hope_for_things Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 10 hours ago, bluebell said: None of that means that truth and authority have the same definition. I think your point would make more sense if you said that belief is closely tied to authority. That would at least make sense (though have no bearing on whether or not truth and authority have different definitions, which they do). Truth is truth, whether anyone believes in it or not. How people react to truth is completely irrelevant. People believe/trust/give authority to falsehoods all the time. Governments have risen on lies. Churches have flourished based on lies. Relationships are sometimes built on lies. Truth is not tied to authority, as history proves. I hope I’m not coming across as condescending because I’m not trying to be. I just sincerely don’t see the connection you are trying to make. Truth is tied to authority when its subjective truth, and that is the foundation for religious truth. We're not talking about the truth of E=MC2, we're talking about the truth of a belief in something subjective. So I agree with you that belief is an important component, and I also agree that sometimes authority has been abused and not everyone who has been a participant in a regime has asserted that this regime is true for them individually, there are individual exceptions. But collectively authority and truth are tied closely together. I guess that's what I'm trying to say, and thanks for adding in the belief component because belief is what makes something true to not. Mormonism is true for believers, it isn't true for unbelievers. It has authority believers and it has no authority for the unbelievers.
bluebell Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 9/29/2017 at 5:36 AM, Gray said: All of our sources come after Jesus of course. Reconstructing the historical Jesus is based on a look at sources through the lens of higher criticism. For example, Mark is the first gospel, so we can take a look at the things Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, and what they changed, to see how Christian theology was evolving. We can take a look at the earlier "Q" source (the common material between Mat/Luke not copied from Mark), which didn't have a resurrection theology, but instead a kind of wisdom theology. From a historical standpoint? The D&C dates from the 19th century. Most of the NT dates from the 1st century. We see that those kinds of claims get amplified by later sources, but seem mostly absent from earlier sources. And of course the major theme in Mark is that the apostles had no idea that Jesus was really divine. So if Jesus was divine, he kept it totally to himself. That indicates that this idea came about only after he died. Some of the methodological issues are summarized here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2m7I4WEoso Some thoughts/questions- Do you not count the BOM as a source because we don't have the original writings? When it comes to the 'historical Jesus' is it really more a matter of 'the mortal Jesus'? Because it seems like that is really where the cut off is, ignoring all sources that don't focus on Jesus's mortal life.
bluebell Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Truth is tied to authority when its subjective truth, and that is the foundation for religious truth. We're not talking about the truth of E=MC2, we're talking about the truth of a belief in something subjective. So I agree with you that belief is an important component, and I also agree that sometimes authority has been abused and not everyone who has been a participant in a regime has asserted that this regime is true for them individually, there are individual exceptions. But collectively authority and truth are tied closely together. I guess that's what I'm trying to say, and thanks for adding in the belief component because belief is what makes something true to not. Mormonism is true for believers, it isn't true for unbelievers. It has authority believers and it has no authority for the unbelievers. Subjective truth is a misnomer though. Something is either true or not. It's not subject to how people feel or respond to it. You are talking about relativism but i'm not. I'm talking about actual truth. The LDS church rejects the doctrine of relativism. Elder Christofferson gave a good General Conference talk on it, and why we reject it, in 2014. Free Forever, to Act for Themselves. The doctrine of relativism is that each person is their own highest authority. Like you said, it is the doctrine that whatever they believe is true. From the perspective of relativism, truth and authority are connected (I think I'm finally starting to understand what you are saying). But I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm speaking from the LDS perspective and from that LDS perspective, truth and authority are not connected in the way that you have argued they are. People are not their own highest authority, and what they believe (or don't believe) has absolutely no affect on truth. This is why the LDS church can be the only church with the authority to act in the name of God but truth can be found anywhere, including outside of the church. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The LDS church has authority, whether its from God or not is up to each person to decide individually, its not an objective reality claim, but a subjective claim. This rock on my desk that says "Dad Rocks" has authority from God if I believe it does. And this comes back to what I was debating with Bluebell and I'll respond to her in a moment. If I believe something has authority, then it has authority for me, and it does because I believe it is true for me personally. These are subjective truths I'm talking about, not objective factual truths, but subjective relationship truths. Facts and truths are not necessarily the same thing. Does that physician have objective or subjective truth?
stemelbow Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Subjective truth is a misnomer though. Something is either true or not. It's not subject to how people feel or respond to it. You are talking about relativism but i'm not. I'm talking about actual truth. The LDS church rejects the doctrine of relativism. Elder Christofferson gave a good General Conference talk on it, and why we reject it, in 2014. Uh oh. Hopefully mfbukowski doesn't see this. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Free Forever, to Act for Themselves. The doctrine of relativism is that each person is their own highest authority. Like you said, it is the doctrine that whatever they believe is true. From the perspective of relativism, truth and authority are connected (I think I'm finally starting to understand what you are saying). But I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm speaking from the LDS perspective and from that LDS perspective, truth and authority are not connected in the way that you have argued they are. People are not their own highest authority, and what they believe (or don't believe) has absolutely no affect on truth. This is why the LDS church can be the only church with the authority to act in the name of God but truth can be found anywhere, including outside of the church.
Glenn101 Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 10 hours ago, Gray said: I don't know, is tentative better than completely conjectural? Theology is always conjectural (ie completely faith based). It is not completely conjectural. "The Bible tells me so." The Bible and the Book of Mormon take faith in God out of a purely conjectural area to one where it is to believe or not to believe. There is conjecture about the scriptures as to their historicity but yet they were produced with their assertions and stories of God and some of His dealings with mankind. Spiritual experiences have confirmed the existence of God, the Atonement, the Book of Mormon and the Restoration to me. That took everything out of the realm of conjecture for me. Because of them I have become a hardheaded, unflinching, Heber J. Grant type of TBM. Glenn 1
Gray Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 15 hours ago, Glenn101 said: It is not completely conjectural. "The Bible tells me so." The Bible and the Book of Mormon take faith in God out of a purely conjectural area to one where it is to believe or not to believe. There is conjecture about the scriptures as to their historicity but yet they were produced with their assertions and stories of God and some of His dealings with mankind. Spiritual experiences have confirmed the existence of God, the Atonement, the Book of Mormon and the Restoration to me. That took everything out of the realm of conjecture for me. Because of them I have become a hardheaded, unflinching, Heber J. Grant type of TBM. Glenn More conjecture! One thing that's pretty consistent across all critical (critical meaning scientific/historical, not negative) scholarship is that the Bible cannot be read at face value as some kind of accurate history.
JLHPROF Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Gray said: More conjecture! One thing that's pretty consistent across all critical (critical meaning scientific/historical, not negative) scholarship is that the Bible cannot be read at face value as some kind of accurate history. Is the assumption that critical/scientific/historical scholarship is right? That their conclusions cannot be in doubt? Edited October 4, 2017 by JLHPROF
Gray Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 22 hours ago, bluebell said: Some thoughts/questions- Do you not count the BOM as a source because we don't have the original writings? The BOM's status as an ancient document has not been verified. Most would consider it to be a 19th century book of scripture. We don't necessarily need the original source, although of course it would help a lot. The text itself can be used to try to establish whether or not it's an ancient document. 22 hours ago, bluebell said: When it comes to the 'historical Jesus' is it really more a matter of 'the mortal Jesus'? Because it seems like that is really where the cut off is, ignoring all sources that don't focus on Jesus's mortal life. Yes, although theology about Jesus also talks about his mortal life. The idea about the historical Jesus is really about the things we can conclude about Jesus using only the tools of history and historical inquiry. And that would only focus on his mortal life. Theology has totally different methods and presuppositions. Some people have a theology that says the earth is alive and that it's a goddess. You'd have a similar separation in that case between the scientific earth and the theological earth. Two totally different ideas.
Gray Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Is the assumption that critical/scientific/historical scholarship is right? That their conclusions cannot be in doubt? Individual conclusions are always subject to revision. There isn't a lot of broad consensus, for example, about the exact nature of what Jesus thought his mission was. But where there is broad consensus, it's unlikely to change much if at all. It's pretty well established that the Bible isn't accurate history - that's easy enough to see just by comparing the gospels with each other, or comparing Acts' accounts about Paul vs Paul's own accounts. And of course the face value thing is important. You can't really understand what the writers of the Bible were trying to say without historical context, regardless of the accuracy of the things they're saying. "Kingdom of God" means something totally different to most modern Christians than it meant to early first century followers of Jesus, for instance. Edited October 4, 2017 by Gray
bluebell Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: The BOM's status as an ancient document has not been verified. Most would consider it to be a 19th century book of scripture. We don't necessarily need the original source, although of course it would help a lot. The text itself can be used to try to establish whether or not it's an ancient document. For those who believe that the BOM is an ancient document, should it matter if it has been verified or not? Quote The idea about the historical Jesus is really about the things we can conclude about Jesus using only the tools of history and historical inquiry. Got it, thanks.
theplains Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 On 02/10/2017 at 3:13 PM, thesometimesaint said: Incorrect; the LDS have always taught Jesus was a God from the beginning. See https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-4-jesus-christ-the-son-of-god?lang=eng Jesus is taught to have become a god. "As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state." The same is taught of Heavenly Father. See the following: April 1971, New Era, People on other Worlds April 1971, Ensign, The King Follett Discourse May 1976, New Era, How to Gain a Testimony July 1979, Ensign, Line Upon Line February 1982, Ensign, I Have a Question January 1989, Ensign, The Restoration of Major Doctrines Through Joseph Smith February 2002, Ensign, The Origin of Man January 2005, Liahona, Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female October 2008, General Conference, God Loves and Helps all His Children 2008, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, chapter 2: God the Eternal Father February 2012, Liahona, Our Father in Heaven. Thanks, Jim
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) On 10/3/2017 at 8:28 AM, hope_for_things said: Truth is tied to authority when its subjective truth, and that is the foundation for religious truth. That's first person authority as authority, right? i.e. the fact I trust my eyes not what you say you saw. On 10/3/2017 at 8:28 AM, hope_for_things said: But collectively authority and truth are tied closely together. I guess that's what I'm trying to say, and thanks for adding in the belief component because belief is what makes something true to not. Mormonism is true for believers, it isn't true for unbelievers. It has authority believers and it has no authority for the unbelievers. Isn't that true of any topic whether it's global warming, historic evolution, or string theory? It seems to me the key issue isn't the subjective or the believer/unbelievers but the evidence. Yet it's precisely that which tends to get danced around too much. Edited October 4, 2017 by clarkgoble
hope_for_things Posted October 5, 2017 Posted October 5, 2017 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: That's first person authority as authority, right? i.e. the fact I trust my eyes not what you say you saw. Isn't that true of any topic whether it's global warming, historic evolution, or string theory? It seems to me the key issue isn't the subjective or the believer/unbelievers but the evidence. Yet it's precisely that which tends to get danced around too much. Lately I've been thinking its best to keep religious truth claims separate from scientific truth claims. Although I admit that there is a level of faith that people have in the sciences. However, I think the evidence for religious claims is not evidence that can be compared and debated in any kind of objective sense. You can't measure a vision, you can't test whether God listened to a prayer for someone's health, especially when the rules for how people measure whether or not God was involved in that prayer include both sides of the equation (a person can be healed based on their faith, but they can also NOT be healed based on a lack of faith or going against the will of God). The kinds of propositions setup from a religious perspective are too different and deserve their own category.
thesometimesaint Posted October 5, 2017 Posted October 5, 2017 20 hours ago, theplains said: See https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-4-jesus-christ-the-son-of-god?lang=eng Jesus is taught to have become a god. "As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state." The same is taught of Heavenly Father. See the following: April 1971, New Era, People on other Worlds April 1971, Ensign, The King Follett Discourse May 1976, New Era, How to Gain a Testimony July 1979, Ensign, Line Upon Line February 1982, Ensign, I Have a Question January 1989, Ensign, The Restoration of Major Doctrines Through Joseph Smith February 2002, Ensign, The Origin of Man January 2005, Liahona, Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female October 2008, General Conference, God Loves and Helps all His Children 2008, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, chapter 2: God the Eternal Father February 2012, Liahona, Our Father in Heaven. Thanks, Jim Incorrect. We have always taught Jesus was always God. A God member of the Godhead. Also we are Gods with the potential to become more like God. "Man has become like one of us. Knowing good from evil" Genesis 3:22 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 5, 2017 Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Lately I've been thinking its best to keep religious truth claims separate from scientific truth claims. Although I admit that there is a level of faith that people have in the sciences. However, I think the evidence for religious claims is not evidence that can be compared and debated in any kind of objective sense. You can't measure a vision, you can't test whether God listened to a prayer for someone's health, especially when the rules for how people measure whether or not God was involved in that prayer include both sides of the equation (a person can be healed based on their faith, but they can also NOT be healed based on a lack of faith or going against the will of God). The kinds of propositions setup from a religious perspective are too different and deserve their own category. I agree. Science must be Agnostic for it to be science. Religion has a different measure. 1
Gray Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/4/2017 at 10:24 AM, bluebell said: For those who believe that the BOM is an ancient document, should it matter if it has been verified or not? If you're concerned about using historical sources/methods, yes. If you're approaching it from a purely theological perspective, it's not so important. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Quote "For the sake of argument" All I can say is, from my point of view, none of His promises were kept, millions of his followers either killed or became instrument of death themselves.
Gray Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 Here's a nice series of video recordings of a Yale intro to New Testament course: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152#sessions 1
mnn727 Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 5:34 PM, hope_for_things said: You're talking about Hebrew religious traditions. Again, I'm not an absolutist, and i don't believe that these traditions apply to everyone. It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what God believes. Humans have fallen for lots of things throughout history. 2
bluebell Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: All I can say is, from my point of view, none of His promises were kept, millions of his followers either killed or became instrument of death themselves. Are you talking about biblical promises?
hope_for_things Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, mnn727 said: It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what God believes. Humans have fallen for lots of things throughout history. Great, I'm sure glad that God agrees with me on this point then.
theplains Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) On 05/10/2017 at 1:30 PM, thesometimesaint said: Incorrect. We have always taught Jesus was always God. A God member of the Godhead. If you read the passage that I provided, Jesus was not ranked as a God before he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, so he was not always God. You may want to talk to your LDS friends. I provided many teachings which indicate that Heavenly Father became a god (or God) too. But it's understandable that you don't wish to worship an 'exalted man.' I don't either. As for the Godhead, there was a time in LDS history when the Holy Spirit was not a member "personage". See Lectures on Faith #5 attached. Thanks, Jim Edited October 6, 2017 by theplains to insert one word description
JLHPROF Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, theplains said: If you read the passage that I provided, Jesus was not ranked as a God before he reached a pinnacle of intelligence, so he was not always God. You may want to talk to your LDS friends. I provided many teachings which indicate that Heavenly Father became a god (or God) too. But it's understandable that you don't wish to worship an 'exalted man.' I don't either. As for the Godhead, there was a time in LDS history when the Holy Spirit was not a member. See Lectures on Faith #5 attached. Yes, Joseph learned line upon line. And the composition of the Mormon godhead has had several iterations over the years depending on what was taught by the leaders. As far as the Lectures on Faith go, it is important to recognize that the person that wrote them was not the person receiving revelation for the Church at that time. In other words, there is much in the lectures that are academic analysis of scripture, and only a little that appears to have come from inspiration. And by the Nauvoo period Joseph was certainly teaching the Holy Spirit was a personage and a member of the Godhead. In 1835 there was much that had not been revealed.
theplains Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And by the Nauvoo period Joseph was certainly teaching the Holy Spirit was a personage and a member of the Godhead. In 1835 there was much that had not been revealed. From what I have read, the Lectures on Faith were classified by canon (scripture) until removed in 1921.https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf Why would the LDS leadership allow this deception to continue between 1835 and 1921? Thanks, Jim
Recommended Posts