Where is lds resource about garment of Adam passed down

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Indeed

The problem with this argument is that it implies the covenant can be entered without the corresponding sign.
ALL covenants require the corresponding sign.

Circumcision, Baptism, the Temple Garment, Laying on of Hands, heck, even the rainbow.  All signs of covenants.

• http://scottwoodward.org/baptism_signthatwewilldowillofGod.html

  God has made certain decrees which are fixed and immovable: for instance,—God set the sun, the moon, and the stars in the heavens, and gave them their laws, conditions and bounds, which they cannot pass, except by His commandments; they all move in perfect harmony in their sphere and order, and are as lights, wonders and signs unto us. The sea also has its bounds which it cannot pass. God has set many signs on the earth, as well as in the heavens; for instance, the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field—all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law or principle. Upon the same principle do I contend that baptism is a sign ordained of God, for the believer in Christ to take upon himself in order to enter into the kingdom of God, "for except ye are born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God," said the Savior. It is a sign and a commandment which God has set for man to enter into His kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain; for God will not receive them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted, for they have not obeyed the ordinances, nor attended to the signs which God ordained for the salvation of man, to prepare him for, and give him a title to, a celestial glory; and God had decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands.
  Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  What is the sign of the healing of the sick? The laying on of hands is the sign or way marked out by James, and the custom of the ancient Saints as ordered by the Lord, and we cannot obtain the blessing by pursuing any other course except the way marked out by the Lord. What if we should attempt to get the gift of the Holy Ghost through any other means except the signs or way which God hath appointed—would we obtain it? Certainly not; all other means would fail. The Lord says do so and so, and I will bless you.
  There are certain key words and signs belonging to the Priesthood which must be observed in order to obtain the blessing. The sign of Peter was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, with the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost; and in no other way is the gift of the Holy Ghost obtained. (History of the Church, 4:554-557)

Take away the sign and the covenant and ordinance is incomplete.  To say the covenant is what is important is to imply you can have the covenant without the sign.  You cannot.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The problem with this argument is that it implies the covenant can be entered without the corresponding sign.
ALL covenants require the corresponding sign.

Circumcision, Baptism, the Temple Garment, Laying on of Hands, heck, even the rainbow.  All signs of covenants.

• http://scottwoodward.org/baptism_signthatwewilldowillofGod.html

  God has made certain decrees which are fixed and immovable: for instance,—God set the sun, the moon, and the stars in the heavens, and gave them their laws, conditions and bounds, which they cannot pass, except by His commandments; they all move in perfect harmony in their sphere and order, and are as lights, wonders and signs unto us. The sea also has its bounds which it cannot pass. God has set many signs on the earth, as well as in the heavens; for instance, the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field—all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law or principle. Upon the same principle do I contend that baptism is a sign ordained of God, for the believer in Christ to take upon himself in order to enter into the kingdom of God, "for except ye are born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God," said the Savior. It is a sign and a commandment which God has set for man to enter into His kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain; for God will not receive them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted, for they have not obeyed the ordinances, nor attended to the signs which God ordained for the salvation of man, to prepare him for, and give him a title to, a celestial glory; and God had decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands.
  Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  What is the sign of the healing of the sick? The laying on of hands is the sign or way marked out by James, and the custom of the ancient Saints as ordered by the Lord, and we cannot obtain the blessing by pursuing any other course except the way marked out by the Lord. What if we should attempt to get the gift of the Holy Ghost through any other means except the signs or way which God hath appointed—would we obtain it? Certainly not; all other means would fail. The Lord says do so and so, and I will bless you.
  There are certain key words and signs belonging to the Priesthood which must be observed in order to obtain the blessing. The sign of Peter was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, with the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost; and in no other way is the gift of the Holy Ghost obtained. (History of the Church, 4:554-557)

Take away the sign and the covenant and ordinance is incomplete.  To say the covenant is what is important is to imply you can have the covenant without the sign.  You cannot.

All ordinances are a symbolic representation of an inner commitment. The symbols change as language change. The inner commitment is what's important. 

I don't get this "sign" stuff, though. That's an odd term to use. 

[Danzo]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

History is one, extremely biased, unreliable method of learning about the past. 

Other methods include memories, oral traditions, archaeology and revelation.

Each has its advantages and weaknesses.  Knowledge of the past will always be limited. 

It is dangerous to base ones beliefs on something so limited.

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

That's a good point. For instance, the way in which the sermon on the mount is laid out is a trope. It's mean to recall Moses on Mount Sinai. That doesn't mean that Jesus never said any of those things (although unlikely all at once in that specific setting). I'm certainly not assuming that everything is ahistorical, as I've already said. But history needs to be reconstructed from the scriptures. You can't read the scriptures as if they were written like histories, because they weren't. 

Other tropes, like the birth narratives, are likely completely invented from whole cloth (minus the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph). 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

History is one, extremely biased, unreliable method of learning about the past. 

You're basing this judgement on what?

 

Quote

Other methods include memories, oral traditions, archaeology and revelation.

History is more reliable than revelation for getting at history. Historians use memories, oral traditions and archaeology to reconstruct history, so I'm not sure what you intend to mean here. 

 

Quote

Each has its advantages and weaknesses.  Knowledge of the past will always be limited. 

It is dangerous to base ones beliefs on something so limited.

History is the just worst way to understand what happened in the past, except all the other alternative options that have ever been tried. 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a good point. For instance, the way in which the sermon on the mount is laid out is a trope. It's mean to recall Moses on Mount Sinai. That doesn't mean that Jesus never said any of those things (although unlikely all at once in that specific setting). I'm certainly not assuming that everything is ahistorical, as I've already said. But history needs to be reconstructed from the scriptures. You can't read the scriptures as if they were written like histories, because they weren't. 

Other tropes, like the birth narratives, are likely completely invented from whole cloth (minus the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph). 

I suspect we'll disagree about what to throw out. I don't think Jesus' narratives are complete inventions. I'd add that a good way to see this is play is just look at many stories from our own religious tradition where we have reasonable historical information. People tend to put events into narratives and the narratives fit various tropes. Sometimes that distorts them somewhat.

Complicating this is that the fact people have expectations related to tropes tends to imply that people engage in religious traditions in these quasi-ritualistic fashions. We go off into the mountains or forests to pray. Our struggles go on until we have a transformational experience. This was much more pronounced of course for the ancient world in that they typically saw the repetitive as most true whereas culturally since the rise of modernism there's a focus on the novel. So there is a huge cultural shift.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

All ordinances are a symbolic representation of an inner commitment. The symbols change as language change. The inner commitment is what's important.

If that were the case Christ would never have been baptized.  He had a perfect inner commitment.  He had no sins and nothing to repent of.
And yet he still entered the waters of baptism.

Quote

I don't get this "sign" stuff, though. That's an odd term to use.

All covenants have signs displayed by those who are under the covenant.
That is found in every scripture, every religion and culture.
Even atheists wear wedding rings.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If that were the case Christ would never have been baptized.  He had a perfect inner commitment.  He had no sins and nothing to repent of.
And yet he still entered the waters of baptism.

Baptism was never about the water. It was about the inner commitment. Jesus was a disciple of John. If John had picked a different symbol, Jesus would have done that. 

 

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

All covenants have signs displayed by those who are under the covenant.
That is found in every scripture, every religion and culture.
Even atheists wear wedding rings.

What is the sign of baptism? Is it something beyond the baptism itself?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

History is more reliable than revelation for getting at history. Historians use memories, oral traditions and archaeology to reconstruct history, so I'm not sure what you intend to mean here. 

 

The reconstruction will always be incomplete and biased

Quick example.  

The US civil war took 4 years.  To get a complete history of this war you could have a camera strapped to a soldier for the four years, then you would have a complete history, but it would take four years to watch. But you still wouldn't have a complete history. To get something complete you would have to have a camera on every participant, review it would take centuries, for just a four year event.   Any historical analysis of the event will then be incomplete, only highlighting things the historian thinks are important and discarding all else, including what others might feel are important.

Revelation is a much better way to find out what is important, when it comes to religious items.

 

When it comes using scriptures and other ancient documents I like to subscribe to the "Higher Naivete"

"…And so there is this critical school that says, “I won’t believe anything unless it is proven to me.” At the other extreme, there’s me, the most gullible historian imaginable. My principle is this. I believe anything written in ancient Latin or Greek, unless I can’t…Otherwise, you've got to convince me that they’re not true."

"…Now, you might think of this as, indeed, gullible. A former colleague of mine put the thing very, very well. He spoke about, and I like to claim this approach, the position of scholarship to which we call the higher naiveté. The way this works is, you start out, you don't know anything, and you’re naïve. You believe everything. Next, you get a college education and you don't believe anything, and then you reach the level of wisdom, the higher naiveté, and you know what to believe even though you can’t prove it. Okay, be warned; I'm a practitioner of the higher naiveté. So, I think the way to deal with legends is to regard them as different from essentially sophisticated historical statements, but as possibly deriving from facts, which have obviously been distorted and misunderstood, misused and so on. But it would be reckless, it seems to me, to just put them aside and not ask yourself the question, ‘Can there be something believable at the root of this?” " -Donald Kagan https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/“-higher-naiveté”-and-revolution-modern-learning

 

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect we'll disagree about what to throw out. I don't think Jesus' narratives are complete inventions. I'd add that a good way to see this is play is just look at many stories from our own religious tradition where we have reasonable historical information. People tend to put events into narratives and the narratives fit various tropes. Sometimes that distorts them somewhat.

Complicating this is that the fact people have expectations related to tropes tends to imply that people engage in religious traditions in these quasi-ritualistic fashions. We go off into the mountains or forests to pray. Our struggles go on until we have a transformational experience. This was much more pronounced of course for the ancient world in that they typically saw the repetitive as most true whereas culturally since the rise of modernism there's a focus on the novel. So there is a huge cultural shift.

Right, and the intent of good critical scholarship is to try to tease out what is historical from the narratives that exist. 

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The reconstruction will always be incomplete and biased

Quick example.  

The US civil war took 4 years.  To get a complete history of this war you could have a camera strapped to a soldier for the four years, then you would have a complete history, but it would take four years to watch. But you still wouldn't have a complete history. To get something complete you would have to have a camera on every participant, review it would take centuries, for just a four year event.   Any historical analysis of the event will then be incomplete, only highlighting things the historian thinks are important and discarding all else, including what others might feel are important.

I don't disagree at all. History is always incomplete and distorted, even if it's relatively good.

 

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Revelation is a much better way to find out what is important, when it comes to religious items.

Yes, revelation is excellent for that purpose. But finding out what is important is not the same thing as finding out what happened.

 

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

When it comes using scriptures and other ancient documents I like to subscribe to the "Higher Naivete"

"…And so there is this critical school that says, “I won’t believe anything unless it is proven to me.” At the other extreme, there’s me, the most gullible historian imaginable. My principle is this. I believe anything written in ancient Latin or Greek, unless I can’t…Otherwise, you've got to convince me that they’re not true."

"…Now, you might think of this as, indeed, gullible. A former colleague of mine put the thing very, very well. He spoke about, and I like to claim this approach, the position of scholarship to which we call the higher naiveté. The way this works is, you start out, you don't know anything, and you’re naïve. You believe everything. Next, you get a college education and you don't believe anything, and then you reach the level of wisdom, the higher naiveté, and you know what to believe even though you can’t prove it. Okay, be warned; I'm a practitioner of the higher naiveté. So, I think the way to deal with legends is to regard them as different from essentially sophisticated historical statements, but as possibly deriving from facts, which have obviously been distorted and misunderstood, misused and so on. But it would be reckless, it seems to me, to just put them aside and not ask yourself the question, ‘Can there be something believable at the root of this?” " -Donald Kagan https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/“-higher-naiveté”-and-revolution-modern-learning

 

The problem is, when dealing with the ancient world, "histories" are absolutely replete with miracle stories, including the ascension and deification of Caesar Augustus and Julius Caesar, divine parentage of many of the political leaders, and so forth. Do you accept every miracle ever written about in the ancient world, unless someone can prove they didn't happen (which is of course impossible)?

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Baptism was never about the water. It was about the inner commitment. Jesus was a disciple of John. If John had picked a different symbol, Jesus would have done that.

 

What is the sign of baptism? Is it something beyond the baptism itself?

Baptism (in water) is the sign of the covenant.
It wasn't chosen by John, but by God before the foundations of the earth (and probably on every previous earth too).

Moses 6:64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

Same ordinance from the beginning.  Same covenant, same sign.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Baptism (in water) is the sign of the covenant.
It wasn't chosen by John, but by God before the foundations of the earth (and probably on every previous earth too).

That's a theological position. A historical position is that the baptism evolved from the mikveh, a second temple Jewish purification ritual. These would have been self administered - John wouldn't have been in the water baptizing people like we do it today. The baptizer was a witness only. John's baptism apparently went beyond ritual purity, and was a sign of repentance. It was also a little bit political, from his choice of the part of the river Jordan where Israel had supposedly crossed to conquer Canaan.

 

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Moses 6:64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

Same ordinance from the beginning.  Same covenant, same sign.

Again, that's where doctrine and history part ways. 

[Danzo]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem is, when dealing with the ancient world, "histories" are absolutely replete with miracle stories, including the ascension and deification of Caesar Augustus and Julius Caesar, divine parentage of many of the political leaders, and so forth. Do you accept every miracle ever written about in the ancient world, unless someone can prove they didn't happen (which is of course impossible)?

When people tell me a story, even when I think it is unlikely, I try to withhold judgement unless it affects me personally.

If we thow out everything that was written because it doesn't comply with our standards of evidence then History would be a very short subject.  At some point you have to just believe the author.

 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When people tell me a story, even when I think it is unlikely, I try to withhold judgement unless it affects me personally.

If we thow out everything that was written because it doesn't comply with our standards of evidence then History would be a very short subject.  At some point you have to just believe the author.

 

Good to know that Caesar's soul ascended to heaven in the form of a comet.

[halconero]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The word is "represents'

The second sentence was in jest.

[probablyHagoth7]

On 4/11/2017 at 1:38 PM, Gray said:

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? ...God doesn't seem to be interested in giving that sort of information to humanity. 

Oh, but God is interested in giving that sort of thing. Just as he is interested in sharing any good gift we might seek/request. The key is to seek/request. That is when we find.

On 4/11/2017 at 1:38 PM, Gray said:

God never revealed, through prophets, any significant information related to the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, etc.

I respectfully beg to differ. Innovators in any subject are prophets within their own sphere, receiving/revealing what God chooses to disclose in response to their diligent searching, as/when he sees fit.

On 4/11/2017 at 1:38 PM, Gray said:

Why would history be any different?

History is *not* any different.

Things in the past that are otherwise lost/unknowable can either remain hidden, or be revealed. One of the coolest events in secular history, in my opinion, was the unusual discovery of two related ancient objects, found a century apart, but within a stone's throw of one another. The discoveries awakened an entire region of Europe to a greater interest in their lost/forgotten heritage. One of the greatest poets of that age crystallized that regional fervor/conviction in a lay which outright says that heaven opted to reveal those two things to humble people in his own due time...in response to others earnestly seeking for a glimpse of their nation's past. The account and impact of those golden relics helped pave the way for a rising generation to be more receptive (than those of any other contemporary nation) to the message of the Nephite golden plates.

And generations later, in a memorable city where I had the privilege to serve, the LDS congregation just happened to meet on a street named after that poet. I later studied that poet's most memorable work during my ever-so-brief sojourn at BYU-Provo.

God does reveal the past. The crossroads between history and revelation you're referring to can involve the realm of a seer. Who is a prophet (and then some). 

"...But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known..." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.15-18?lang=eng#p14

Edited April 13, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

On 4/11/2017 at 2:29 PM, Gray said:

I would understand such accounts as metaphorical or internal experiences. 

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 kept meaning to respond to this but forgot. It's a bit of a myth that the positivists didn't accept that sense of meaning. Carnap for instance wrote poetry. His argument basically was that metaphysics was evocative or meaningful in this poetic sense but not in the sense of propositions and truth values. He makes this point rather strongly in "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language." His notion is that the Lebensgefühl or life attitude was expressed through the arts. Metaphysics is the error based upon a legitimate need to express this life attitude but is expressed in an inadequate way. To Carnap "music is the purest means of expression of the basic attitude because it is entirely free from any reference to objects. The harmonious feeling or attitude, which the metaphysician tries to express in a monistic system, is more clearly expressed in the music of Mozart." (80)

Now I think Carnap and the positivists ultimately wrong. But we should be very clear that they were fully engaged with finding things deep and meaningful. Just not in terms of truth.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I kept meaning to respond to this but forgot. It's a bit of a myth that the positivists didn't accept that sense of meaning. Carnap for instance wrote poetry. His argument basically was that metaphysics was evocative or meaningful in this poetic sense but not in the sense of propositions and truth values. He makes this point rather strongly in "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language." His notion is that the Lebensgefühl or life attitude was expressed through the arts. Metaphysics is the error based upon a legitimate need to express this life attitude but is expressed in an inadequate way. To Carnap "music is the purest means of expression of the basic attitude because it is entirely free from any reference to objects. The harmonious feeling or attitude, which the metaphysician tries to express in a monistic system, is more clearly expressed in the music of Mozart." (80)

Now I think Carnap and the positivists ultimately wrong. But we should be very clear that they were fully engaged with finding things deep and meaningful. Just not in terms of truth.

Thanks Clark. Regardless, I'm still not a positivist.

[Gray]

On 4/13/2017 at 7:45 AM, probablyHagoth7 said:

Oh, but God is interested in giving that sort of thing. Just as he is interested in sharing any good gift we might seek/request. The key is to seek/request. That is when we find.

I respectfully beg to differ. Innovators in any subject are prophets within their own sphere, receiving/revealing what God chooses to disclose in response to their diligent searching, as/when he sees fit.

History is *not* any different.

Things in the past that are otherwise lost/unknowable can either remain hidden, or be revealed. One of the coolest events in secular history, in my opinion, was the unusual discovery of two related ancient objects, found a century apart, but within a stone's throw of one another. The discoveries awakened an entire region of Europe to a greater interest in their lost/forgotten heritage. One of the greatest poets of that age crystallized that regional fervor/conviction in a lay which outright says that heaven opted to reveal those two things to humble people in his own due time...in response to others earnestly seeking for a glimpse of their nation's past. The account and impact of those golden relics helped pave the way for a rising generation to be more receptive (than those of any other contemporary nation) to the message of the Nephite golden plates.

And generations later, in a memorable city where I had the privilege to serve, the LDS congregation just happened to meet on a street named after that poet. I later studied that poet's most memorable work during my ever-so-brief sojourn at BYU-Provo.

God does reveal the past. The crossroads between history and revelation you're referring to can involve the realm of a seer. Who is a prophet (and then some). 

"...But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known..." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.15-18?lang=eng#p14

No prophet has successfully revealed that past so far. Do you have any examples in mind? Obvious it's an LDS belief that prophets have this power, but I can't think of any examples where this has ever been confirmed.

Of course, if prophets have the power to reveal facts about the material world, it raises the question - why bother to study it at all? God can just give us all the answers.

Biblically speaking, the traditional role of the prophet is not to reveal hidden history or even to predict the future. The traditional prophetic role is to deliver spiritual teachings.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

On 4/15/2017 at 7:08 AM, Gray said:

Thanks Clark. Regardless, I'm still not a positivist.

I'll take you at your word. I should just note that when I use the term positivist I'm not necessarily using it in a pejorative way. I think the positivists are very misunderstood and are far too often treated like a boogeyman. But when someone makes a division between the evocative or artistic sense of a text from the truth value in a historic or scientific sense that's a positivist move. As I said I'll take  you at your word you're not doing that. That is a rather common approach by many to salvaging  a kind of utility for scripture and religion.

Edited April 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

"I'll take you at my word"

You might want to edit that.

[clarkgoble]

On 4/15/2017 at 3:26 PM, Calm said:

"I'll take you at my word"

You might want to edit that.

Doh! Typo. Really I swear. Fixed.

[smac97]

Here is a JBMS article which touches on this topic (pp. 15-16, footnote 23): Sproat/ Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Gray]

On 4/15/2017 at 0:15 PM, clarkgoble said:

I'll take you at your word. I should just note that when I use the term positivist I'm not necessarily using it in a pejorative way. I think the positivists are very misunderstood and are far too often treated like a boogeyman. But when someone makes a division between the evocative or artistic sense of a text from the truth value in a historic or scientific sense that's a positivist move. As I said I'll take  you at your word you're not doing that. That is a rather common approach by many to salvaging  a kind of utility for scripture and religion.

Well, I'm no expert on positivism, but the wikipedia summary on the subject doesn't describe my views at ALL:

 

Quote

Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that certain ("positive") knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge.[1] 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Gray