Are cureloms imaginary?

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

God told Abraham to lie

God told Abraham that Sarai should tell Pharaoh that she was Abraham's sister, which she was.

"And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12)

(I'm assuming this is what you are talking about.)

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by ksfisher

[Johnnie Cake]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And if that lie saved lives, so what?

immaterial to the point...God told Abraham to lie

[Johnnie Cake]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

God told Abraham that Sarai should tell Pharaoh that she was Abraham's sister, which she was.

"And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12)

(I'm assuming this is what you are talking about.)

 

ksfisher: 1 Johnnie Cake: 0

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

immaterial to the point...God told Abraham to lie

What was the point?  That all lies are immoral; therefore, G-d could/should/would not suggest that Abram lie to save his own neck?  If it is, then you've got a real problem with the argument you're making.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

ksfisher: 1 Johnnie Cake: 0

c'mon son!

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What was the point?  That all lies are immoral; therefore, G-d could/should/would not suggest that Abram lie to save his own neck?  If it is, then you've got a real problem with the argument you're making.

I've already back tracked on this argument...ksfisher kicked my arse

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

c'mon son!

??? huh?  You beat me...I concede the point...

 

Now bout those cureloms...

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

??? huh?  You beat me...I concede the point...

 

Now bout those cureloms...

 

Sorry, I was channeling Ed Lover.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've already back tracked on this argument...ksfisher kicked my arse

Ah, c'mon, play with me!  

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sorry, I was channeling Ed Lover.

Reality to Johnnie..."dude you're getting old"    

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

 

Now bout those cureloms...

 

First - if you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and that he, by the power of the Holy Spirit, translated an ancient record, then the question is moot.

Second - If you do accept that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record then the best we can say is that the writers of the Book of Mormon believed that cureloms existed.  Beyond that there is really not enough information available at the present time to infer anything additional.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

First - if you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and that he, by the power of the Holy Spirit, translated an ancient record, then the question is moot.

Second - If you do accept that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record then the best we can say is that the writers of the Book of Mormon believed that cureloms existed.  Beyond that there is really not enough information available at the present time to infer anything additional.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...you have just substantiated my entire argument in this thread.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

immaterial to the point...God told Abraham to lie

No, He didn't. As has already been pointed out to you. Sarah was his half-sister. He married his half-sister. So if the Pharaoh asked who she was this was to be her response - I'm Abraham's sister. While she was also Abraham's wife, that fact need not come out unless it became necessary. If that is a lie then my guess is you'll never be happy with God.  He conceals things in His word. He didn't come right out and tell the Jews they were going to crucify their Savior, because then they wouldn't have done it.

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to ^aconceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

PS. Nevermind, I see you conceded the point. You've got to watch those anti-Christian sites - they often run into the same difficulties as the anti-Mormon ones.

Edited July 12, 2017 by RevTestament

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you, thank you, thank you...you have just substantiated my entire argument in this thread.

If I recall correctly your argument is

"cureloms never existed because the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and fictional animals do not exist in the real world."

which is not really my point.  

Although after so many pages of a thread it's hard to recall who believes what.

Edited July 12, 2017 by ksfisher

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

What was the point?  That all lies are immoral; therefore, G-d could/should/would not suggest that Abram lie to save his own neck?  If it is, then you've got a real problem with the argument you're making.

He sustains situational ethics but says one lie that is not even a "lie" is wrong.

I see a teeny problem with that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you, thank you, thank you...you have just substantiated my entire argument in this thread.

uh not quite.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't the regress of Gods in the King Follet Discourse allow self-ascribed relativists like Mark to deal with this?

In what sense? I don't think Mormons deny morality to many of God's decrees either directly or in a secondary sense. (The secondary sense of obedience - much like it's not a moral issue when I tell my kids not to eat ice cream before dinner but it's moral in that they are consciously disobeying me.) So for instance I have a hard time seeing a coffee proscription as moral, but because I've made a covenant to abide by that proscription it becomes moral. I think Mark's argument is that all morality reduces to that sort of arrangement.

What do you mean by "moral realism has never worked in the real world?" It comes off like a category error. I'm not sure realism is a question of what works but rather a question of why something works.

I think you need to read more ethics. Let me give an example of one of the more expansive ethical theories until Kantianism made a comeback with Rawls: Utilitarianism. It first unarguably led to pretty significant changes in social behavior in the west. It's an example of a moral realist theory since what counts as moral doesn't depend upon what any finite group thinks. So the idea that God is necessary for morality really seems odd.

Now we can of course quibble with this. We can argue how much J. S. Mill really was an utilitarian for instance. We can debate whether the semantics behind utilitarianism is correct. (Is the good what makes people the most happy?) We can perhaps debate that even if that defines the good it doesn't explain why one should be good. But overall it's a fairly expansive important moral system without depending upon God.

The reason I'm skeptical he's a true positivist is that I don't think he's arguing they're meaningless. I think he's saying they're not trustworthy. But he also might well simply appeal to evolution much as Michael Sherman tries to in The Science of Good and Evil. Now I think Sherman's work is flawed for a variety of reasons. However in terms of what he thinks, it's clear he thinks he can scientifically investigate good and evil, regardless of whether his particular arguments are wrong. In that alone he's quite different from a positivist who would think Sherman's whole project is doomed and meaningless. (And give arguments for what Sherman is simply investigating what social norms arise by evolution rather than really establishing ethics)

Yep I think you are right on all your replies to me here.  I was being sloppy on the moral relativism comment because I am used to not having anyone around to catch me being sloppy.  

And I agree with you about Sherman- that is not philosophy at all.  This is a better attempt I think. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/evolution-morality

But as you point out, I have no problem with the notion that "morality evolved" based on two reasons- reason 1 is the Didache which speaks of the "way of life" and the "way of death", essentially saying that following the commandments has survival value.  (totally a modern interpretation of the text, I readily admit). Human peace and happiness - therefore resulting in more babies- is based on following the commandments, to put it bluntly.  I mean look at family size in Utah if you need evidence.

On the other hand we also have the major point in our theology about the Council of the Gods and eternal progression which to me can be interpreted in terms of a kind of "evolution" of the Gods themselves.   I wasn't kidding when I said that for me humanism is theology if God is Human.

Adam and Eve were given the commandment to "multipy and replenish the earth"- why? To become exalted which also increases Our Father's kingdom.  So the Culture of the Gods is apparently totally linked to "filling the measure of your creation and having joy in your posterity".  Populations increase in a peaceful and abundant environment and that would presumably include the Celestial Kingdom as it is postulated to be, so in a sense it is not "survival of the fittest" but more the notion that the "most righteous continue to have families while the less righteous do not".  So yes that is a kind of evolution I would think.

I see that a great synthesis of humanism and Mormonism is possible, making us "theistic humanists"- and IF this happens I see no reason why we could not become truly the "stone cut without hands"

Can you imagine a secular Mormonism where we teach humanity that all they already believe is right here in the gospel in a different vocabulary including the apotheosis of the human Family?   That the greatest humanistic values are found in "family values" which were created precisely to cause us to have "joy in our posterity" and to "be all you can be"?

If it works for the Army, why not us?

That is my vision for what at this moment is a very uncertain future for both Mormonism AND secularism.

[RevTestament]

Quote

This is where Atheism gets interesting - trying to define their moral system without God. Typically it involves stomping their foot and saying it is just right....

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you need to read more ethics.

 

No.... please don't make me.

Quote

Let me give an example of one of the more expansive ethical theories until Kantianism made a comeback with Rawls: Utilitarianism. It first unarguably led to pretty significant changes in social behavior in the west. It's an example of a moral realist theory since what counts as moral doesn't depend upon what any finite group thinks. So the idea that God is necessary for morality really seems odd.

Ethical theories are just that - theories. They are devised by men, and differ between men. Atheists don't necessarily agree with any of them. There is no agreed standard "right."  It is basically rules which men agree to follow among themselves. Absent such agreement, an atheist is not bound by them, and end up playing their own, albeit rogue, god.

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Ethical theories are just that - theories. They are devised by men, and differ between men. Atheists don't necessarily agree with any of them. There is no agreed standard "right."  It is basically rules which men agree to follow among themselves. Absent such agreement, an atheist is not bound by them, and end up playing their own, albeit rogue, god.

There's no agreed upon "right" among theists either, so that seems an odd critique. The issue isn't whether ones ethics are correct, but rather whether there are ways of having ethics for an atheist. The critique you make is just as true of theists and atheists. After all Protestants formed due to not feeling bound by tradition. Which quickly caused many splits which are still going on. Non-denominational types think that all that matters is the individual to God. But as a practical matter that often entails playing by their own "god" or at least their own perception of God. So what's the difference? 

I should add that I'm pretty suspicious of determinative ethics like Utilitarianism. I find virtue ethics much more plausible where there is no "right answer" but there are virtuous people who respond to ethical demands with an ethical character.

Edited July 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

23 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't give you rep points do to my restricted status...but if I could you've earn several from me

Thanks, and likewise. It took me a while to figure out why you didn't have the little green arrow next to your rep point total in each post.

[Honorentheos]

17 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

ksfisher: 1 Johnnie Cake: 0

I wouldn't call the game at this point. Maybe a commercial break.

The account being referred to occurs in three places in Mormon scripture. Two of them are in Genesis which is shared with other Judeo-Christian religious traditions. But the third is uniquely Mormon. And it's the third one, the uniquely Mormon one, where Abraham is told by God to lie not the Genesis accounts. The two Genesis accounts are two versions of a story likely passed around about the legendary Abraham, one involving Pharoah and the other a regional King named Abimelech. In both Genesis accounts it's understood that their intent was to sleep with Sarai and it's more or less understood in the first account with Pharaoh that she became Pharaoh's concubine. Oh, and Abraham got paid for it, too.

Anyway, most other traditions do not put the lie in God's mouth but in Abraham's, and the earlier account in Genesis 12 is the one that has 1) Abraham lying, 2) Abraham getting paid by Pharaoh for Sarai becoming his concubine, 3) Sarai become Pharaoh's concubine with all that implies. It's a difficult story but is understood to the work of the earliest of the authors, the J-author. No attempt is made to justify the lie beyond it being to save Abraham from being killed leaving Sarai to be Pharaoh's concubine the remainder of her life.

The account in Genesis 20 is the work of the later E-author and is much more sanitized which one would expect as time tends to rub the edges off of legendary figures. In it, Abraham is still the author of the lie, but it is in Genesis 20 where we get the excuse that she is his half-sister through their father. In it, Abimelech specifically says he was prevented from sleeping with Sarai, and it's all just one big misunderstanding because everyone meant well. Basically, it's a nice clean version for the kiddies.

The Book of Abraham puts all of the words into God's mouth. There is nothing about Sarai being Abraham's sister and it ends rather abruptly like many stories in the BoM tend to do...anyway. Here it is in full:

Abraham 2:22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.

So I'd argue you were right. Using Genesis 20 is taking a scripture from an account where Abraham came up with the lie on his own and is clearly ALL about making sure everyone at home knows nothing bad was intended or happened. If we're talking about God telling Abraham to lie, we need to go to Abraham 2. And that's associated with Genesis 12 being as Pharaoh is the one who might kill Abraham so he can add Sarai to his harem of concubines.

[Honorentheos]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:35 AM, clarkgoble said:

A few thoughts. First off I'd strongly reject the reading of Alma 32 that makes it choosing to believe. I think that's the exact opposite of what it says. Rather it says hoping something was true enough to test it. It's the results of testing that lead to our belief.

If you're interested I have a writeup on this tied to Hebrew conceptions of truth over at T&S.

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/08/35605/.

Let's start with relevant scriptures out of Alma 32.

Quote

 

16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

....

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

 

And here is the relevant section from the Lectures on Faith

 

Quote

 

8 Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

9 From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.

10 If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action, in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

11 Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves, what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity, in all their lawful avocations, callings and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which we had of the existence of things which we had not seen, as yet?—Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion, in order to obtain them? Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? Would you have ever sown if you had not believed that you would reap? Would you have ever planted if you had not believed that you would gather? Would you have ever asked unless you had believed that you would receive? Would you have ever sought unless you had believed that you would have found? Or would you have ever knocked unless you had believed that it would have been opened unto you? In a word, is there any thing that you would have done, either physical or mental, if you had not previously believed? Are not all your exertions, of every kind, dependent on your faith? Or may we not ask, what have you, or what do you possess, which you have not obtained by reason of your faith? Your food, your raiment, your lodgings, are they not all by reason of your faith? Reflect, and ask yourselves, if these things are not so. Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves; and if the moving cause in you, is it not in all other intelligent beings?

12 And as faith is the moving cause of all action in temporal concerns, so it is in spiritual; for the Savior has said, and that truly, that he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. (Mark 16:16)

 

My simple point with which you took issue is saying Smith conflates faith, choice, and motivation into a single cause. In both Alma 32 and the LoF faith is a decision one makes. One does not cast out the seed, one foresees and then acts. How is it that you can take issue with inserting volition in this? It would make no sense if completely removed. Alma 32 has multiple phrases about how much better it is to choose, to choose to be humble, to accept the word, to not be hardhearted and cast out the seed.

So I'd like to see you use the actual scriptures, including the LoF, to make a case that volition is not required in the LDS scheme? I mean, the very purpose of mortality is about seeing how people will choose. The more one digs into what you say, the more radical it appears to really be compared to LDS theology. I admit, I'm very curious to see you expand on this now.

 

ETA: I should add that outside of the LDS faith tradition I actually wouldn't take issue with your concept of how things really work. The idea that we may at best set the direction of our attention isn't a bad concept. But it seems like you are going too far in trying to merge this and your LDS worldview into a coherent framework. But we'll see, I guess.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Honorentheos

[hagoth7]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

...Will he lie? No, for to do so would make him not God.

I think you're conflating two thoughts. Unnecessarily. Hoping you don't mind if I offer to parse this a bit.

Was Abraham not commanded to lie (or speak a half-truth) to spare his family from others' potential unkind mistakes...and thereby spare those others from their own flawed nature?

Wasn't Nephi commanded to dispatch Laban (as punishment for attempted theft/murder, and apparently to spare the lives of Nephi's party, when Laban would have otherwise arisen to seek revenge for the affront of brass-plates theft.)? And years later, wasn't Nephi commanded to fashion weapons that would shed the blood of kin (in defense)?

If God can command such, what does that say of God's nature? Do credible leaders ask of others what they're unwilling to do themselves? If a half-truth was needed in Abraham's day, or the prophet Joseph's day, isn't that essentially what mankind has dealt with for millennia - seeing through a glass darkly. Equipped with only glimpses of truth. Plus a veil of forgetfulness. 

It's impossible for God to lie? That's not quite what the passage says.

It says that for lying, there would be a consequence. And God either couldn't or wouldn't choose to escape such a consequence. 

It says that God can't both lie *and* continue as God. In such a scenario, what if God himself faced a choice of issuing a beneficial half truth, a half-dose - instead of a full dose that might harm the patient/child. What would a God of mercy choose if a half-truth was the specific dosage required to benefit *one subset* of His people?Would God willingly choose the former, thereby (temporarily?) ceasing to be God in the process, casting his *own* crown, to condescend and scoop up mankind?

Couldn't a self-abdicating God, after emptying heaven so to speak (akin to Bethlehem or any briefer, less-dramatic condescension), dust off, rise up, offer to remount, and resume where the task had left off? *How long* would God have to cease to be God both for that passage to be true, and for what I'm suggesting to also  be true? Couldn't such a God, who knows the path trod, dust off, rise up, and offer to resume? A suggested fractal: a certain apostle , speaking of others not needing to fret over his fate/foibles "I repent too damn fast." 

If *all* things are possible (which they are, with God), and if the God of Abraham led Abraham (or Joseph) to occasionally say falsehoods (or more accurately, half-truths) to further His work and to spare others from unwittingly kicking against he pricks, is it impossible for a God who condescendingly ceases to be God...to thereby again become God?  Or is such a thing *impossible,* is such a created rock too heavy for God to life, and would such a crown be cast off forever? 

Thoughts?

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

My simple point with which you took issue is saying Smith conflates faith, choice, and motivation into a single cause. In both Alma 32 and the LoF faith is a decision one makes. One does not cast out the seed, one foresees and then acts. How is it that you can take issue with inserting volition in this? It would make no sense if completely removed. Alma 32 has multiple phrases about how much better it is to choose, to choose to be humble, to accept the word, to not be hardhearted and cast out the seed. So I'd like to see you use the actual scriptures, including the LoF, to make a case that volition is not required in the LDS scheme? I mean, the very purpose of mortality is about seeing how people will choose. The more one digs into what you say, the more radical it appears to really be compared to LDS theology. I admit, I'm very curious to see you expand on this now.

ETA: I should add that outside of the LDS faith tradition I actually wouldn't take issue with your concept of how things really work. The idea that we may at best set the direction of our attention isn't a bad concept. But it seems like you are going too far in trying to merge this and your LDS worldview into a coherent framework. But we'll see, I guess.

Well I thought I did deal with that in the linked article. I also noted by quoting a relevant expert, the relationship in Hebrew between faith and truth which is exactly as presented in Alma 32. So both faithful and true are properties of objects and means roughly steadfast and reliable. To be false means to be untrustworthy or unreliable. So we have to get the words in place first. In Alma 32 something that is true (in this case the objects Alma speaks about) is reliable and thus shows itself to be what it is over time. So the key in Alma 32 is whether you act to test something to find out if it is reliable. "Beyond, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief…behold it will begin to swell within your breasts…” (32:28) Alma's main metaphor is seed which illustrates this well since it is a true seed if it shows itself over time to be what it appears to be. i.e. if I plant an acorn it's a true acorn in this sense if it grows into an oak tree. 

Getting to the passage you mentioned the focus is on the seed to let it grow which metaphorically represents the items to test - in this case Alma's words. As we gain more information about the seed (29) that increases your faith. But what does that mean? It means the seed is more trustworthy. Alma's whole emphasis, especially in verse 28, is on testing the objects in question. Faith for the person, as in the OT, is thus trust. So Alma is asking how you trust things. He says you trust things by testing them.

Yet Alma's whole point is that the faith comes in response to the test and not before. So for the test, you don't even need to have faith. Even if you have no faith in 28 you can at least desire. (Note he doesn't portray desire as voluntary either - it's something you have that you let work) If you have faith though, which is a degree of trust then you can "give place for a portion" (27) If you give it a place then there's a consequence (the swelling motions). The consequence is an increase of faith. So it's a cycle. But the only volitional part of Alma 32 are the following:

1. "let this desire work in  you" (27)

2. "give place" (27, 28)

3. "cast out" (28) (but note this is a result of unbelief - but unbelief isn't presented as volitional)

Throughout Alma 32 faith is presented as something that happens but not something that is chosen. It's a consequence of "giving place."

Now Lectures on Faith is different, but I hasten to add it's not really determinative for Mormons. It was taken out of the D&C and has some sections that are seen as problematic. I think it's best seen as a jointly authored catechism based upon the knowledge at the time. The part you quote, Lecture 1, is largely an exegesis on Romans 11. But I don't think we have to accept the exegesis as correct. But there are several claims

1. faith is the moving cause of all action. (1:10)

2. it is the assurance of the existence of things you haven't seen (1:9)

Now the place I have problem is that "existence" part. That's the typical protestant view and likely reflects Sidney Rigdon's influence on the lectures. But the rest of the text doesn't talk of existence but rather processes. (See 1:11) This is important since existence is tied to the Romans verse but none of the examples follow that blind propositional faith about existence. Instead it talks about how it guides action.

Now eventually we have a shift beyond that presenting a near metaphysical theory where faith is a power and is how miracles happen even for God. (My guess is this reflects the cultural theurgical platonism of the region - although I don't know for sure) The emphasis though is more faith as determining action. But that's exactly as Alma 32. Yet note in no place is faith presented as volitional. Rather faith is the cause of action with a separation made between the two. Indeed volitional action isn't even discussed in Lecture 1. Only faith and the consequence that is action.

If you turn to the rest of the lectures you get something more like Alma 32. The question is what was required for their to be faith, with an odd rather extensive discussion of transmission of ideas. However again faith happens as the result of knowledge. (See 2:31) But the result is that "stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him; to search after a knowledge." (2:34) Faith isn't chosen but is something that is a consequence. Like Alma 32, the consequence is a cycle of searching that results of becoming "extensively acquainted with him; and not only commune with him, and behold his glory, but be partakers of his power, and stand in his presence." So like Alma 32 we have a process where faith happens and as information is given faith increases. It's not blind faith in propositions but rather a process of inquiry that leads to stronger faith and then knowledge. All the examples of increasing faith come from manifestations of evidence. Indeed this is explicit in 6:1 where they deal with "the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation." Again faith isn't something chosen but something enabled by knowledge.

Now Lecture 7 I'll grant you is a bit odd with the distinction between mental effort and physical. I think it's deeply problematic, but I don't think it really changes the points I made.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hagoth7]

21 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Here are the secrets...without Mormonism: 

The Four Agreements are:

1. Be Impeccable with your Word: Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the Word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your Word in the direction of truth and love.

Great book Johnnie. 

Which is weightier? Truth? Or love? 

If a more-sensitive-than-usual child, woman, or man asks my feedback on something, should I disclose it in full, even if doing so hurt her, and even if it accomplished nothing other than me being able to pat myself on the back and say I was "truthful"?  Is that loving? If not, what does "impeccable' and "with integrity" really mean?

Or are we to be a full-on firehose of truth to any and all, whether their house is burning down or not?

 

I'd suggest moderating (with love) the supposedly-iron-clad rule #1 with a greater emphasis on the saved-best-for-last final words of that rule (love)...starting out with a compassionate reading of the Abraham/Sariah/God issue.

Thoughts/impressions?

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7