Are cureloms imaginary?

[USU78]

Hmmm.  I'm wondering why nobody brought up that just because Moroni believed that Ether believed that their ancients hunted or herded cureloms and cumoms [or something else], doesn't mean those ancients did.  It's a significant issue, in my view.  Old documents and other old writings are often inaccurate, self-serving, and downright fictive.

What that means, however, is quite another matter  ...  as MFB states, it has little to do with Mormonism as a religion and world view.

[Oliblish]

On 7/6/2017 at 9:35 PM, Honorentheos said:

Anyway, the Book of Mormon is clearly referring to the Tower of Babel in it's own text in Omni. The heading in Ether 1 calls it the Tower of Babel as well. The headings aren't scripture? What's the point of having living prophets again?

I agree that the Book of Mormon is referring to the Tower of Babel.  Joseph Smith clearly believed this as well.

In the Wentworth Letter Joseph Smith writes:

Quote

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

Wentworth Letter contents can be found in the July 2002 Ensign here:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

[Stargazer]

On 7/8/2017 at 6:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, Stargazer, I am still adding data to that book, and have had a series of reverses and other tasks which had to be taken care of immediately.  And here it is halfway thru  2017.

Yep, I know the feeling: being eaten alive by gnats!

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Hmmm.  I'm wondering why nobody brought up that just because Moroni believed that Ether believed that their ancients hunted or herded cureloms and cumoms [or something else], doesn't mean those ancients did.  It's a significant issue, in my view.  Old documents and other old writings are often inaccurate, self-serving, and downright fictive.

What that means, however, is quite another matter  ...  as MFB states, it has little to do with Mormonism as a religion and world view.

I just remembered we used to have a user here called Mighty Curelom.  He last visited in 2011.  I guess he got tired of mocking.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Stargazer

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

....to face ambiguity and lack of certainty and create your own vision of the world from matter unorganized..

?

The core of what you seem to be taking issue with is that some people opt to create things differently from your tastes, and part of their supposed offense is that they organize/draw from matter that doesn't happen to be in your preferred list of building blocks. 

Is the playground *really* that small?

It's as if someone picks up a screwdriver, but you view it to be the sole age of the hammer. 

Is there good reason to be dismissive of those who are wired differently than you, who therefore assess and approach challenges differently than you, looking to solve different issues for/with different people, and who therefore arrive at seemingly different constructs than you?

Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

Edited July 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I get the sense that both you and mfbukowski are trying to back me into the positivisms corner...and as I stated earlier...I'm not that dogmatic in my worldview...however I am very skeptical of metaphysical or mystical super powers that remain untestable.  I tend to want evidence for fanciful claims and am skeptical of claims that are dependent on feelings for support.  

Yep, that is positivism

What you do not understand is that religion and morality have no basis BUT feelings.

Murdering babies is disgusting and repugnant. There us no logic to that.

Using others for my selfish ends does not make me feel good about myself

I need no factual evidence to know that.

Having meaning in your life is totally subjective. What's your pupose in life? What do you want to leave as a legacy for having been on this planet? 

These questions cannot be determined by objective evidence.

You are barking up the wrong tree for these questions.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And by the way, I have no clue why cureloms being imaginary or not has anything to do with anything.

I suppose it is supposed to have something to do with the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon and therefore somehow the "truth" of Mormonism and therefore somehow the notion that IF cureloms are imaginary then so is God and Mormonism.

That is a pretty ridiculous conclusion when the issue is whether or not Mormonism gives meaning to the lives of the believers, and makes them better humans.  As a TBM myself I think that the answer to that is without a doubt in the affirmative

So where's the beef?

 

No beef. Only curelom roast beast.  

[Honorentheos]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Idiocy. Compatiblism.

Denialism.

[Honorentheos]

4 hours ago, Oliblish said:

I agree that the Book of Mormon is referring to the Tower of Babel.  Joseph Smith clearly believed this as well.

In the Wentworth Letter Joseph Smith writes:

Wentworth Letter contents can be found in the July 2002 Ensign here:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

Nice!

[Honorentheos]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I really think we're equivocating over terms - particularly words like faith or choice.

Oh? Joseph Smith made a weird claim that faith is the primary motivation force that MFB echos in his post. In Joseph Smith's view faith is why people wake up, get out of bed, and basically do what they do in a day.

The ALMA 32 portrait of faith is one of chosing to believe, so in the case of Mormonism I think the two get conflated into one meaning. But that does damage to how most people use the term faith, and would not associate it so closely with simple motivation for action or even choice.

But assuming the Joseph Smith perogative, we would then find faith in conflict with the question of free will if faith is the primary motivating force for every single action people undertake. That creates a dilemma. One is either compelled to act and their faith is pre-determined if one follows the logic behind the illusion of free will. Or one is arguing that faith itself in only possible if the illusion of free will is wrong and free will is a thing.

I don't see that as equivocating at all.

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What you do not understand is that religion and morality have no basis BUT feelings.

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.... If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.”
Charles Darwin

 

 

ETA: just to clarify, this postulate you give can be balanced out by subtracting religion which is adding nothing to the claim you made. Thanks for making such a great point!

Edited July 12, 2017 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.... If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.”
Charles Darwin

 

 

ETA: just to clarify, this postulate you give can be balanced out by subtracting religion which is adding nothing to the claim you made. Thanks for making such a great point!

What a confused mish-mash!

I agree with Darwin that both men who do not have a belief in a personal God follow their instincts and so do men who DO- we call those instincts "the spirit".  Darwin hits the nail on the head.  You cannot even see how that supports my case.  None of us can live without instincts and emotions which require absolutely no "evidence" for their foundation

That goes back to the Schiller discussion before about spieltrieb.

In either case the result is religion with God or without God but it is still religion.  Religion is not about facts it is about your personal assessment of what gives you purpose in life- in other words what gives you EMOTIONAL satisfaction.

You cannot get it through your head that it is not about facts about an invisible being but what we construct about that invisible being giving us comfort and satisfaction and making sense to us individually and confirmed by a deep sense of satisfaction in our hearts.  It is like finding your home and knowing that this is where you belong.  None of that is remotely based on evidence- it is all emotion.  It is like finding the right spouse and looking back after 40 years with deep understanding that you made the right decision.  THAT is what religion is like.

Yet again I post this brilliant piece by a dying atheist which you will neither read, critique or understand apparently

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Of course religion adds nothing to the claim- religion is about simply one part of the greater definition of "what gives us emotional satisfaction" including love, happiness and peace and lack of fear about the unknown in our lives, it is simply a one-liner in a list of what humans need to feel emotionally to be fully functioning and fulfilled.

You just can't get that.  And you show glee proving you don't understand the central assertion by stating it partially yourself.  Quit while you are behind, but rock on amigo!

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

But that does damage to how most people use the term faith, and would not associate it so closely with simple motivation for action or even choice.

Simply because "most people" never think about it.  Odd for a student of Nietzsche to find the thoughts of "most people" something to even care about, but to use it as an argument to prove something is correct because most people think that way?

Are you kidding?

I have no clue what this line of argumentation has to do with anything.  Most people do not think about anything at all except getting their paycheck and playing candy crush or drinking beer

I don't think I am compelled to accept what their idea of faith is, in fact I feel compelled to get them to think, period.  It would be nice if they thought about faith but any advancement would be wonderful

Edited July 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In either case the result is religion with God or without God but it is still religion.  Religion is not about facts it is about your personal assessment of what gives you purpose in life- in other words what gives you EMOTIONAL satisfaction.

That is taking serious liberties with definitions, amigo. While we agree religion is not about facts, it also isn't about "personal" anything. Religion is a function >1. Otherwise it's just personal spiritual belief.

And yeah, say what you said minus religion and it says exactly what Darwin said. Minus religion, one still has morality based on intuition and doing well when it come to others...if one cares to reduce ethics down in that manner. Some don't but since you do I think it's helpful for those who don't really get what you're saying most of the time to contextualize it in a way that isn't the typical hand-waving shorthand of "Wittgenstein this" and "Rorty that". So, yeah! Rock on, amigo!

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Simply because "most people" never think about it.  Odd for a student of Nietzsche to find the thoughts of "most people" something to even care about, but to use it as an argument to prove something is correct because most people think that way?

Are you kidding?

I have no clue what this line of argumentation has to do with anything.  Most people do not think about anything at all except getting their paycheck and playing candy crush or drinking beer

I don't think I am compelled to accept what their idea of faith is, in fact I feel compelled to get them to think, period.  It would be nice if they thought about faith but any advancement would be wonderful

Of course you, MFB, don't. I couldn't agree more with your personal assessment. But you are an anomaly. While I'm not a student of Nietzsche in the way you imply discipleship, if you were paying attention in that thread you would have read the exchange between Clark and I where we seemed to agree that approximating reality requires triangulating off of others which is necessary to get closest to what may be underneath the apparent to the wirklicher Welt. Damnation is very much a synonym for asserting the primacy of the individual subjective. That is also compatible with Mormonism. Practically essential, actually.

Anyway, faith/action/choice are conflated by Smith in the Lectures on Faith in a way that is really foreign to how most people understand them, and I think most people are closer than Smith by a long ways. Will, free or otherwise, is choice of a sorts but not synonymous with motivation. Motivation is largely nonconscious behavior. State of the science, amigo.

[Honorentheos]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet again I post this brilliant piece by a dying atheist which you will neither read, critique or understand apparently

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

 

Ordered it. I'll read the book and we can discuss in it's own thread.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

That is taking serious liberties with definitions, amigo. While we agree religion is not about facts, it also isn't about "personal" anything. Religion is a function >1. Otherwise it's just personal spiritual belief.

And yeah, say what you said minus religion and it says exactly what Darwin said. Minus religion, one still has morality based on intuition and doing well when it come to others...if one cares to reduce ethics down in that manner. Some don't but since you do I think it's helpful for those who don't really get what you're saying most of the time to contextualize it in a way that isn't the typical hand-waving shorthand of "Wittgenstein this" and "Rorty that". So, yeah! Rock on, amigo!

Religion is personal spiritual belief.

Brilliant

Bye

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Ordered it. I'll read the book and we can discuss in it's own thread.

I have other plans for that book

[Honorentheos]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Religion is personal spiritual belief.

Brilliant

Bye

Care to find someone with authority who agrees with you on that? That's not a good play in your language game, amigo. Common meanings of religion include norms values and other shared cultural artifacts. That's kinda why we have a way of distinguishing between "religion" and "personal spiritual beliefs" as concepts.

[Honorentheos]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

I have other plans for that book

Kinky, but TMI.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep, that is positivism

What you do not understand is that religion and morality have no basis BUT feelings.

Murdering babies is disgusting and repugnant. There us no logic to that.

Using others for my selfish ends does not make me feel good about myself

I need no factual evidence to know that.

Having meaning in your life is totally subjective. What's your pupose in life? What do you want to leave as a legacy for having been on this planet? 

These questions cannot be determined by objective evidence.

You are barking up the wrong tree for these questions.

Despite your thread high jack, I refuse to be accused of moral relativism 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Despite your thread high jack, I refuse to be accused of moral relativism 

Good for you, but you can't stop people from accusing you of moral relativism.  You can, however, deny that you're a moral relativist!

Sorry, just being a syntax/meaning schoolmarm.

I'll shut up now.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I appreciate your having finally being straight-forward about this rather than dismissing the majority view that the BoM is not a historically accurate text. When it comes down to it, there is no real reasonable way to claim cureloms are anything but imaginary. A pleasent fiction if you will. You may claim extraordinary evidence in the form of a faith-confirming or faith-causing event specific to your faith in the historical periscope of the BoM which extends into the subject of cureloms. And this compels you to confabulate explanations for cureloms. But this second sentence of your I quote above is exactly right when it draws a line.

You seem confused by what I said about the difference between faith and reason -- very traditional differences, which I would have assumed are familiar to you.  Apparently here, for the sake of being pugnacious, you deliberately miss the point.

Any detective would be very foolish to immediately adopt an apriori belief (faith) that John Doe was guilty of the crime, instead of basing his conclusions on the hard, forensic evidence.  That doesn't mean that a hunch might not be valuable at the outset, but it is only a hunch which has to be proved or denied according to the evidence.  QED.  You seem to jettison such standards, preferring to tar and feather perceived opponents with false versions of their own claims, and allowing your mere unproven hunches to become truth.  Anyone calling you on it is perforce a confabulator because you have allowed your own strawmen to become normative and real.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for sharing this link Robert...I've thoroughly enjoyed listening to it.  Plus its given me access to another interesting podcast I can add to my podcast feed.  Are you aware that the host, Josuha Tongol, has left Religion?  Its just a recent development so you may not be aware...but he has offered some very interesting reasoning for why he has walked away from Christianity as well in some of his more recent podcasts if you're interested.

With respect to this particular link however...is the POV of the guest how you view the Bible?  More of a macro biblical pov instead of a micro biblical pov? Is this how you also see the Book of Mormon?  You gloss over its problems and focus on what value you can take from the book? 

I particularly enjoyed the guests insights into the story of Job. I had never considered the story of Job in that particular framework...as a counter to the over arching story in the Bible that evil is met with punishment and good is met with reward...and yet Job was good, did nothing wrong and yet God dealt him unimaginable sickness, pain, loss of loved ones etc...showing that in life being good does not necessarily mean we will be rewarded nor being evil equal consequences (at least in this life ha ha).

Any how...thanks again...I too recommend this podcast...it does offer quite an interesting perspective on how to access spirituality/God and how to process the ancient religion as found in the Bible with our modern times from the perspective of when it was written taking the biblical claims with a grain of salt and modern skepticism but still finding value in its message that can still be applied to our modern lives through a less literal interpretation.

I don't necessarily agree with Enns on everything, and he certainly doesn't agree with me (he would look askance at any Book of Mormon believer, I imagine), but he does reflect modern biblical scholarship, and it is important to study his views for that reason alone.   Since you enjoyed his podcast, I think that you would find another of his recent lectures very meaningful:  Peter Enns, “The Bible Tells Me So,” Spring Arbor Univ (SAU), Michigan, Focus 2017 Keynote 1, Feb 14, 2017, video online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHU6eIlhWOk .  Some of what he says does fit my own perspective on the nature of the Bible as man's fallible attempt to tell the story of God.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I get the sense that both you and mfbukowski are trying to back me into the positivisms corner...and as I stated earlier...I'm not that dogmatic in my worldview...however I am very skeptical of metaphysical or mystical super powers that remain untestable.  I tend to want evidence for fanciful claims and am skeptical of claims that are dependent on feelings for support.  I reject priesthood power claims, a god that intercedes in our life or any other claims of the metaphysical....but ethics and symphonies...you have my attention.

There is nothing at all wrong with such preferences by you, and you share that general desire with a great many others.  Especially in modern times.  The problem comes in your uneven application of that standard to everything.  If you become too persnickity, then everything is subject to severe question.  Not sure that you will find it practical to go that far.  Moreover, the standard of evidence you apply may be far too great and unreasonable.  It is probably best to temper our demands a bit for absolute proof.  We are rarely going to find it.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Robert F. Smith