hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 I just watched this recent video interview with Steven Harper from the Mormon Channel. I like Dr. Harper overall, he seems like a nice guy and a good scholar. He makes multiple points about not negatively stigmatizing people with questions, listening to them with sincerity, and I loved those points. But I found other elements somewhat problematic and thought provoking and just wanted to share in case others may have questions/thoughts. Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real. He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children. The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas. There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true. If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this. I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general. It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here. Thoughts? Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM. Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say. I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history 4 Link to comment
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted July 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2018 Those arguments seem contradictory. If I learn the story of Santa Claus and the reindeer isn't real I can still appreciate Christmas and gifts etc, but it would be foolish to hold on to the testimony of Santa. So I guess it's okay to not believe in Santa as long as I orient myself to act like I do. Is he suggesting that even if, for example, he learned that Joseph smith didn't "translate" "golden plates" written by "ancient prophets" as a "literal history" that he should still orient himself based on the testimony that those things were true? Doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it sounds a bit delusional. 6 Link to comment
Popular Post Amulek Posted July 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. I think he's simply stating that certain truth claims are beyond the purview of history. That seems like a fairly sensible opinion in my view. For example, history can inform our understanding about whether or not there was a historical Jesus - though it is much less useful if you are trying to determine whether or not he is the Messiah. History can tell us that there was a young man by the name of Joseph Smith, but history doesn't have much to say about whether or not he really experienced a theophany in his youth. Etc., etc. 5 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Those arguments seem contradictory. If I learn the story of Santa Claus and the reindeer isn't real I can still appreciate Christmas and gifts etc, but it would be foolish to hold on to the testimony of Santa. So I guess it's okay to not believe in Santa as long as I orient myself to act like I do. Is he suggesting that even if, for example, he learned that Joseph smith didn't "translate" "golden plates" written by "ancient prophets" as a "literal history" that he should still orient himself based on the testimony that those things were true? Doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it sounds a bit delusional. I agree with you, and I'm not sure how he would answer that question about translation. He shared that he has a testimony of the BoM that he received through prayer. He also said he has many questions about the church, some of which he has satisfactory answers to and others that he doesn't. Yet he said one can't prove the truth of the church via church history. The way I interpret that is that no matter what evidence a person finds for or against the church, none of that can prove the church is or isn't true. So my assumption would be that if he found strong evidence that the BoM wasn't historical, it wouldn't matter because of his testimony that its true is all that matters. I can't say I understand that logic. From my perspective, learning that the BoM isn't historical is an important thing to learn because of the implications of what that says about the assumptions we bring to the table when we pray and have spiritual experiences. For me, I learned that the spiritual experiences I have aren't evidence to confirm historical events. They are individual and subjective experiences that have value for my personal life, but that they don't tell me facts about history. 1 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 25 minutes ago, Amulek said: I think he's simply stating that certain truth claims are beyond the purview of history. That seems like a fairly sensible opinion in my view. For example, history can inform our understanding about whether or not there was a historical Jesus - though it is much less useful if you are trying to determine whether or not he is the Messiah. History can tell us that there was a young man by the name of Joseph Smith, but history doesn't have much to say about whether or not he really experienced a theophany in his youth. Etc., etc. Interesting. Would you say that there is any way to accurately determine if Joseph Smith experienced a theophany from a factual and historical perspective? Link to comment
SouthernMo Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Mr. Harper seems to be at peace with the idea that things that LDS leadership has approved to be taught aren’t always true, but that it’s OK because these things lead to his personal happiness. I’m more of a literalist, and when someone asks me if I think the Book of Mormon is true, I ask what they mean by true. Historically accurate? Inspired? Translated? Relevant? Other? Then, on those lines, the ‘truth’ should stand up to scrutiny. He raises a very apt point in his interview when he discusses how our assumptions and expectations can be roadblocks in our understanding. The problem for many members today is that our assumptions have been taught to us as doctrine for many years. Why that has been happening is a subject for a different thread. 2 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Mr. Harper seems to be at peace with the idea that things that LDS leadership has approved to be taught aren’t always true, but that it’s OK because these things lead to his personal happiness. I’m more of a literalist, and when someone asks me if I think the Book of Mormon is true, I ask what they mean by true. Historically accurate? Inspired? Translated? Relevant? Other? Then, on those lines, the ‘truth’ should stand up to scrutiny. He raises a very apt point in his interview when he discusses how our assumptions and expectations can be roadblocks in our understanding. The problem for many members today is that our assumptions have been taught to us as doctrine for many years. Why that has been happening is a subject for a different thread. Great points. I was thinking similar thoughts about this idea of asking God if a book or collection of books is true. Should we ask God if Harry Potter is true? I just read John Turner's biography on Brigham Young, could I ask God if that book is true? Or what about cnn.com, should I ask if that's true? Or a book of poetry, or a movie, or a podcast I listened to. Can I ask God if these things are true, and if I get a good feeling what does that tell me about these various things? All of this seems based on our assumptions we bring to the table, which is another point you made that Dr. Harper talks about. Link to comment
SouthernMo Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Great points. I was thinking similar thoughts about this idea of asking God if a book or collection of books is true. Should we ask God if Harry Potter is true? I just read John Turner's biography on Brigham Young, could I ask God if that book is true? Or what about cnn.com, should I ask if that's true? Or a book of poetry, or a movie, or a podcast I listened to. Can I ask God if these things are true, and if I get a good feeling what does that tell me about these various things? I’ve read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius a few times now. That book is FAR more inspiring and helps me be a better man than any of th standard works. Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I’ve read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius a few times now. That book is FAR more inspiring and helps me be a better man than any of th standard works. Cool, I've not read that or other texts by Stoicists before, but thats good to hear, and I think there are good things to learn from those texts. There are so many things that have been written that we can glean real value from, and I think Mormonism actually encourages seeking value from other texts. Unfortunately, for many fundamentalist types, there is a big asterisk next to anything that isn't canon. God wrote all the canon, and humans with their evil philosophies, wrote the rest and we should be very cautious about those other human writings. 1 Link to comment
Jane_Doe Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I just watched this recent video interview with Steven Harper from the Mormon Channel. I like Dr. Harper overall, he seems like a nice guy and a good scholar. He makes multiple points about not negatively stigmatizing people with questions, listening to them with sincerity, and I loved those points. But I found other elements somewhat problematic and thought provoking and just wanted to share in case others may have questions/thoughts. Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real. He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children. The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas. There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true. If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this. I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general. It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here. Thoughts? Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM. Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say. I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history I don't like that Santa Claus analogy at all. It's really horrible. Here's my parallel: I teach biology on a number of levels (pre-K through graduate). I am quite honest with my students: what I am telling you right now is a simplification of how the real world works. What your 3rd grade teacher told you and showed you on "The Magic School Bus" was great understanding for 10 year olds-- I watch "The Magic School Bus" with my own daughter. But for this college class we're ditching the 90's cartoon simplifications and I'm going to tell you a much more complicated story that doesn't alway match up with Ms. Frizzle's telling for 10 year olds. And if you go on to Graduate School, you'll find all the find all exceptions to the simplified version "rules" I'm going to tell you in here-- I'm still learning those complexities myself. 4 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: I don't like that Santa Claus analogy at all. It's really horrible. Here's my parallel: I teach biology on a number of levels (pre-K through graduate). I am quite honest with my students: what I am telling you right now is a simplification of how the real world works. What your 3rd grade teacher told you and showed you on "The Magic School Bus" was great understanding for 10 year olds-- I watch "The Magic School Bus" with my own daughter. But for this college class we're ditching the 90's cartoon simplifications and I'm going to tell you a much more complicated story that doesn't alway match up with Ms. Frizzle's telling for 10 year olds. And if you go on to Graduate School, you'll find all the find all exceptions to the simplified version "rules" I'm going to tell you in here-- I'm still learning those complexities myself. Thanks for the comments. Curious how your understanding about how biology works informs positions of faith within Mormonism. For example, I'm assuming you teach biological evolution, and that this knowledge informs your perspective on the creation of humans, and that you don't take the biblical literalist position seriously. So how does this approach work for other traditionally Mormon perspectives on topics like the historicity of the BoM or exclusive Priesthood authority? Would you consider my position of 19th century origins for the BoM and Joseph Smith authorship as a more complex and graduate level understanding? 1 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 The thing is..the very heartbreak of a 9 year old finding out about Santa...is kind of devastating..and there is a sense of betrayal of the folks...not Christmas. Those feelings are the same when you feel betrayed over and over again. Just sayin...but doesn't mean I throw away mormons..God or the Savior. 2 Link to comment
Jane_Doe Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the comments. Curious how your understanding about how biology works informs positions of faith within Mormonism. For example, I'm assuming you teach biological evolution, and that this knowledge informs your perspective on the creation of humans, and that you don't take the biblical literalist position seriously. So how does this approach work for other traditionally Mormon perspectives on topics like the historicity of the BoM or exclusive Priesthood authority? Would you consider my position of 19th century origins for the BoM and Joseph Smith authorship as a more complex and graduate level understanding? The purpose of the parallel was showing how the lesson that 10 year old receives is different that the college student receives. Truth didn't change one bit, but the student grew and now is ready for a more advanced understanding of the same topics. For a biology example, you have how photosynthesis works-- totally different discussion for 4th graders versus students who've taken college o-chem. And there are a million examples you could likewise pull from Gospel topics or church history stuff. You mentioned the translation of the plates: for a junior primary class the discussion is that God helped JS take the plates from the language the Nephites spoke to English so we can read it. Adult discussion can touch on things like the known/speculated mechanics of said translation, how languages evolve through time, complexities of modern language, etc. For a another example: the Bible tells of the creation of the Earth and man. The jr primary discussion is "God made me! God love me! He made my dog and trees to climb and so many other great things!" That's all well and good. My adult perception is: Yes God made me, that is always true. God also made my dog and the trees to rest next too. God does love me. The story of how He made Adam by putting clay together and blew life into it is symbolic and we can learn much spiritual truth from that account. That's scripture's purpose: to teach us spiritual things. The Bible isn't a biology book to explain DNA, gene mutation, selective pressures, etc-- like can you picture some old Isreali king trying to sound out 'deoxyribonucleic acid', let alone understand it? Heck, we 21st century folks barely have any idea how DNA works! The Bible story of creation (and rest of scriptures) is for teaching the spiritual concept. Those Truths don't change just because we learn more about DNA and the mechanics of how God works His wonders. For my professional biology research, I have the pleasure of being paid to learn a smidge more of those mechanics, and that's awesome. 2 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 49 minutes ago, Jeanne said: The thing is..the very heartbreak of a 9 year old finding out about Santa...is kind of devastating..and there is a sense of betrayal of the folks...not Christmas. Those feelings are the same when you feel betrayed over and over again. Just sayin...but doesn't mean I throw away mormons..God or the Savior. I’ve heard this before, but I don’t remember feeling a sense of betrayal when I learned about Santa as a kid. Maybe I did, my memory of those early days is foggy at best. But I recollect feeling empowered that I now new the real truth. At the same time I think I felt a bit of a loss of the magic of Santa. Link to comment
Jeanne Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I’ve heard this before, but I don’t remember feeling a sense of betrayal when I learned about Santa as a kid. Maybe I did, my memory of those early days is foggy at best. But I recollect feeling empowered that I now new the real truth. At the same time I think I felt a bit of a loss of the magic of Santa. Count yourself lucky....I was a true believer in Santa...just heartbroken....😋 1 Link to comment
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) "what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? " I am not leaving the Church because I found out a story, say, Joseph F. Smith told, happened 10 years later than he said it did. Is my rock Jesus or Joseph F. Smith? (as wonderful as he is, he isn't the Saviour) Or I am still going to visit Stonehenge even though people disagree with the who, what , where and why of it. Do I stop going to Missouri because I found out Col. Potter, from Hannibal, was not a real character? or the bigger picture do I not go to the US because the creators of MASH are Americans and they lied to me about Col. Potter's existence? no, that would be silly "LDS truth claims " Give me an example of this. Edited July 25, 2018 by Duncan 3 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I just watched this recent video interview with Steven Harper from the Mormon Channel. I like Dr. Harper overall, he seems like a nice guy and a good scholar. He makes multiple points about not negatively stigmatizing people with questions, listening to them with sincerity, and I loved those points. But I found other elements somewhat problematic and thought provoking and just wanted to share in case others may have questions/thoughts. Towards the end of the video (19 min mark) he makes an analogy to finding out that story of Santa Clause he learned as a young child wasn't real. He explains that he learned many things about the history of Santa Clause that differed from the simple story told to children. The point of this was to say that just because he learned that story wasn't true, doesn't mean we should throw out Christmas. There is value in Christmas still even if those childhood stories about Santa Clause aren't true. If we apply this analogy to Mormon church history, what does it mean to learn that things aren't true, but that we shouldn't throw out the church? I think to some extent my personal beliefs track really closely to this. I don't believe in a theistic God anymore and I don't believe the BoM is historical, yet I still see value in the Mormon tradition and religious traditions in general. It seems like my orientation of not wanting to throw out all the good just because I learned the traditional narratives aren't true, would apply here. Thoughts? Also, towards the beginning of the interview he talks about after having some experiences that challenged his faith that his Dad shared his testimony of the BoM with him, and that even though he didn't have good answers to every question, how he relies on a testimony of the BoM. Later in the interview he makes a statement that no amount of history can prove the church is or isn't true. He seems to be saying that what matters most is not accurate history, but rather a person's orientation towards a very specific truth claim. So even if none of the LDS truth claims have historical evidence to support them, as long as you believe the BoM is "true" and the gospel is "true" then nothing else matters. Why? I don't understand. Can anyone else help me understand what he's trying to say. I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/gospel-solutions-for-families/how-to-answer-questions-about-church-history This is what we have been discussing forever. But what does this mean? I am lost Quote I'm on board with not throwing out all the good of religion and Mormonism when we find out that traditional narratives aren't accurate history. That makes complete sense to me. But I'm confused as to why this principle seems to be limited to only certain questions. Can't we also learn that the BoM isn't "true", through seeking greater knowledge? Why does he seem to limit this exploration when it comes down to the bare essentials, questions about the gospel (God) and questions about the foundational text of Mormonism. 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: The thing is..the very heartbreak of a 9 year old finding out about Santa...is kind of devastating..and there is a sense of betrayal of the folks...not Christmas. Those feelings are the same when you feel betrayed over and over again. Just sayin...but doesn't mean I throw away mormons..God or the Savior. 9? Huh. I was six. Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: For me, I learned that the spiritual experiences I have aren't evidence to confirm historical events. They are individual and subjective experiences that have value for my personal life, but that they don't tell me facts about history. Spiritual experiences may fill in some gaps or act as a bridge to confirm something historical but they can not be used as objective evidence to prove to someone else that something is historical. On can't prove the Book of Mormon based on historical information that is widely accepted. That does not mean the BOM is not historical. It just means that current information concerning history does not validate it. A spiritual experience can tell an individual that despite current knowledge, the BOM is historical and true. Given the fact that we know very little about ancient America and that is being proven by the new LIDAR mapping technology that is will rewrite everything that has been said about the ancient Americans, the current lack of information neither refutes or supports the BOM. The spirit can bridge the current information gap for the individual so they don't have to wait around for the next 50 years to get something validated. So yes spiritual events may not give you facts about history but it is possible they can cause a person to focus less on individual facts that are not that important and get a person to focus on stuff that will be more important as time goes on. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: They are individual and subjective experiences that have value for my personal life, but that they don't tell me facts about history. And that is what religion is for! That is what is missing here! Religion is for you figuring out what is important in life, not historical facts. What you are doing is opening up your hood and looking at the fuel injection system to figure out where you want to go on you next trip. Yes your engine is important in getting you to your goal but the facts of what makes your engine work are not about where you WANT to go on your trip. What you want out of life is not determined by Book of Mormon geography, yet there are things in the Book of Mormon that might help you discover what is important in life. Two different questions. 4 Link to comment
Amulek Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Would you say that there is any way to accurately determine if Joseph Smith experienced a theophany from a factual and historical perspective? Doubtful. I mean, even if you had a bunch of other witnesses - all hiding in the bushes or something - at best you're going to get to the claim that he saw 'something.' How you then go about demonstrating "from a factual and historical perspective" that that 'something' was actually God, however, is beyond me. 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, USU78 said: 9? Huh. I was six. Wait a minute..... He's not real????? 2 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Interesting. Would you say that there is any way to accurately determine if Joseph Smith experienced a theophany from a factual and historical perspective? Nope. 4 Link to comment
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And that is what religion is for! That is what is missing here! Religion is for you figuring out what is important in life, not historical facts. What you are doing is opening up your hood and looking at the fuel injection system to figure out where you want to go on you next trip. Yes your engine is important in getting you to your goal but the facts of what makes your engine work are not about where you WANT to go on your trip. What you want out of life is not determined by Book of Mormon geography, yet there are things in the Book of Mormon that might help you discover what is important in life. Two different questions. This is a very good point, and we always need to make sure we know what questions we are asking, and what to expect of the individuals or organization we are asking. However, if I could further your analogy to express a frustration of mine: History shows that the leaders of the church in the past have sometimes been wrong, or lied. When these men claim to be the mouthpiece of God, they are telling us about a existence destination and giving us a roadmap of how to get there. Why should we trust an organization that has lied or been wrong in the past about the directions or existence of a destination unseen by the human eye? The popular response to these challenges of faith (when we feel we’re lost) is to have faith, and just keep driving. That doesn’t sound rational...? If you were lost, would you stop and reassess, or keep driving in the same direction with faith and hope and persistence? Edited July 25, 2018 by SouthernMo 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Nope. What methodology could possibly have any utility in addressing that there question? 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts