint influenced the resulting text, or if it did at all. We can only speculate. If somehow in the process Joseph made a mistake on something, as is his human nature, we wouldn't know. The "Title Page" is part of the Book of Mormon. It was written by Moroni, to acknowledge the many times where he spoke of the difficulty in writing on "gold plates". It was also to note that (whenever possible) he made corrections in text, not doctrine. Quite frankly, this is a comment that could be applied to any scripture. But, not to dismiss any doctrine, but errors in writing and translation. As far as "only speculate" (to use your words) can put us in a dangerous position of (as the Bible states) "...ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth". All or nothing as it applies to doctrine and scripture is for the most part a given and requirement. All or nothing as it applies to Church programs and structure...not required, as they are always in flux. I. That same title page, Mormoni and his father Mormon, wrote and rewrote word, from Mosiah to Moroni, and affirmed that they knew of "no errors", but pointed out that there could be. They were not saying...yes there are errors, so accept what you wish and disregard the rest. Inerrantcy (hope I spelled that correctly) means perfect in doctrine, not perfectly written.
mfbukowski Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I didn't read all of the conversation, but both sides of the argument are pretty clear. One side says that Callister and other church authorities oversimplify when they claim that a spiritual witness about the Book of Mormon signifies that the LDS church is also true. In a world where there is objective religious truth, which the proponent of this argument clearly is arguing from, then the LDS church and the CoC can't both be true, so the BOM's truthfulness doesn't ensure that the LDS church is true as it's also integral to the CoC. Another obvious problem is that there have been hundreds of developments in the LDS church since the BOM, so just because you have a witness about the BOM or Joseph Smith doesn't necessitate that you accept everything after, like current church authorities suggest. It's a pretty simple argument. The other side is a more complex argument that doesn't take the idea of objective religious truth for granted, and therefore all religions can operate within their own paradigms and still be true. Therefore, Callister's claim is valid and isn't invalidated by much of anything. Isn't there a middle ground where we recognize the oversimplification and still accept the idea that contradicting religions can serve as true for varying populations, purposes, etc. No. What could that be? Try to create a theory which satisfies both requirements of being both objective and non objective to satisfy both sides. It's having your cake and eating it too. It's a refusal to admit relativism. Seeking a middle ground is itself relativism. There is no such thing as half objective. And welcome.
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 Let me brake down the middle ground for you. God could inspire multiple contradicting religions according to what you have argued (I agree actually). He could have inspired the Book of Mormon (I also believe this premise). He could also be inspiring LDS leaders currently. Finally, he could tell someone the Book of Mormon is true, without that person inferring or God intending to communicate to that person that the LDS church is their true religion (such would be the case for CoC members who have had spiritual witnesses of the BOM). Therefore, I can accept all of the above and still label Callister's claim as an oversimplification.
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 I should add that i believe the premise that God inspires current LDS leaders, or else it could be inferred that I'm anti, which I'm not.
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 But yeah, as made clear above, rockpond isn't going to come to the middle ground because it does accept the premise that multiple religions could be "true."
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I'm not sure if I'm following your pronouns but I think the missing piece in the Callister/Hinckley statements is that we never departed from the prophetic call and authority over the intervening decades. That's what presumably separates the different sects of Mormonism. I’m not sure that’s relevant. According to your post here, Posted 22 hours ago the LDS Church claims the Book or Mormon and Joseph Smith determine that she is true. Elder Callister doesn’t say other churches and offshoots aren’t true; he simply doesn’t go there. But since you brought it up, which churches condition their being true on those same two claims alone, without some other precipitating claim that distinguishes them from the LDS Church? 1 hour ago, Gray said: Joseph left was no clear succession plan. The RLDS/COC carried on with the teachings of the church that had been taught publicly, and published in the D&C. The LDS church went with the unpublished teachings on polygamy. There is no clear way to say that one is the successor church and one is not. The RLDS changed their name. The LDS required everyone to get baptized again. Today, neither one is the same church as the original Church of the Latter-day Saints. Not that that's a bad thing, but you can't really make a case for one being the "break off" and the other being the "original" church. See above. Does the COC “movement” claim that the Book or Mormon and Joseph Smith make her true? I took a quick look at the COC website. “God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and continuing presence through the Holy Spirit, as proclaimed by scripture, is the foundation of our faith, identity, mission, message, and beliefs.” http://www.cofchrist.org/enduring-principles Which is perfectly fine as a foundation, but there is no claim about the truthfulness of the church / movement at all (it could be implied, but it isn’t determined by the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith). The COC does mention the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in her history and origin story (see http://www.cofchrist.org/history ), but makes no claim that they identify her as the true movement. It seems that because its organization under Joseph Smith III followed many years after the factionalization of the original church, the COC refers to herself as a movement, and no claim to being "true" because of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, Jr.
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Let me brake down the middle ground for you. God could inspire multiple contradicting religions according to what you have argued (I agree actually). He could have inspired the Book of Mormon (I also believe this premise). He could also be inspiring LDS leaders currently. Finally, he could tell someone the Book of Mormon is true, without that person inferring or God intending to communicate to that person that the LDS church is their true religion (such would be the case for CoC members who have had spiritual witnesses of the BOM). Therefore, I can accept all of the above and still label Callister's claim as an oversimplification. Elder Callister didn't say other churches are not true. And I understand that the LDS Church holds that God inspires many people on many levels and supports many organizations that are not part of the LDS Church. I think it is safe to say that other churches do not make the same claim as Elder Callister. Edited November 9, 2016 by CV75 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 But it's common knowledge that the LDS assumption is that our theology gets it objectively right and our authority extends to all people. I'm suggesting a different paradigm.
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said: But it's common knowledge that the LDS assumption is that our theology gets it objectively right and our authority extends to all people. I'm suggesting a different paradigm. What is the paradigm /assumption you suggest for the LDS? Or for the "common knowledge" if that's what you meant; someone with common knowledge can become better informed! PS If you use the quote button to reply, those you address are less likely to miss your post. Edited November 9, 2016 by CV75
hope_for_things Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: OK but that is nothing more than your opinion, which may or may not be a "valid" point of view, according to the system you choose for that justification. By going in this direction you are using a sociological justification for religious belief. I do not not see that as "valid". I think the only justification for a religious position is in the eye of the beholder as it were- I think that is the only way we can justify the use of "testimony" confirmed by religious experience if and only if we admit that religion is purely subjective and what works in our individual lives First, let me thank you for the thoughtful response, very much appreciate it. On this point of something being valid or not, I'm not contesting that his views aren't valid on some level, I am contesting your earlier statement that they are "just as valid as yours" or of equal validity. I'm working from the definition of valid as I understand it. Oxford dictionary definition is: Quote (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. For something to be valid it should be reasonable and based on logic. This does not make every religious opinion on the spectrum of opinions equally valid. This is a different argument completely than your other point about perceptions of truth, which I agree with you that those perspectives are subjective and can't be proven true or false. It does not make every paradigm equally valid though, because by definition validity is a test using logic and reasoning. 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: By going in this direction you are using a sociological justification for religious belief. I do not not see that as "valid". I think the only justification for a religious position is in the eye of the beholder as it were- I think that is the only way we can justify the use of "testimony" confirmed by religious experience if and only if we admit that religion is purely subjective and what works in our individual lives If sociological evidence cannot be used to judge validity, then what measurements using logic and reason do you think are reasonable justifications? If I recall a prior discussion with you a few months back, I asked why a Brian David Mitchell's beliefs weren't of equal value as Joseph Smith, your basic response was Mitchell's ideas don't work for society, have not born good fruit and therefore aren't of equal value or even on the same playing field. It sounds like you are contradicting these earlier statements to me. If you can judge value as you did in the Brian David Mitchell example, then why can't I measure Callister's perspective as less valid using a similar approach, judging the merits of his argument and finding his perspective to be less valid. 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: A sociological approach is the attempt to use an objective measure to justify religion. I don't think that works. It crosses paradigms or "language games" and essentially uses one context to justify statements made in another context. It is a category error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake I don't think I'm guilty of a category mistake, but if I am, isn't Alma 32 also guilty of this same category mistake? I'm essentially critiquing Callister's narrowly defined literalistic approach to Mormonisms truth claims. I'm making a validity argument since you said that his paradigm is equally valid, and I'm trying reasonably measure whether your claim of equal validity can be supported, using the judge things by their fruits argument. If this is not a reasonable measuring stick, then how is this different than the common Mormon approach of judging things by their fruits as espoused in scripture? 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have never experienced Mormonism in this way, so I cannot agree with this interpretation. I experience a loving Father trying to use faulty humans to teach his children, and by doing so the faulty humans progress according to their abilities. I have not experienced an "in-crowd" kind of feel in Mormonism, but of course I do not live in Utah where the church is highly polarized. Where I live no one knows what a Mormon is and the congregations are friendly to outsiders and very welcoming. People acknowledge that we are all sinners trying to improve. THAT is my personal experience. Perhaps you have not experienced the type of Mormonism that I've experienced. You are a convert and you are well educated and came into Mormonism from a much different perspective with a level of maturity and a widely different background. I would say that both of our Mormonisms exist, and are relative to our environments and personal experiences. Ultimately, I think we're in agreement about religious experience being something that is personal and subjective and I've learned a lot from you about Rorty and I appreciate that video clip as I hadn't watched it before. My main contention with you is about the claim of "equally valid", so I hope you respond to that part of my comments. Lastly, I love how you dissect arguments and make people on these message boards think and try to support their statements and point out errors in reasoning. This is fun. But I wonder why I rarely if ever see you pointing out the errors in reasoning that church leaders make in the many talks and message threads that exist here. I typically see you defending them, and not pointing out the errors. You don't seem to be applying your skills equally. This is probably because you feel a personal commitment to defend first and foremost, but I question why you don't engage with thoughtful dissent more frequently. I think you could model this kind of dialogue and it would be a value add to the message board. However, if you're not comfortable doing this, I can understand, but its something I wonder about.
rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: But yeah, as made clear above, rockpond isn't going to come to the middle ground because it does accept the premise that multiple religions could be "true." I accept the middle ground that you've described but I don't believe that Callister or Hinckley would. I don't think that's what they meant by their similar statements.
rockpond Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, CV75 said: I’m not sure that’s relevant. According to your post here, Posted 22 hours ago the LDS Church claims the Book or Mormon and Joseph Smith determine that she is true. Elder Callister doesn’t say other churches and offshoots aren’t true; he simply doesn’t go there. But since you brought it up, which churches condition their being true on those same two claims alone, without some other precipitating claim that distinguishes them from the LDS Church? You're right, Callister didn't say that other churches, including the other sects of Mormonism aren't true. Is it your understanding from what he said that he DOES believe those other churches to be true? Because I don't think he does. But I guess we can't get into his head. I didn't say that the other churches condition their being true on those same two claims. I just said that they trace their origins to those same two claims just as our mainstream LDS Church does. So, if those two claims are all that are required to make a church true, than we don't have exclusivity.
Gray Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, CV75 said: I took a quick look at the COC website. “God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and continuing presence through the Holy Spirit, as proclaimed by scripture, is the foundation of our faith, identity, mission, message, and beliefs.” http://www.cofchrist.org/enduring-principles Which is perfectly fine as a foundation, but there is no claim about the truthfulness of the church / movement at all (it could be implied, but it isn’t determined by the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith). The COC does mention the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in her history and origin story (see http://www.cofchrist.org/history ), but makes no claim that they identify her as the true movement. It seems that because its organization under Joseph Smith III followed many years after the factionalization of the original church, the COC refers to herself as a movement, and no claim to being "true" because of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, Jr. Yes, and the FLDS can make similar criticisms of us. We've abandoned essential teachings like polygamy and Adam/God doctrine. Both the LDS and the COC have radically changed doctrines over the years.
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: You're right, Callister didn't say that other churches, including the other sects of Mormonism aren't true. Is it your understanding from what he said that he DOES believe those other churches to be true? Because I don't think he does. But I guess we can't get into his head. I didn't say that the other churches condition their being true on those same two claims. I just said that they trace their origins to those same two claims just as our mainstream LDS Church does. So, if those two claims are all that are required to make a church true, than we don't have exclusivity. I cannot get into his head. I’m sure he believes that while “all churches and philosophies have elements of truth in them,” the Lord has stated that the LDS Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” https://www.lds.org/youth/article/only-true-living-church?lang=eng And he does emphasize that the individual, personal witness from the Spirit is ultimately the deciding factor. Elder Callister does not say that these two claims alone make the Church is true. He is saying if they are not true, the Church is not true. The link above explains more about why the LDS Church is “the only true and living church.” Elder Callister does not represent the two clams as the origins of the LDS Church; rather he presents them as the keystone of the LDS religion and that the prophet received it from an angel and translated it by the gift and power of God. No other church seems to trace its origin in those contexts. Do you have examples? 45 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, and the FLDS can make similar criticisms of us. We've abandoned essential teachings like polygamy and Adam/God doctrine. Both the LDS and the COC have radically changed doctrines over the years. Sure, but that only justifies the parting of ways... The FLDS stll make no claim about the truthfulness of their church being determined by the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the role of Joseph Smith in bringing it forth (see comments above). 1
Gray Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 17 minutes ago, CV75 said: Sure, but that only justifies the parting of ways... The FLDS stll make no claim about the truthfulness of their church being determined by the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the role of Joseph Smith in bringing it forth (see comments above). What's that claim based on? How much do you know about FLDS teachings?
CV75 Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: What's that claim based on? How much do you know about FLDS teachings? Whatever I can gather on Wikipedia and what other (non-LDS) online ministries say about them in comparison with LDS. They are represented as believing in and using the Book of Mormon as scripture, but that's the extent of it; no origin story or truth claim depending on it. Their official site seems to be shut down or limited to a book order form, so they are not making any first-hand claims to the public at large.
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: I accept the middle ground that you've described but I don't believe that Callister or Hinckley would. I don't think that's what they meant by their similar statements. Agreed. But, I hope that there will eventually at least be official room for a less literal approach. Right now, it's more or less heresy.
Gray Posted November 9, 2016 Posted November 9, 2016 29 minutes ago, CV75 said: Whatever I can gather on Wikipedia and what other (non-LDS) online ministries say about them in comparison with LDS. They are represented as believing in and using the Book of Mormon as scripture, but that's the extent of it; no origin story or truth claim depending on it. Their official site seems to be shut down or limited to a book order form, so they are not making any first-hand claims to the public at large. Right, I think we're in the same boat. So when you say "The FLDS stll make no claim about the truthfulness of their church being determined by the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the role of Joseph Smith in bringing it forth (see comments above)" that's really just a guess, right?
Recommended Posts