Where is lds resource about garment of Adam passed down

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

That idea is even wilder than the Biblical story, and no more plausible. Taking it this literally rather misses the point. Adam and Eve represent humanity. 

I don't buy Adam/God theory in the least, but the idea that Adam wasn't on this planet prior to the fall makes a lot of sense. I don't quite see why you see that as implausible unless you believe we all lived on this planets as spirits prior to our birth into mortality. Being somewhere else seems the obvious interpretation. So if you were immortal as a spirit body and didn't live on earth, why is it implausible for Adam and Eve?

BTW - that quote from Anson Call, is very late. 1877 I believe, and thus very likely contaminated by the Utah doctrine at the time.

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

But it does work as Priesthood. IE; The first people to hold the Priesthood.

Sure, as a parable

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually, I prefer Brigham's explanation for Adam and Eve.
It addresses both scripture and biology and doesn't reduce Father Adam and Mother Eve to myth.

It doesn't work from a biological standpoint, and it's an altogether different story than the scriptural account. I'm not sure what problems it's solving - it's actually adding new ones. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't buy Adam/God theory in the least, but the idea that Adam wasn't on this planet prior to the fall makes a lot of sense. I don't quite see why you see that as implausible unless you believe we all lived on this planets as spirits prior to our birth into mortality. Being somewhere else seems the obvious interpretation. So if you were immortal as a spirit body and didn't live on earth, why is it implausible for Adam and Eve?

I guess the implausibility factor is similar to the ancient aliens hypothesis for the pyramids - it's a modern idea made up out of whole cloth without a shred of evidence to support it. 

I don't have any particular beliefs about my status before my birth. I think that's highly speculative stuff. I don't think I hold any beliefs that are terribly implausible or speculative, so don't use those as a spring board for accepting new beliefs that are just as implausible.

I think the implausible stories that seem to spring up in religious communities work best as metaphors pointing to some deeper truths. Adam and Eve is pretty shallow stuff on the literal level. But as metaphors they gain a lot more weight and depth. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I guess the implausibility factor is similar to the ancient aliens hypothesis for the pyramids - it's a modern idea made up out of whole cloth without a shred of evidence to support it. 

Not sure what you mean by evidence here. Depending upon what you mean there's no evidence for the resurrection, miracles, Moses and a lot else as well.

If you accept prophetic evidence then of course that's not the case since the Book of Abraham strongly indicates God lives somewhere else and we were with him as pre-mortal spirits.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you mean by evidence here. Depending upon what you mean there's no evidence for the resurrection, miracles, Moses and a lot else as well.

Historical and/or scientific evidence, depending on the particulars.. 

 

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If you accept prophetic evidence then of course that's not the case since the Book of Abraham strongly indicates God lives somewhere else and we were with him as pre-mortal spirits.

History is reconstructed through the tools of the historian, not through prophetic pronouncement. Science works in the same way. Prophesy is gives us moral guidance and a theological framework, but prophets have no special insight into ancient history or the physical attributes of the cosmos.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

History is reconstructed through the tools of the historian, not through prophetic pronouncement. Science works in the same way. Prophesy is gives us moral guidance and a theological framework, but prophets have no special insight into ancient history or the physical attributes of the cosmos.

And here is our biggest disagreement.
God is the best source of knowledge, not academia.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And here is our biggest disagreement.
God is the best source of knowledge, not academia.

History is an academic discipline, not a religious discipline. God has never revealed, through prophets, any significant information related to the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, etc. Why would history be any different? In fact when we check on the "history" (what is assumed to be history anyway, but what is often ancient literary tropes misinterpreted by modern readers as history) talked about in scripture, we often find that it's in error. God doesn't seem to be interested in giving that sort of information to humanity. 

When we rely on scripture for astronomy, we get a flat earth with a dome shaped sky, upon which the stars hang. Prophets climb up the mountains to get revelation because they can actually get closer to God's presence that way. God, you see, lives on top of the dome. So in fact this is not astronomy, this is not God revealing facts about the world. This is merely a framework upon which to tell faith stories and symbolic narratives.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

Historical and/or scientific evidence, depending on the particulars.. 

History is reconstructed through the tools of the historian, not through prophetic pronouncement. Science works in the same way. Prophesy is gives us moral guidance and a theological framework, but prophets have no special insight into ancient history or the physical attributes of the cosmos.

OK, fair enough. That's what I thought you meant. So most of the requirements for historicity are to you without evidence even if the experiences the prophets had would logically entail there being a historical Adam, Moroni, and so forth.

I'd just say it's deeply problematic to judge religion by that standard especially when the argument is just public evidence and the argument of silence. The reason is that not only are historical claims removed by that but all theological claims are as well. Indeed you just end up with the positivist view that religion is without meaning.

That's fine if that's what you believe of course. I just personally find it pretty problematic. More to the point, it makes religious discussion almost impossible.

Quote

History is an academic discipline, not a religious discipline. God has never revealed, through prophets, any significant information related to the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, etc.

I'd disagree on the later of course. For several reasons. For one I think personal revelation can easily answer questions in physics and mathematics. Now if by prophet you just mean public statements on such matters by leadership rather than every person a prophet I'll fully admit I don't know of any such claims beyond  perhaps Joseph's claim about the meteor shower. (I recognize many don't think he actually made that claim despite the evidence - I'm just saying it's the best example if the story is true)

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

OK, fair enough. That's what I thought you meant. So most of the requirements for historicity are to you without evidence even if the experiences the prophets had would logically entail there being a historical Adam, Moroni, and so forth.

I would understand such accounts as metaphorical or internal experiences. 

 

Quote

I'd just say it's deeply problematic to judge religion by that standard especially when the argument is just public evidence and the argument of silence. The reason is that not only are historical claims removed by that but all theological claims are as well. Indeed you just end up with the positivist view that religion is without meaning.

 

I'm no positivist. I find religious expression deeply meaningful, but largely robbed of its full meaning when we insist that everything be interpreted literally. Meaning doesn't exist at the literal level. We can take the scriptures seriously, or we can take them literally, but not both at once. But I maintain that taking the scriptures seriously does not hinder spiritual progress in the slightest. In fact it's framework for new revelation and revitalized interpretation.

I don't think it's problematic to not accept visionary statements as if they were evidence supporting some desired historical conclusion. I can have all the visions of Adam and Eve that I want, but that doesn't affect history in the slightest. History as a discipline has nothing to say about the supernatural (or in a more Mormon context, that which resembles the supernatural). 

I'm a believer in the value of spirituality, but I also acknowledge that spirituality is not a cheat sheet giving us answers about physical world. It's never worked like that. To get answers about the physical world you need to study the physical world directly. 

 

Quote

That's fine if that's what you believe of course. I just personally find it pretty problematic. More to the point, it makes religious discussion almost impossible.

I'd disagree on the later of course. For several reasons. For one I think personal revelation can easily answer questions in physics and mathematics. Now if by prophet you just mean public statements on such matters by leadership rather than every person a prophet I'll fully admit I don't know of any such claims beyond  perhaps Joseph's claim about the meteor shower. (I recognize many don't think he actually made that claim despite the evidence - I'm just saying it's the best example if the story is true)

 

Prophets have a very poor track record of their views working out when it comes to the physical world, without the benefit of independent academic inquiry. Prophesy cannot give you science or history - we've seen over and over that it can't. Prophesy has never been about that - it's always been about ethics and meaning. The "history" we read in ancient scripture is largely misinterpreted by us, post-Enlightenment westerners. We mistake ancient literary tropes for "history" as we understand that word to mean. And that has influenced the shape of our modern Mormon scriptures as well. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

History is reconstructed through the tools of the historian, not through prophetic pronouncement. Science works in the same way. Prophesy is gives us moral guidance and a theological framework, but prophets have no special insight into ancient history or the physical attributes of the cosmos.

like any field of study, history has limitation.  if we use historical standards, I don't have a 15th great grandfather.

 

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Prophesy cannot give you science or history - we've seen over and over that it can't. Prophesy has never been about that - it's always been about ethics and meaning. The "history" we read in ancient scripture is largely misinterpreted by us, post-Enlightenment westerners. We mistake ancient literary tropes for "history" as we understand that word to mean. And that has influenced the shape of our modern Mormon scriptures as well. 

I think this is circular. Any historic claim ought be interpreted metaphorically and we know this because the proper way to read them is as metaphoric. To assume that all ancient people saw all texts as mere metaphors seems quite difficult to line up with what they themselves say. As they say, when you are a hammer everything is a nail.

It's of course convenient to treat them all as fictions. And if that works for you who am I to debate it. Saying that's how the authors interpreted it all seems much harder to establish.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2017 at 10:31 AM, halconero said:

In a certain sense it's found in the temple ordinances, though it is only symbolically passed down. I'm not sure how several million endowed members would share one (lost) garment.

The word is "represents'

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2017 at 10:35 AM, Gray said:

Adam and Eve represent humanity. There's not a literal coat. 

There is a literal garment which represents a covenant. The covenant is what is important

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2017 at 3:22 PM, JLHPROF said:

And since Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith and others all saw the actual person of Adam, and I believe them to be both honest and prophets of God, I can say with a high degree of confidence that they ARE historical people.  Only seeing the same for myself would give the 100% certainty.
But I am as certain of their testimony that Adam is real as I am of their testimony that Jesus is real.

It's the certainty that makes it true for you in both cases, and I agree with you in both cases, since what actually happened is objectively unknowable.

Edited April 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2017 at 3:39 PM, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree. How can you possibly make that claim? You can say an Adam and Eve who were the sole originators of all the human race 7000 years ago is false. I'm not sure you can say there was no Adam and Eve and indefinite number of years ago who may have lived at the time with pre-Adamites.

But the real question I would like to ask you personally, is how do you justify belief in the vision, or how would Peirce justify belief in visions in general?

Or we don't have to make it personal- can Peirce justify belief in visions as "true"?

Can Peirce justify belief in spiritual feelings as "true"?

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2017 at 3:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

So between eyewitness of Adam to prophecies about Adam, that's good enough for me.  Certainly much skepticism doesn't seem warranted from the faithful based on scientific doubts.  We'd have to start dismissing prophecy., scripture, revelation, and vision all over the place and the gospel would eventually implode.

 

Unless I am right.

Does that help you understand why I am here?  If I can sell it to you guys, I can take this on the road.

I am just hoping to get a literalist or two thinking about the future of their beliefs and how to make them compatible with something that will last through the coming storm of disbelief because of science.  Coming storm?  It has been here for a hundred years already.  Go to Europe and see the closed churches if you haven't been.  They make nice concert halls, and musems to ancient beliefs, but that was not their intended purpose.

And we are supposed to restore the gospel?  How well are we doing against atheism?

I have no problem with literalism being seen as one way to interpret the gospel, other than it will soon be extinct.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you mean by evidence here. Depending upon what you mean there's no evidence for the resurrection, miracles, Moses and a lot else as well.

If you accept prophetic evidence then of course that's not the case since the Book of Abraham strongly indicates God lives somewhere else and we were with him as pre-mortal spirits.

This seems that, if you accept it, prophetic evidence CAN be seen as "evidence"?

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

For one I think personal revelation can easily answer questions in physics and mathematics

How does that work?

This could be the crux of me understanding you.  So I imagine you are thinking of physicists receiving flashes of personal revelation even if they do not believe in it?

I think that is possible and happens. 

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This could be the crux of me understanding you.  So I imagine you are thinking of physicists receiving flashes of personal revelation even if they do not believe in it?

I think that is possible and happens. 

That's certainly one way it happens but it can also happen in other ways. I normally don't like to relate spiritual experiences in public forums but I'll share this one. In my junior year I had a crazy roommate who was schizophrenic and bipolar. It caused a bunch of problems I won't get into. I ended up being very affected sleeping on the couch of some home teachers from my previous semester. I more or less missed quite a few weeks of school. I walked into my finals basically having not cracked a book in weeks. I'd fasted and prayed I wouldn't fail. Much to my shock and amazement I got As in every class. And these weren't easy GE credits but upper division physics classes. I attribute that entirely to personal revelation regarding science.

Quote

This seems that, if you accept it, prophetic evidence CAN be seen as "evidence"?

Yes if we have evidence that a person is a prophet and is acting as such. Of course any evidence is itself open to scrutiny and inquire.

Quote

I would like to ask you personally, is how do you justify belief in the vision, or how would Peirce justify belief in visions in general?

Peirce would appeal to a combination of the application of abduction, induction and deduction. He would also say that so long as we our doing our duty in inquiry that which we can not doubt is as a practical matter treated as knowledge. Peirce emphasized knowledge as a community and not individual affair. So there are some differences of course. Still his view is that while we can control where and how we inquire, we can not control our beliefs and doubts. "Propositions which we cannot doubt have to be accepted without criticism."

Peirce's 1905 paper "What Pragmatism Is" tends to be rather helpful here.

Edited April 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a literal garment which represents a covenant. The covenant is what is important

Indeed

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This seems that, if you accept it, prophetic evidence CAN be seen as "evidence"?

Yes, but not historical evidence. 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

like any field of study, history has limitation.  if we use historical standards, I don't have a 15th great grandfather.

 

History does have limitations to be sure, but it's the least limited option if you wish to understand history. It's not like there is any competition. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is circular. Any historic claim ought be interpreted metaphorically and we know this because the proper way to read them is as metaphoric. To assume that all ancient people saw all texts as mere metaphors seems quite difficult to line up with what they themselves say. As they say, when you are a hammer everything is a nail.

It's of course convenient to treat them all as fictions. And if that works for you who am I to debate it. Saying that's how the authors interpreted it all seems much harder to establish.

That's not my argument at all. If we look at scripture in its historical context we can see that what we're dealing with is often literary tropes. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING is not historical, of course.

This isn't just an assumption. We see it everywhere in ancient literature. The nativity stories are literary tropes. If you're writing the story of a great man and you live in the first century, you're going to write a story about a miraculous birth, and often a story about the person being raised from the dead and becoming a God, too. Matthew is full of literary tropes that Jewish people would have recognized - so much of what he wrote is his way of saying that Jesus is the new Moses.

None of the the miraculous tales about Jesus would have been surprising to anyone living in the first century. There were similar stories about Caesar. You encountered this kind of story telling every day in the ancient world. The question would never have been, "Did Jesus really do those things?" The question for an ancient person would be, "So, what does that mean for me? Why should I care?" And the answer might be, "well, look at the kind of community we Christians are building. This is the kingdom of God on earth."

None of the biblical writers were historians. They didn't know how to write history as we understand that word to mean. Our modern ideas about what history means didn't even exist in the first century. To say that they were writing history is an enormously presentist view. History has to be reconstructed from the scriptures - you can't read them as histories in and of themselves. 

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not my argument at all. If we look at scripture in its historical context we can see that what we're dealing with is often literary tropes. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING is not historical, of course.

This isn't just an assumption. We see it everywhere in ancient literature. The nativity stories are literary tropes. If you're writing the story of a great man and you live in the first century, you're going to write a story about a miraculous birth, and often a story about the person being raised from the dead and becoming a God, too. Matthew is full of literary tropes that Jewish people would have recognized - so much of what he wrote is his way of saying that Jesus is the new Moses.

None of the the miraculous tales about Jesus would have been surprising to anyone living in the first century. There were similar stories about Caesar. You encountered this kind of story telling every day in the ancient world. The question would never have been, "Did Jesus really do those things?" The question for an ancient person would be, "So, what does that mean for me? Why should I care?" And the answer might be, "well, look at the kind of community we Christians are building. This is the kingdom of God on earth."

None of the biblical writers were historians. They didn't know how to write history as we understand that word to mean. Our modern ideas about what history means didn't even exist in the first century. To say that they were writing history is an enormously presentist view. History has to be reconstructed from the scriptures - you can't read them as histories in and of themselves. 

Tropes != non-historical but frame the way even histories were presented. That is there are type settings and other types of tropes but to assume from that everything is ahistorical (rather than perhaps just exaggerated) seems deeply problematic.