Are cureloms imaginary?

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

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?

If you knew that God might lie to you would you be able to place your complete trust in Him?

[hagoth7]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If you knew that God might lie to you would you be able to place your complete trust in Him?

Yes.

If I simply believe/know that every such lie (or rather half truth) is the measured doseage of truth most needed *at that specific juncture* for my long-term benefit (and/or for the benefit of those around me). Which is something I *do* bedrock believe.

Knowing that in the end, I am promised (as are all) that if I press forward in faith/charity, I will eventually be entrusted to know all things (whether we grasp hold of the NT or D&C version of such promises).

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Yes.

If I simply believe/know that every such lie (or rather half truth) is the measured doseage of truth most needed *at that specific juncture* for my long-term benefit (and/or for the benefit of those around me). Which is something I *do* bedrock believe.

Knowing that in the end, I am promised (as are all) that if I press forward in faith/charity, I will eventually be entrusted to know all things (whether we grasp hold of the NT or D&C version of such promises).

What if it's a lie that every lie is for your benefit?  What if it's a lie (for your own good,of course) that you will one day be entrusted to know all things?  What if it's a lie (again for your own benefit, that god has your long-term well being in mind?

If it turns out that one thing God says is a lie then one might start to wonder if more things are lies.  Ones faith in the word of god would start to diminish. 

We can be certain, however, that God is a god of truth.  His word is truth.  He will never lie to His children because he wants us to be able to place complete faith in Him and His word.  Without complete faith we can never be saved.

[Honorentheos]

Isn't Elder Holland's Wrong Road story essentially codifying the idea that God an lie to people for their benefit? I agree it SHOULD undermine trust but I'm also inclined to believe there are actual examples of this that matter and have followed the conclusion to it's logical consequence.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

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.

Oooo... a 3 pointer from the half court...swoosh

ksfisher: 1 Johnnie cake: 3

BoA being direct modern revealed translation carries more weight than that corrupted, altered by evil designing men Bible right?

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Isn't Elder Holland's Wrong Road story essentially codifying the idea that God an lie to people for their benefit? I agree it SHOULD undermine trust but I'm also inclined to believe there are actual examples of this that matter and have followed the conclusion to it's logical consequence.

I don't think so.  An answer saying "try that way" is different than "that is the correct way."  It's impossible to know what exactly Elder Holland felt, as the Spirit most often speaks to us in what we would call feelings, but I really doubt that Elder Holland came away from the experience believing that the answer he received was a lie. 

 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oooo... a 3 pointer from the half court...swoosh

ksfisher: 1 Johnnie cake: 3

BoA being direct modern revealed translation carries more weight than that corrupted, altered by evil designing men Bible right?

I don't know, it seems like Johnnie was sitting on the bench and it was Honorentheos taking the shot.   

And...just because the Book of Abraham doesn't mention that they were half siblings doesn't mean they weren't.  Regardless, I don't think that God would tell anyone to lie.  He may tell us to withhold the truth or remain silent, but not to lie.  (like I said, that's what I think)

But, as they say, this has little to do with the price of curelom eggs in China.

[Honorentheos]

I don't agree that the use of true as presented in Alma 32 shows correspondence with Hebrew uses. One only needs to use google's ngram tool to see "true seed" show up in the available documents in google books from the period of 1800 to 1819 that include religious and agricultural uses, both of which are realms Smith was involved in obviously. It's lacking evidential weight and I think best set to the side if it can't be shown as anything more than a colloquialism. Just like true church.

To break this down, though, I completely disagree that Alma's point is that faith comes in response to testing the object of faith. Here's the scripture -

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;

Alma claims knowledge comes in response to the test and not before. Before the test was faith which he claims is now dormant.

And this gets to why I want you to tie your thoughts to scriptures rather than just sharing your views. I am sure you have thought long about your own view and feel it is coherent. It could be. But it isn't coherent with the LDS view contained in scripture and the LoF.

To break it down even further, let's take the next section of your response:

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

Again, going to the scripture itself, v28 says - 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;

It's a choice to "give place" to the seed. In the context of this OP, let's say we "give place" to the idea that cureloms are real rather than imaginary. That's a choice. When presented with evidence that the word curelom has no correspondence with an animal attested anywhere but a book that fails to demonstrate it is based on reality rather than religious fantasy, if I "do not cast it out by (my) unbelief", that is also a choice. Faced with something that suggests I should give up on this idea but I instead decide to keep running with it as if it were true, it's an act of volition to do so. The scripture claims that I would be doing so by resisting the Spirit of the Lord because I guess some may have emotional attachment to the concept of cureloms being real. And Alma 32 tells us if we do all of that - choose to make allowance for cureloms being real, ignore reasons for deciding they aren't, not resisting the feelings that are described as the Spirit of the Lord, at some point the idea that cureloms are real will "swell in (my) breast", assuming I now feel something about cureloms being real I wouldn't have been able to feel otherwise.

Moving forward, 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.

I'd argue it is very much saying faith is an act of volition. But the results of not giving in to the evidence will lead to "knowledge" and here you and I would agree that these seem to be the passive results of choosing faith over evidence.

So, I think we need to get on the same page with the above. I think you jumped a track early conflating faith with what Alma 32 calls knowledge and this is has wide-ranging consequences for your entire position.

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think so.  An answer saying "try that way" is different than "that is the correct way."  It's impossible to know what exactly Elder Holland felt, as the Spirit most often speaks to us in what we would call feelings, but I really doubt that Elder Holland came away from the experience believing that the answer he received was a lie. 

 

His son seemed very concerned, and the moral of the story is to trust any answer regardless which is what hagoth is saying. Basically, the moral is to believe that God knows you better than you know yourself so you may need to be given bad information to get you to the good information eventually for reasons. In Holland's case it was because he lacked sufficient faith to trust the answer (he doesn't say that, but it's the only logical conclusion one can come to).

[Honorentheos]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know, it seems like Johnnie was sitting on the bench and it was Honorentheos taking the shot.   

And...just because the Book of Abraham doesn't mention that they were half siblings doesn't mean they weren't.  Regardless, I don't think that God would tell anyone to lie.  He may tell us to withhold the truth or remain silent, but not to lie.  (like I said, that's what I think)

But, as they say, this has little to do with the price of curelom eggs in China.

Johnnie put the ball over the rim, I just made sure it went in.  

My personal view is that Abraham isn't a real person, at least not the legendary individual. There are probably multiple people behind the accounts that got passed down over time and embellished. And understanding the nature of the Torah helps one better understand the people who at different times were making sense of their world with these stories. The J-author seems to be much more poetic in nature, much earlier, and probably embedded in a context where the lie, the resulting time as a concubine, and other things that bother's the E-author weren't "bad" to the point they needed to be explained. Rather, the story shows YHWH interceding on Abraham's behalf in a tough situation. Their audience doesn't need to be given moral outs for Abraham for reasons that probably have to do with the cultural context of the time. This also explains why the E-author DID find it necessary to revamp the story given for Abraham, father of nations, to be righteous. He needs to have his lie explained, his wife's virtue protected, and still have Elohim demonstrate divine interference in favor of Abraham. Smith, well, I can never really be sure what he is thinking. It's an odd snippet of story to toss in, he seems to touch on it almost as an after thought, and it's the last thing he really writes that is about Abraham's biography. The remaining chapters are all theological in nature.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Honorentheos

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

 In Holland's case it was because he lacked sufficient faith to trust the answer (he doesn't say that, but it's the only logical conclusion one can come to).

I don't think that questioning Elder Hollands degree of faith is the only conclusion possible.  We are all at different points in our development and we're all capable of understanding the Spirit to a greater of lesser degree. 

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Johnnie put the ball over the rim, I just made sure it went in.  

 

That's called goal tending where I come from.  Basket disallowed. 

[Honorentheos]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think that questioning Elder Hollands degree of faith is the only conclusion possible.  We are all at different points in our development and we're all capable of understanding the Spirit to a greater of lesser degree. 

 

You just said the same thing...c'mon man!

[Honorentheos]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's called goal tending where I come from.  Basket disallowed. 

Only were it not to have bounced first. Collecting the rebound and putting it home is more than just scoring a couple points. It's Booyah!

[ksfisher]

Just now, Honorentheos said:

You just said the same thing...c'mon man!

I'm saying that degree of faith and the ability to understand a specific whispering of the Spirit are two different things. 

c'mon son!

[ksfisher]

Just now, Honorentheos said:

Only were it not to have bounced first. Collecting the rebound and putting it home is more than just scoring a couple points. It's Booyah!

I'll have to take a look at the replay, but nothing about a rebound has been mentioned until now.  At the very least the 3-pointer is being waved off.

[Honorentheos]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm saying that degree of faith and the ability to understand a specific whispering of the Spirit are two different things. 

c'mon son!

Brother, you just saying the same thing in different ways. C'mon man!

 

(btw - http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/17/ed-lover-nfl-sunday-nfl-countdown-espn/ )

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Brother, you just saying the same thing in different ways. C'mon man!

I imagine it's just my lack of writing ability, but in my mind there is a clear difference between the possession faith and the ability to understand a spiritual impression. 

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What if...?  What if...?  What if ...?

If it turns out that one thing God says is a lie then one might start to wonder..

Fear/doubt? 

I try to align instead with faith, hope, and charity. Perfect love casteth out all fear.

So if the banner of truth I march under does not currently align with your belief that truth is sovereign over love and reason, then we part ways, hopefully to meet on the battlefield later, under a unified banner.

By my reading, each passage that refers to "God of truth" is in the specific context of love and promises kept (i.e. love). Fx.,  Paalms'  "Into thy hands...", the ultimate expression of love, fulfilled, as promised. God fulfills promises...just not always in the way and timing we might impose/expect.

 

What's your take on the Abraham issue?  How do you seeGod commanding Abraham to do what he did to square with your proposed construct of the nature of God?  

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If it turns out that one thing God says is a lie then one might start to wonder if more things are lies.  Ones faith in the word of god would start to diminish. 

If you hold God to your rendition of a standard of truth that doesn't allow him in times past to condescend (through what you might deem to be partial disclosure) in order to spare/help others, I respectfully disagree. For me, that dog doesn't hunt....at all.

My current understanding of the standard of truth is that it is instead emblazoned with love. *That* is it's color and motto and anthem. Not truth. Love *is* the truth. And *everything* else is an appendage to that, and is to be weighed, measured, and subservient to *that* intent.

If one believes that God is bound to some mortal construct that whenever the heavens whisper (or thunder), such an apocalypse *must* reveal every jost and tittle from Adam down to the very end of time...and must leave or encourage *no* wiggle room for misunderstanding....one might as well close the book at Genesis. (Which I don't recocmmend.)

God does not lead astray. But the path God guides *me* on is the path intended for me. And if it doesn't work for you, I genuinely hope our paths converge later on.

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We can be certain, however, that God is a god of truth.

I understand God to be a God of reason (logos). And especially a God of love. 

The God of truth you speak of, at least by the standard you opt to measure truth and utternaces by, does not square, by the best of my current reckonning, with a God where truth trumps love, and reason.

If I promise you I'll never step on your lawn. But the next day your house is burning and you or a loved one is crying out for help, you better damn well know that I'd shatter that promise in a Quantum heartbeat, regardless of its consequences to me or our friendship. Because I would. And whether you opted to forgive such well-intentioned trespasses (lawn and shattered promise) that would then become *your* choice, and *your* outcome. Having done my utmost, even laying down my word of honor to help you, I would consider myself clean/true/square in my dealings with you.

I would expect a God of truth to measure me by the true standard of love and reason...not some deified/distorted version of truth for the sake of truth. 

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We can be certain, however, that God is a god of truth.  His word is truth.  He will never lie to His children because he wants us to be able to place complete faith in Him and His word.  Without complete faith we can never be saved.

There's such a things as misplaced faith. By looking beyond the mark. The bullseye is love.

I have complete faith in the eventual outcome of God's word. And have seen such unfold, as promised, time and time again, regardless of how long itook, and what obstacles it took to wade through. Not in my prefereed timeline, but instad to the beat of Heaven's timetable, *independent of* mankind's arbitrary  expectations/interpretations/demands.

As Elder Maxwel said, Faith in God includes faith in his timing." 

And from years and waves of that, I have, to a considerable degree, come to the point where I don't need immediate-gratification fulfillment of every promise in the here and now...such that I would hopefully no more plop down where I was and throw a brief tantrum accusing heaven of lying if I didn't get my treat precisely when and how I arbitrarily happened to want/expect it.  

Spiritual hang time encourages us to stay the course. And abide the occasional storm patiently. Trusting, from experience, that it too shall pass, and that Heaven's every word *will* come to pass.

Did God lie to Jonah? Some say yes. I say balderdash. That God instead simply (intentionally) left room for misunderstanding. And that God's word *was* fulfilled upon Ninevah, precisely as pronounced.

I believe that sometimes God leaves room for misunderstanding with the specific intent/purpose/hope that we'll turn and engage and patiently request clarification. Communion. Bonding/quality time.

As in the obvious confusion in the wake of Lehi's words, and Nephi's nudge:  "Have ye enquired of the Lord.?"

If you still doubt the merits of what I'm saying, ask God. Is the standard of love and reason a more accurate/beneficial resprentation of *true* north.

True to the faith that our parents have cherished, true to the truth for which martyrs have perished. To God's command, soul heart and hand, faithful and true we will ever stand.  

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I don't agree that the use of true as presented in Alma 32 shows correspondence with Hebrew uses. One only needs to use google's ngram tool to see "true seed" show up in the available documents in google books from the period of 1800 to 1819 that include religious and agricultural uses, both of which are realms Smith was involved in obviously. It's lacking evidential weight and I think best set to the side if it can't be shown as anything more than a colloquialism. Just like true church.

The second half of that paragraph seems a bit of a non sequitor. At least I don't see how it relates to the first part. The argument about Hebrew use of true is that (1) it applies to objects not propositions (2) relates to the essence of the object (3) deals with how reliably the object is to its purported essence. None of that seems related to seed issues. Certainly people living in agricultural America in the 19th century understood seeds. Likewise seed is a common metaphor - the sower parable being the most famous. You don't need to look at Google ngrams to see that. You just need to look at it's use in the Bible where it's a common metaphor. Likewise in the Bible while some use is obscured by translation true still modifies tangible objects quite regularly. "True men" (Gen 42); "true token" (Josh 2:12); "true laws" (Neh 9:13)

Likewise in the article I bring up that this used to be a common way of speaking in English and is still part of English even if the propositional use is now dominant. So when we speak of being a true friend, it's a remnant of this earlier way of speaking. Likewise to true a wheel is the same usage.

So the question is never whether it was somehow unusual for Joseph to know this. Rather I assume it was far more common in the 1820's than it is today when the usage seems alien. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect Hebrew usage as well. So I think you think I'm arguing for something quite different from what I am actually arguing for.

Quote

Alma claims knowledge comes in response to the test and not before. Before the test was faith which he claims is now dormant.

Knowledge is when the object has shown itself fully as what it is. That's the Hebrew sense and also what Alma's sense is. So in that thing your knowledge is perfect. Before then you know bits about the object but not fully. As more and more is revealed you come to know it fully.

So yes, full knowledge comes only at the end of the reveal. 

Quote

It's a choice to "give place" to the seed. In the context of this OP, let's say we "give place" to the idea that cureloms are real rather than imaginary. That's a choice. When presented with evidence that the word curelom has no correspondence with an animal attested anywhere but a book that fails to demonstrate it is based on reality rather than religious fantasy, if I "do not cast it out by (my) unbelief", that is also a choice. Faced with something that suggests I should give up on this idea but I instead decide to keep running with it as if it were true, it's an act of volition to do so. The scripture claims that I would be doing so by resisting the Spirit of the Lord because I guess some may have emotional attachment to the concept of cureloms being real. And Alma 32 tells us if we do all of that - choose to make allowance for cureloms being real, ignore reasons for deciding they aren't, not resisting the feelings that are described as the Spirit of the Lord, at some point the idea that cureloms are real will "swell in (my) breast", assuming I now feel something about cureloms being real I wouldn't have been able to feel otherwise.

The giving place is the act. But that act is due to either belief/disbelief which is due to evidence. The issue is testing not "running with it as if it were true." That's simply not anywhere in the text. It simply doesn't say any of the things you are saying it says. (I'm open to you putting the sentence in the text where it says, "running with it as if it were true" or "it's an act of volition to do so." Yet that's simply not there. The only possible volitional statement is giving a place. But even that is tempered by ones beliefs.

Quote

I'd argue it is very much saying faith is an act of volition. But the results of not giving in to the evidence will lead to "knowledge" and here you and I would agree that these seem to be the passive results of choosing faith over evidence.

Why do you think that? It describes the generation of evidence that is sensed "Feel these swelling motions" which then leads to the conclusion "this is a good seed." To say that is "not giving in to the evidence" is completely opposite to what is stated.

[Honorentheos]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The second half of that paragraph seems a bit of a non sequitor. At least I don't see how it relates to the first part. The argument about Hebrew use of true is that (1) it applies to objects not propositions (2) relates to the essence of the object (3) deals with how reliably the object is to its purported essence. None of that seems related to seed issues. Certainly people living in agricultural America in the 19th century understood seeds. Likewise seed is a common metaphor - the sower parable being the most famous. You don't need to look at Google ngrams to see that. You just need to look at it's use in the Bible where it's a common metaphor. Likewise in the Bible while some use is obscured by translation true still modifies tangible objects quite regularly. "True men" (Gen 42); "true token" (Josh 2:12); "true laws" (Neh 9:13)

Likewise in the article I bring up that this used to be a common way of speaking in English and is still part of English even if the propositional use is now dominant. So when we speak of being a true friend, it's a remnant of this earlier way of speaking. Likewise to true a wheel is the same usage.

So the question is never whether it was somehow unusual for Joseph to know this. Rather I assume it was far more common in the 1820's than it is today when the usage seems alien. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect Hebrew usage as well. So I think you think I'm arguing for something quite different from what I am actually arguing for.

Much like the general seeing of Hebraisms in the language of the BoM, I argue that this is the result of two things: Smith's attempt to sound biblical and the colloquial language of the time Smith was at work. One only could argue it reflects Hebrew usage if one could show isolated of these much more probable influences there is something uniquely Hebrew in the text. It isn't uniquely Hebrew and is easily explained using the 19th c. context of Smith's authorship. Parsimony.

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Knowledge is when the object has shown itself fully as what it is. That's the Hebrew sense and also what Alma's sense is. So in that thing your knowledge is perfect. Before then you know bits about the object but not fully. As more and more is revealed you come to know it fully.

Keep in mind that you had earlier said that faith was the result of the test not knowledge. This was a correction to your set up. Is it fair to say you've adjusted to the text now?

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The giving place is the act. But that act is due to either belief/disbelief which is due to evidence.

It's a choice. The text makes it clear that the person is presented with the option to give place to the thing proposed or not.

It then proceeds to "not cast it out" which is a second choice. This occurs as one is presented with counter evidence.

It juxtaposes this second choice with the reasoning behind someone casting it out which is that they do so in opposition to the influence of the spirit which we must take as not being evidential but acting on one's feelings or emotions.

So faith, according to Alma 32, is the act of choosing to entertain a belief and not reject it based on evidence. The result is described in Alma 32 in emotions-based results such as the swelling of one's heart, enlarge one's soul and the enlightening of one's understanding which tells you that your faith has become knowledge. These are passive.

So the act of faith is volitional, the gaining of knowledge is the passive results of pursuing faith over...well, I'd argue reason if one reads the text as saying the evidence will cause a person to resist the spirit which is to say don't let your reasoning overcome your feelings.

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you think that? It describes the generation of evidence that is sensed "Feel these swelling motions" which then leads to the conclusion "this is a good seed." To say that is "not giving in to the evidence" is completely opposite to what is stated.

Only if you accept that emotion in opposition to the evidence that is otherwise compelling a person to reject "faith" in favor of reason is actually the better kind of evidence. I get why one might, but that isn't being reasonable.  

[strappinglad]

There is a plot hole in the story of Abraham and Pharoah. Most if not all of the Egyptian Pharoahs I've read about would take Abraham's admission of deception as a slap in the face and forthwith execute both Abraham and Sarai for said deception. What stopped him?

The Genesis account has diseases placed upon Pharoah because of Sarai , but no mention of how Pharoah found out about Sarai being Abraham's wife. Did she tell him, or perhaps one of the servants got wind of the situation?

I watch too much TV and see plot holes all the time. Sad isn't it ?

Edited July 13, 2017 by strappinglad

[Honorentheos]

28 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

There is a plot hole in the story of Abraham and Pharoah. Most if not all of the Egyptian Pharoahs I've read about would take Abraham's admission of deception as a slap in the face and forthwith execute both Abraham and Sarai for said deception. What stopped him?

The Genesis account has diseases placed upon Pharoah because of Sarai , but no mention of how Pharoah found out about Sarai being Abraham's wife. Did she tell him, or perhaps one of the servants got wind of the situation?

I watch too much TV and see plot holes all the time. Sad isn't it ?

I would agree. Who knows what the real story was, who the real players were, and what really went down. Could be a tribal leader got a VD from someone he had assumed as a concubine of sorts that spread as those things tend to do, and that was the basis. Makes sense, but is purely speculation on my part.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Much like the general seeing of Hebraisms in the language of the BoM, I argue that this is the result of two things: Smith's attempt to sound biblical and the colloquial language of the time Smith was at work. One only could argue it reflects Hebrew usage if one could show isolated of these much more probable influences there is something uniquely Hebrew in the text. It isn't uniquely Hebrew and is easily explained using the 19th c. context of Smith's authorship. Parsimony.

Keep in mind that you had earlier said that faith was the result of the test not knowledge. This was a correction to your set up. Is it fair to say you've adjusted to the text now?

It's a choice. The text makes it clear that the person is presented with the option to give place to the thing proposed or not.

It then proceeds to "not cast it out" which is a second choice. This occurs as one is presented with counter evidence.

It juxtaposes this second choice with the reasoning behind someone casting it out which is that they do so in opposition to the influence of the spirit which we must take as not being evidential but acting on one's feelings or emotions.

So faith, according to Alma 32, is the act of choosing to entertain a belief and not reject it based on evidence. The result is described in Alma 32 in emotions-based results such as the swelling of one's heart, enlarge one's soul and the enlightening of one's understanding which tells you that your faith has become knowledge. These are passive.

So the act of faith is volitional, the gaining of knowledge is the passive results of pursuing faith over...well, I'd argue reason if one reads the text as saying the evidence will cause a person to resist the spirit which is to say don't let your reasoning overcome your feelings.

Only if you accept that emotion in opposition to the evidence that is otherwise compelling a person to reject "faith" in favor of reason is actually the better kind of evidence. I get why one might, but that isn't being reasonable.  

This begs a question for me that maybe we can start on another thread...is any emotion evidence?  Why and why not?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

One only could argue it reflects Hebrew usage if one could show isolated of these much more probable influences there is something uniquely Hebrew in the text.

Huh? It shows Hebrew usage due to the explanation of faith and truth. That is the argument is the metaphor is the explanation. 

Quote

Keep in mind that you had earlier said that faith was the result of the test not knowledge. This was a correction to your set up. Is it fair to say you've adjusted to the text now?

As you test the object you learn about the object. That information let's call partially knowledge or knowledge of a part of the object. We can call that knowledge(1). As more information about the object is unveiled as it presents itself eventually you know the object. Let's call this knowledge(2). 

So no change.

Quote

It's a choice. The text makes it clear that the person is presented with the option to give place to the thing proposed or not.

The choice is the place, yes. The place is the test. So you have a choice to test.

Quote

It then proceeds to "not cast it out" which is a second choice. This occurs as one is presented with counter evidence.

It's the same choice. You can give it a place or cast it out. No counter-evidence is mentioned in the chapter. What verse are you getting that from? The unbelief is the starting point analogous to partial faith or desire. For some people unbelief means they won't even try the test. The resist part is to not even give a place where the spirit can act. It happens before not after. It's not due to counter-evidence but lack of evidence.

Quote

It juxtaposes this second choice with the reasoning behind someone casting it out which is that they do so in opposition to the influence of the spirit which we must take as not being evidential but acting on one's feelings or emotions.

It's not a second choice but the same choice between two options. The opposition to the spirit is not conducting the test where the spirit can work. i.e. it's opposition before not after. In the context of the allegory it's refusing to try the test.

Quote

So faith, according to Alma 32, is the act of choosing to entertain a belief and not reject it based on evidence. The result is described in Alma 32 in emotions-based results such as the swelling of one's heart, enlarge one's soul and the enlightening of one's understanding which tells you that your faith has become knowledge. These are passive.

It never says emotion. Rather it's arguing for something discernible i.e. empiric. The whole point is "it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yeah it beginneth to be delicious." Now I suppose you could say desire is emotion. I wouldn't, but if that's what you mean I'll not oppose that. However that's only a very small part. The point is that there are consequences to acting on the words and the emphasis is on knowledge/mind.

Put simply, it says to try it. I'd not even say the knowledge talked about here is necessarily revelation. I think that's a common Mormon reading but I don't think that's what the text actually says. Rather it's saying, "try what I say and see the consequences." The part about the spirit of the Lord isn't tied to revelation but rather the purposes of God. i.e. God wants you to know, because of unbelief you don't take the test opposing God.

Most importantly it doesn't say faith is the "act of choose to entertain a belief." First off it talks about conducting a test which isn't "entertaining a belief." Where does it say that's faith? Rather faith is opposed to knowledge. The only place where exercising faith is talked about was relative to creating a place. The result of the test is evidence that strengthens faith (30). 

Quote

So the act of faith is volitional, the gaining of knowledge is the passive results of pursuing faith over...well, I'd argue reason if one reads the text as saying the evidence will cause a person to resist the spirit which is to say don't let your reasoning overcome your feelings.

That doesn't even follow from what you say. You just said that what was volitional was opposing the spirit or conducting the test. But that doesn't establish that being the faith.