New Revelations in the Last Days and Restored Truths

[cinepro]

[DP]

Edited November 7, 2017 by cinepro

[cinepro]

[TP]

Edited November 7, 2017 by cinepro

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

In the Pope thread, the discussion has raised questions about the difference between Mormon revelation and Catholic revelation.  With one claimed difference being that Mormonism believes that God can reveal new truths which have never before been revealed on Earth, while the Catholic version of revelation is not to reveal "new truths" but to clarify and expound upon previous truths which have already been revealed (if I understand correctly).

That got me thinking about examples of "new truths" that have been revealed in the last days... It was difficult for me to come up with any examples.  Mormonism, it seems, is mostly a restoration gospel with restored truths from all previous dispensations being brought to light in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times.  

I ask that you leave out revelations that include doctrinal clarifications, policy changes, organizational changes, and general direction of the church (mission callings etc.), as the Catholic Church also believes that they receive revelation for the same purposes.

The church teaches that the temple ordinances are ancient and have been around since the time of Adam: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2016/05/25/case-ancient-temple-ordinancesThe plan of salvation with different kingdoms is not new.  The pre-earth life and condition as intelligences, was revealed to Abraham.  Even the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is not really "new"- sealing and plural marriage is ancient and was restored. Baptism for the dead - not new. etc. etc. etc.  We believe that new scriptures are yet to be revealed, but while it may be "new" to us, it will only be a restoration of ancient knowledge.  So, can anyone give me an example of a truth that has been revealed in our dispensation that is not simply a restored truth, or an expounding of ancient knowledge?  I would be curious to see what everyone comes up with.  Thanks! 

Don't feel bad about not being able to see any obvious "new truths."  Even the people who were tasked with writing the Sunday School lesson on "Continuing Revelation" couldn't find anything even  remotely impressive.  The best they could come up with as examples were...

1. Church Correlation

2. Revelation on the Priesthood

3. Publication of the LDS Editions of the Scriptures

4. New Quorums of the 70

Some dispensations get Prophets that use their power to call down fire upon the pagan priests.  Others get Prophets that reveal reorganized leadership Quorums and better footnotes for the scriptures.  I guess you get what you get.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just trying to point out competing beliefs that contradict.  The idea that language must be very specific to be valid, coupled with the concept that ordinances have important mechanistic components (baptism by immersion) that can't be changed is all on one hand.  On the other hand members trust that church leaders who make significant changes to temple ordinances must have been inspired to make those changes with God's blessing. 

To me, this shows a tension in ideas, but perhaps you can boil this all down to whether a person believes in the authority of leaders to make changes.  Of course you could contrast this idea of authority to make changes with the history of now acknowledged mistakes (priesthood ban, Adam God, blood atonement) that these same leaders have made and it creates a complicated scenario.  How would a person know that the temple ritual changes weren't also a mistake?  How can we discern between the mistakes of leaders and the inspired changes of leaders?  

I would argue that there are few if any objectively essential things.  I also don't see much value in finding ancient parallels either theologically or practically.  The restoration of things past in the 19th century I see as a fad that had some purchase at that time, but that doesn't work well in the 21st century. 

One of the advantages of knowing a great deal about the past, including the entire range of biblical experience, is the realization that there was no one continuous religious tradition, along with set-in-stone ordinances or practices.  The reality is that various theologies were adhered to, and a variety of different practices took place.  In other words, the situation then looks something like our current situation, with lots of diversity over time.  Your notion of disjuncture with the past misses the point that plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Quote

I would prefer a theology that focuses on broadly defined gospel principles and that is constantly engaging in the world with the contemporary issues of our day and putting those principles to work in real scenarios and trying to negotiate the complex situations in a living and active way.  

You might find something like that in Unitarian Universalism -- particularly if you don't think that the LDS Church wields cosmic authority.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Influencing factors are not the same as original source. Rigdon certainly cannot take credit for the idea of Priesthood authority.  He may have primed the well of inquisition and revelation, but not even he would claim that it was his idea. 

I'm not sure its possible to ever get to an original source with any high degree of confidence.  We just don't have access to all the information and potential influencing factors and people on every idea that developed over time.  Robert asserted that priesthood authority and temple liturgy are completely different and unique, and I'm showing some correlation between these practices/concepts and other ideas that likely influenced them.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The priesthood authority idea also was influence by Rigdon.

If that is the case, then why didn't Rigdon's mentor Alexander Campbell (and Barton Stone) opt for priesthood authority?  The church tradition they founded has no such claim.  One would be equally well justified to say that such a notion came from the Bible, or from Anglican and Roman Catholic influence.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  The temple rituals were influenced by Masonry and Old Testament practice.  I agree with you that what developed in Mormonism is uniquely different though, but I'd also point to these other influencing factors as being part of the process.  

You assume they are part of the process, and one may even posit that such esoteric sacramental ordinances are malleable enough to be formulated with Masonic rites specifically in mind. That might result in confusing form with substance, as well as imagining that one thus has in hand a full explanation -- when the reality is that the sequence of symbolic actions is deeply biblical in nature.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

......................  Can you provide a link to this Jules-Rosette article again for me. ....................

Jules-Rosette, Bennetta, “The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,” American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/epdf .

Quote

Bennetta Jules-Rosette proposes a new methodology for social research in the field of the social sciences. She bases her research on Christianity in African societies using folk inquiry and compares it with research using a distanced approach. She rebukes the use of impartiality while examining a culture. This detached research method takes the scientist out of the context of the cultural practice. Objectivity places an emphasis on the exotic nature of the action as opposed to the similarities these practices have with other cultures. Jules-Rosette describes a method based on conception, evaluation, and communication for field research. She further explains that many cultural practices can only be comprehended when in their native framework. Jules-Rosette argues that several “mystical” practices are actually instituted as a way of solving social issues. She uses her own experience with a fortuneteller as an example. The fortuneteller would burn pieces of paper and then tell the client their future. In reality, the fortuneteller was giving the client advice on how to solve their social problems. Since the Jules-Rosette isn’t from Brazzaville, the fortuneteller was unable to give her a helpful reading. The article concludes that our own cultural experience affects our perception of other cultures. Jules-Rosette suggests a new method that allows researchers to experience cultural practices in their original context.

Jules-Rosette makes a powerful point, and that point has affected the study of anthropology today. Her main complaint is that researchers lack the insider perspective, which is crucial to anthropological research. Her point being that no researcher can remove their biases from the research. She also uses terminology that is has very general meaning and gives new definitions for making her points. Understanding came only after rereading several passages.  http://www.publicanthropology.org/archives/american-anthropology/american-anthropologist-1970-3/american-anthropologist-1978/ .

Bennetta Jules-Rosette (PhD Harvard) is a distinguished professor of Sociology at the University of California San Diego.

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Don't feel bad about not being able to see any obvious "new truths."  Even the people who were tasked with writing the Sunday School lesson on "Continuing Revelation" couldn't find anything even  remotely impressive.  The best they could come up with as examples were...

1. Church Correlation

2. Revelation on the Priesthood

3. Publication of the LDS Editions of the Scriptures

4. New Quorums of the 70

Some dispensations get Prophets that use their power to call down fire upon the pagan priests.  Others get Prophets that reveal reorganized leadership Quorums and better footnotes for the scriptures.  I guess you get what you get.

Yep, revelation on the Priesthood is not new knowledge, but is claimed to be restored.  We even use Biblical evidence to demonstrate that it is not new. 

Second, the other examples of clarifying doctrine and organizational changes are not unique to Mormonism.  The Catholic Church also claims revelatory/inspirational guidance in such regards.  It doesn't seem that we have any evidence of "new" revelations/knowledge which have been received exclusively through prophetic channels.  The only practical way in which our use of revelation is unique (so far as I can see), is our use of extra Biblical sources as a method of expounding upon ancient truths.  Other than that, we claim the ability to receive new/continuing revelation, but it doesn't seem that we have much evidence of that yet.

The only revealed knowledge of an eternal truth that I can think that might be considered new is found in D&C 88 ("the olive leaf plucked from paradise") and 93, which revealed the roles of the light of Christ in our lives and in creation etc.  This knowledge seems to be unique to this dispensation as far as I can tell.  

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure its possible to ever get to an original source with any high degree of confidence. 

That is exactly right, which makes it kind of pointless to argue that current ordinances and practices are not like they used to be in ancient times.  It is all speculation without a "high degree of confidence".  We take it on faith that these truths and ordinances have been restored from ancient times.  The church doesn't need historical proof to make these claims  - that is absurd.   Whether or not they are carbon copies doesn't really matter one way or the other; what matters is that the keys are the same and that the Lord approves and validates the ordinances as practiced today.   

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If that is the case, then why didn't Rigdon's mentor Alexander Campbell (and Barton Stone) opt for priesthood authority?  The church tradition they founded has no such claim.  One would be equally well justified to say that such a notion came from the Bible, or from Anglican and Roman Catholic influence.

I admit I haven't researched the life of Rigdon much, I haven't read the Van Wagoner biography on him either, so if you're saying the evidence for his influencing the priesthood restoration isn't strong, I would be interested in learning more.  I'm only repeating what I've read from other authors, and I know of the David Whitmer statements about Rigdon as well.  

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You assume they are part of the process, and one may even posit that such esoteric sacramental ordinances are malleable enough to be formulated with Masonic rites specifically in mind. That might result in confusing form with substance, as well as imagining that one thus has in hand a full explanation -- when the reality is that the sequence of symbolic actions is deeply biblical in nature.

I think form and substance are regularly confused, and ought to be fleshed out more.  We have a lot of superstitious traditions that really don't make much sense if you explore them beyond a surface exploration.  On the other hand we humans are great at creatively imagining symbolism, some of which may have little to no value.  

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is exactly right, which makes it kind of pointless to argue that current ordinances and practices are not like they used to be in ancient times.  It is all speculation without a "high degree of confidence".  We take it on faith that these truths and ordinances have been restored from ancient times.  The church doesn't need historical proof to make these claims  - that is absurd.   Whether or not they are carbon copies doesn't really matter one way or the other; what matters is that the keys are the same and that the Lord approves and validates the ordinances as practiced today.   

Why should we take it on faith when the evidence is ambiguous at best and completely contradictory at worst.  The problem with all of this, saying that something is ancient without proof and saying the keys are the same, those claims are mixing religious claims with historical and factual.  The way you've worded those claims need to change in order not to mix the two positions together. 

Here are some examples that would be perfectly honest and compatible with keeping the religious and the empirical separate:

1. Mormonism doctrine teaches eternal truths that had been lost, but have now been restored to the earth through later day revelation.  (no explicit ancient correlation happening here)

2. Mormonism contains the keys of authority to administer ordinances and receive revelation from on high.  (No comparison to keys in the past, no specific claim that could be scrutinized through historical analysis)

 

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why should we take it on faith when the evidence is ambiguous at best and completely contradictory at worst. 

We take it on faith because 1) these are religious claims of revelation.  The Lord can reveal things to us from the past via prophets.  He is not required to supply ancient artifacts with the revelation before we can have faith in it.  The Lord is not required to separate the religious claims from "historical/factual" claims.  It is all truth that can be revealed through the Lord.   That would not require faith at all, would it?  2) we cannot use the evidence at hand "with any degree of confidence" as you point out, therefore we are left with two options - to have faith in Joseph's words via personal revelation, or to doubt them based on very little evidence, and none that we can trust with any degree of certainty as being original source.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

1. Mormonism doctrine teaches eternal truths that had been lost, but have now been restored to the earth through later day revelation.  (no explicit ancient correlation happening here)

Yes there is - "lost", "restored", all explicit claims of ancient origin. 

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

2. Mormonism contains the keys of authority to administer ordinances and receive revelation from on high.  (No comparison to keys in the past, no specific claim that could be scrutinized through historical analysis)

Scrutinize all you want, you will never be certain of your conclusions.  It wont change the fact that faith is required either way.  I think it is lame to try and restrict revelation our of fear that it might be scrutinized.  Scrutinize away!

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why should we take it on faith when the evidence is ambiguous at best and completely contradictory at worst.  The problem with all of this, saying that something is ancient without proof and saying the keys are the same, those claims are mixing religious claims with historical and factual.  The way you've worded those claims need to change in order not to mix the two positions together. 

I see nothing at all wrong with making religious claims which also have historical and factual backing.  Why do you say they must be kept separate?  I don't understand you here.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Here are some examples that would be perfectly honest and compatible with keeping the religious and the empirical separate:

1. Mormonism doctrine teaches eternal truths that had been lost, but have now been restored to the earth through later day revelation.  (no explicit ancient correlation happening here)

2. Mormonism contains the keys of authority to administer ordinances and receive revelation from on high.  (No comparison to keys in the past, no specific claim that could be scrutinized through historical analysis)

Same odd assertion, that "the religious and the empirical" need to be kept separate.  Howso?  Alma 32 unites them in the form of the experimental method,  which you presumably accept.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just trying to point out competing beliefs that contradict.

As I said I don't think they contradict due to the question of authority. In a similar way Miranda Rights had to be stated in a fashion required by the various judges and district attorneys due to authority. So I think you're just conflating two separate issues.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How would a person know that the temple ritual changes weren't also a mistake?  How can we discern between the mistakes of leaders and the inspired changes of leaders?  

Isn't this a standard answer in the church? You know by asking God, the ultimate authority and arbiter. If you're just asking is there some obvious way of knowing beyond that, of course there's not. How could there be? If this is all ultimately questions of authority then you go to the relevant authorities. So I think you're effectively just trying to make something fairly simple into something complicated. The only issue is ultimately who has God's authority and when.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that there are few if any objectively essential things.  I also don't see much value in finding ancient parallels either theologically or practically.  The restoration of things past in the 19th century I see as a fad that had some purchase at that time, but that doesn't work well in the 21st century. 

I would prefer a theology that focuses on broadly defined gospel principles and that is constantly engaging in the world with the contemporary issues of our day and putting those principles to work in real scenarios and trying to negotiate the complex situations in a living and active way.  

It seems to me that you then have rendered your initial claim that started all this impossible to answer in principle. Remember you said:

Quote

The problem you'll run into in Mormonism is there are claims that all of these ideas existed anciently without any actual evidence to support those claims.  Just because Joseph or some other modern leader claimed a teaching is a restoration of something ancient doesn't make it so.  They were making these claims as part of a theological articulation of what Mormonism was doing. 

The reason I originally asked about how similar things have to be or what's essential was to figure out how you wanted your question/claim answered. Now you're saying that in principle there's no evidence because evidence of that sort is impossible and there's no value to it anyway. Which kind of ends the discussion I guess.

Effectively Mormons argue there is some degree of continuity through human history in terms of beliefs and rites for religion when operating with authority. (This also presupposes a degree of authority that's possible) One can just dismiss this of course and just see religion as something socially useful. But I think for most Mormons that would cease to really be religion.

Edited November 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We take it on faith because 1) these are religious claims of revelation.  The Lord can reveal things to us from the past via prophets.  He is not required to supply ancient artifacts with the revelation before we can have faith in it.  The Lord is not required to separate the religious claims from "historical/factual" claims.  It is all truth that can be revealed through the Lord.   That would not require faith at all, would it?  2) we cannot use the evidence at hand "with any degree of confidence" as you point out, therefore we are left with two options - to have faith in Joseph's words via personal revelation, or to doubt them based on very little evidence, and none that we can trust with any degree of certainty as being original source.

I'm not starting with the same assumptions you are.  I see some utility in having faith in leaders when you are young and immature, but as a person develops and matures I see less and less value in having a blind faith that something told from an authority figure is accurate or true.  I think the gospel and the lessons of life are calling us to develop an internal authority, as a questing and questioning spirit that looks at information more critically and determines the right actions based on the complex scenarios unique to their situation.  I think God is calling us to not have faith in a religious theological claim, but to have faith in the eternal and ineffable in a metaphorical sense.  

Even for the young and immature, I don't think the message of faith is to ever have faith in a human, the scriptures teach against this often telling us to not put our faith in the arm of the flesh, this would include prophets who's arms are made out of flesh.  I think the scriptures teach to have faith in God, not in a particular command of a human.  I see the gospel as encouraging us to grow and to seek our own revelation, to find our truth, not to create a religion out of it, but to live life more abundantly and to influence the world for the better.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes there is - "lost", "restored", all explicit claims of ancient origin. 

Lost and restored don't have to imply something ancient, they could have always been lost or lost in the sense of out of our reach, and restored in the sense of returning which could have meaning from a pre-earth to mortality perspective.  Nothing set in stone though.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Scrutinize all you want, you will never be certain of your conclusions.  It wont change the fact that faith is required either way.  I think it is lame to try and restrict revelation our of fear that it might be scrutinized.  Scrutinize away!

Of course I won't be certain, thankfully I'm completely aware of my lack of certainty now.  The difference is that as an orthodox Mormon I operated under the illusion of certainty, and that was a self deception.  If you believe you are certain, enjoy the feeling because you are operating under the same illusion I used to, thankfully my eyes have been opened to the complexity of life and my lack of understanding has been expanded exponentially.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing at all wrong with making religious claims which also have historical and factual backing.  Why do you say they must be kept separate?  I don't understand you here.

I'm going to point you to this thread from the other day with MFB.  I think its a category error to mix subjective religious truth claims with disciplines of scholarship and science that can be tested in the secular arena.  He seemed to agree with this paradigm, and as I'm not nearly as smart or articulate as either of you, I think it might be helpful if you read how he responded to my point as it might add some interesting insight.  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69733-what-kind-of-reality-for-the-plates-on-a-tavesian-hypothesis/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-1209769579

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Same odd assertion, that "the religious and the empirical" need to be kept separate.  Howso?  Alma 32 unites them in the form of the experimental method,  which you presumably accept.

Alma 32 teaches us how we can know what is true and what fruit is good.  Goodness and truth in a religious sense.  I won't ever tell us anything about the factual history of the world.  Truths about the sciences and history can't be found through the Alma 32 method, but truths about the meaning of life and religion can be found through that method.  

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't this a standard answer in the church? You know by asking God, the ultimate authority and arbiter. If you're just asking is there some obvious way of knowing beyond that, of course there's not. How could there be? If this is all ultimately questions of authority then you go to the relevant authorities. So I think you're effectively just trying to make something fairly simple into something complicated. The only issue is ultimately who has God's authority and when.

Ok, then I know (from personal spiritual witness) that there is much in the current and past temple ceremonies that is flawed and uninspired and offensive to my spirit and the spirit of the divine.  Will you support my personal revelation as legitimate for me or will you try and minimize it in the same way that typically happens?  

The typical church response is that a person can ask God for answers about questions, but the only acceptable answers are those that agree with ecclesiastical authorities.  Any other answers by default are uninspired if they contradict the official opinions of the leaders.  Its complicated because of how the church tries to tightly control the experiences of members.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The reason I originally asked about how similar things have to be or what's essential was to figure out how you wanted your question/claim answered. Now you're saying that in principle there's no evidence because evidence of that sort is impossible and there's no value to it anyway. Which kind of ends the discussion I guess.

Effectively Mormons argue there is some degree of continuity through human history in terms of beliefs and rites for religion when operating with authority. (This also presupposes a degree of authority that's possible) One can just dismiss this of course and just see religion as something socially useful. But I think for most Mormons that would cease to really be religion.

I don't see value in this ancient origins claim.  I also don't see how they can prove it, but if the church continues to make this claim, which is in the arena of historical scholarship, then they need to find evidence to support the claim.  If they want to change the claim to take it out of this arena, I think that is a viable option and probably the best strategy.  You see this happening on subjects like the BoA and the catalyst theory essentially taking all scholarly claims about translation off the table completely.  

I don't personally think the church will find strong evidence for ancient origins, but like I said earlier I would follow the evidence if they do.  

The narrative of continuity throughout history is a nice package that has little basis in reality.  Have you read the Standing Apart historical treatment of the apostasy narrative in the church?  I highly recommend it, its very informative and well written and deconstructs apostasy narrative in a very friendly and well researched way.    https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510094529&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

I'm a Mormon, so when you say something applies to "Mormons" I consider myself part of that club, and the experiences of "Mormons" is vast and varied as the human experience.  I'm talking about evaluating the traditions of the past and constructing traditions that work for us today, this seems like a very Joseph Smith kind of thing to do, so in that sense I feel like it is very Mormon of me to talk about.  

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not starting with the same assumptions you are.  I see some utility in having faith in leaders when you are young and immature, but as a person develops and matures I see less and less value in having a blind faith that something told from an authority figure is accurate or true.  I think the gospel and the lessons of life are calling us to develop an internal authority, as a questing and questioning spirit that looks at information more critically and determines the right actions based on the complex scenarios unique to their situation.  I think God is calling us to not have faith in a religious theological claim, but to have faith in the eternal and ineffable in a metaphorical sense.  

Even for the young and immature, I don't think the message of faith is to ever have faith in a human, the scriptures teach against this often telling us to not put our faith in the arm of the flesh, this would include prophets who's arms are made out of flesh.  I think the scriptures teach to have faith in God, not in a particular command of a human.  I see the gospel as encouraging us to grow and to seek our own revelation, to find our truth, not to create a religion out of it, but to live life more abundantly and to influence the world for the better.  

I am not talking about blind faith in humans.  I am talking about faith in the word of God as revealed by prophets, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit in my heart.  

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Even for the young and immature, I don't think the message of faith is to ever have faith in a human, the scriptures teach against this often telling us to not put our faith in the arm of the flesh, this would include prophets who's arms are made out of flesh.  I think the scriptures teach to have faith in God, not in a particular command of a human. 

So you trust in the scriptures?  And who wrote the scriptures again?  The arm of flesh?  Prophets? If you are using the scriptures as your source of God's teachings to men, then you understand that God uses prophets to reveal His truths to man.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lost and restored don't have to imply something ancient, they could have always been lost or lost in the sense of out of our reach, and restored in the sense of returning which could have meaning from a pre-earth to mortality perspective.  Nothing set in stone though.  

I just don't see any sense in making it ambiguous if God makes it clear that it is restored ancient truth.

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course I won't be certain, thankfully I'm completely aware of my lack of certainty now.  The difference is that as an orthodox Mormon I operated under the illusion of certainty, and that was a self deception.  If you believe you are certain, enjoy the feeling because you are operating under the same illusion I used to, thankfully my eyes have been opened to the complexity of life and my lack of understanding has been expanded exponentially.  

I don't claim certainty.  

 

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to point you to this thread from the other day with MFB.  I think its a category error to mix subjective religious truth claims with disciplines of scholarship and science that can be tested in the secular arena.  He seemed to agree with this paradigm, and as I'm not nearly as smart or articulate as either of you, I think it might be helpful if you read how he responded to my point as it might add some interesting insight.  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69733-what-kind-of-reality-for-the-plates-on-a-tavesian-hypothesis/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-1209769579 .

I will simply say that there is no essential difference between ancient Greek civilization being disclosed through archeology aa compared to Greek literature (such as Homeric Epic, or  the Classical Greek philosophers), and the world of the Bible or Book of Mormon being similarly disclosed through scientific inquiry.  Religion and epic myth are not science, but they can each be closely examined by science.

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Alma 32 teaches us how we can know what is true and what fruit is good.  Goodness and truth in a religious sense.  I won't ever tell us anything about the factual history of the world.  Truths about the sciences and history can't be found through the Alma 32 method, but truths about the meaning of life and religion can be found through that method.  

Alma 32 addresses empirical testing of subjective religious principles, but could as easily be applied to the County Agricultural agent giving a farmer newly developed seeds (GMO) with a suggestion that he plant and test those seeds -- to see what sort of yield they give.  These are pragmatic, empirical measures which tell us whether certain methods bear fruit.  For "by their fruits you shall know them."  The same would apply to the LDS Missionary Dept adopting a new conversion strategy, every bit as practical as the strategy adopted by a secular Tupperware salesman.  When Mormons build chapels or temples, they use the very same engineering and construction techniques used by any secular company.  When Mormons placed their familysearch.org system online, they applied strictly secular digital standards to that effort, and placed that system in the hands of Amazon servers, which are fast and dependable.

Scholars who write about the history of Israel regularly use archeology, linguistics, history, and logic in order to place the secular evidence in a coherent context.  Biblical scholars cannot do otherwise.  Science and religion regularly intersect at those points.  Truly, personal belief is subjective, and science uses a very different mode of inquiry and testing (which must be both falsifiable and replicated).  That does not mean that they have  nothing to do with one another.  Humans themselves use both every day, and always will.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about blind faith in humans.  I am talking about faith in the word of God as revealed by prophets, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit in my heart.  

Could you please make a distinction between the words of humans and the words of God as last time I checked the words you're talking were uttered by humans.  

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you trust in the scriptures?  And who wrote the scriptures again?  The arm of flesh?  Prophets? If you are using the scriptures as your source of God's teachings to men, then you understand that God uses prophets to reveal His truths to man.

I find valuable insights in scriptures, but trust is not a word I would use to describe the scriptures.  These are books written very long ago and they contain a multiplicity of messages for audiences long ago, many messages have valuable applications and insights and many messages are preposterous and serve as examples of how depraved individuals can be.  I suspect my concept of a prophet is very different than yours, it sounds like you follow a correlated Mormon approach.  

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

I just don't see any sense in making it ambiguous if God makes it clear that it is restored ancient truth.

Where did God make anything on this subject clear?  

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't claim certainty.  

You sound certain that God made specific statements with respect to this subject of the restoration of things ancient.  

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Could you please make a distinction between the words of humans and the words of God as last time I checked the words you're talking were uttered by humans.  

The revealed word of God comes through human tongue, but is spoken to the heart of man by the mouth of God. It is understood in the heart of man (parable of the sower).  How did you learn about God in the first place, except by prophets?  How did you learn to pray, except by prophets?  How did you learn about personal revelation, except by prophets?  How did you learn about the concept of faith, except by prophets?  How did you learn about the dangers of having faith in the arm of flesh, except by prophets? How did you learn about the gospel, except by prophets?  Ordinances...? What has God revealed to you personally about his gospel that did not originate from ancient or modern prophets?

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Where did God make anything on this subject clear?  

I believe that he made it clear to Joseph Smith, who made it clear through modern revelation to the saints, who when they pray about it can have clarity revealed to them to.  God reveals his secrets unto his servants the prophets.  The prophets, acting as God's mouth piece, reveal God's word to man.  Man prays to God for confirmation of the revelation.  God writes his word on man's heart.  That is not blind faith in the arm of flesh.  Not by a long shot.  It requires spiritual self-reliance, and dependence on the Lord. 

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You sound certain that God made specific statements with respect to this subject of the restoration of things ancient.  

 No, I don't believe that anyone can know any single thing with certainty until they know every single thing, otherwise our perspective is too limited to see how all of the variables of truth relate and affect each other.  Faith is not certainty.   

Edited November 7, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The revealed word of God comes through human tongue, but is spoken to the heart of man by the mouth of God. It is understood in the heart of man (parable of the sower).  How did you learn about God in the first place, except by prophets?  How did you learn to pray, except by prophets?  How did you learn about personal revelation, except by prophets?  How did you learn about the concept of faith, except by prophets?  How did you learn about the dangers of having faith in the arm of flesh, except by prophets? How did you learn about the gospel, except by prophets?  Ordinances...? What has God revealed to you personally about his gospel that did not originate from ancient or modern prophets?

I believe that he made it clear to Joseph Smith, who made it clear through modern revelation to the saints, who when they pray about it can have clarity revealed to them to.  God reveals his secrets unto his servants the prophets.  The prophets, acting as God's mouth piece, reveal God's word to man.  Man prays to God for confirmation of the revelation.  God writes his word on man's heart.  That is not blind faith in the arm of flesh.  Not by a long shot.  It requires spiritual self-reliance, and dependence on the Lord. 

 No, I don't believe that anyone can know any single thing with certainty until they know every single thing, otherwise our perspective is too limited to see how all of the variables of truth relate and affect each other.  Faith is not certainty.   

I was hoping you could answer my questions with more than just the correlated Mormon curriculum answers I was raised on, oh well.  All these concepts about who a prophet is and whether certain words they speak are from God are subjective faith claims of which individuals will have different opinions about.  You have only repeated the spoon fed Church paradigm.  

I am glad to hear you say you’re not certain of these things in which case I would like to recommend that you use less certain sounding language that communicates your lack of certainty.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I will simply say that there is no essential difference between ancient Greek civilization being disclosed through archeology aa compared to Greek literature (such as Homeric Epic, or  the Classical Greek philosophers), and the world of the Bible or Book of Mormon being similarly disclosed through scientific inquiry.  Religion and epic myth are not science, but they can each be closely examined by science.

It’s when scholarly evaluations of religious experiencal beliefs is used as a mechanism of proving or disproving the validity of those religious beliefs then I see a problem happening.  Scholarly evaluation of subjective beliefs can tell us things about behaviors and human nature, but it can’t tell us whether or not the people holding those beliefs are experiencing truth and beauty from their perspective or not.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Alma 32 addresses empirical testing of subjective religious principles, but could as easily be applied to the County Agricultural agent giving a farmer newly developed seeds (GMO) with a suggestion that he plant and test those seeds -- to see what sort of yield they give.  These are pragmatic, empirical measures which tell us whether certain methods bear fruit.  For "by their fruits you shall know them."  The same would apply to the LDS Missionary Dept adopting a new conversion strategy, every bit as practical as the strategy adopted by a secular Tupperware salesman.  When Mormons build chapels or temples, they use the very same engineering and construction techniques used by any secular company.  When Mormons placed their familysearch.org system online, they applied strictly secular digital standards to that effort, and placed that system in the hands of Amazon servers, which are fast and dependable.

Scholars who write about the history of Israel regularly use archeology, linguistics, history, and logic in order to place the secular evidence in a coherent context.  Biblical scholars cannot do otherwise.  Science and religion regularly intersect at those points.  Truly, personal belief is subjective, and science uses a very different mode of inquiry and testing (which must be both falsifiable and replicated).  That does not mean that they have  nothing to do with one another.  Humans themselves use both every day, and always will.

Whether a pumpkin seed planted bears the good fruit of a healthy pumpkin tells a farmer whether or not the seed and the materials used to cultivate and care for that seed are good.  However it wouldn’t tell the farmer if pumpkins are the truth, or which seeds the farmer should plant in his field.

 The Alma 32 method can be applied very narrowly.  Unfortunately what often happens and what I think is analogous to this point I’m making about a category error, is that religious practitioners often make a mistake by thinking that a healthy pumpkin grown from a good seed tells them that pumpkins are the true vegetables and that God has endorsed their farm as well.  

You can’t plant the seed of a religion, no such seed exists it is too broad a category with too many variables, and confirmation bias along with many other logical fallacies confused the experiment.  I can’t plant the seed of the BoM to tell me whether ancient Nephites actually existed.    

I agree with you that secular learning and the religious intersect and always will as long as people on both sides don’t get confused about the limitations of their methods of knowledge and confuse the two.  Scholarship can’t prove or disprove whether a religion is “true” in a philosophical sense.  

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Don't feel bad about not being able to see any obvious "new truths."  Even the people who were tasked with writing the Sunday School lesson on "Continuing Revelation" couldn't find anything even  remotely impressive.  The best they could come up with as examples were...

1. Church Correlation

2. Revelation on the Priesthood

3. Publication of the LDS Editions of the Scriptures

4. New Quorums of the 70

Some dispensations get Prophets that use their power to call down fire upon the pagan priests.  Others get Prophets that reveal reorganized leadership Quorums and better footnotes for the scriptures.  I guess you get what you get.

We live in exciting times for sure.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was hoping you could answer my questions with more than just the correlated Mormon curriculum answers I was raised on, oh well. 

I follow my heart.  Is that the wrong answer?  

At least I answer your questions instead of avoiding them, as you have done.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

All these concepts about who a prophet is and whether certain words they speak are from God are subjective faith claims of which individuals will have different opinions about. 

Yep.  You nailed it!  If you are looking for something more than that...good luck to ya!

 If you happen to find objective proof for faith claims that everybody agrees on, let me know when you find it!

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I am glad to hear you say you’re not certain of these things in which case I would like to recommend that you use less certain sounding language that communicates your lack of certainty.  

I don’t need to communicate my uncertainty.  I know what I believe, and I am not concerned if you, or others, snub me for sounding confident in my beliefs.