hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I personally don't think its possible that he had a physical experience, because I don't see any evidence to support the idea that God exists as a physical anthropomorphic being. I'm not interested in proving the church is or isn't true. But I'm interested in how a PhD historian can state that no historical evidence can prove the church is true or untrue, but at the same time assert that the BoM is true. Its the intersection of those two positions that I'm critiquing. I am not quite sure you understand the academic study of history. They don't go searching for did this or that actually happen, when it comes to these foundational events but what did people say happened and documented as such. Remember how I was saying historians are "slaves to evidence". I would invite you to read a book by E.H. Carr called, "What is History" I appreciate the recommendation, and I will check it out. I do think I understand what you're saying and that I understand how historians follow the evidence on history. There is ample evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith's experience was not a physical visitation. I would say the most compelling contemporary evidence supports my position on this point.
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: On Oct. 17, 1957, my dad, Mark, experienced a miraculous conversion to the LDS Church. Previously he was kind of a benign friend of the Church, but when my mom invited missionaries for dinner, he always told them, “You can eat my food, but you can’t cram your religion down my throat!” He came to a few activities and had some friends in the branch. On that day, Elders Mark Peterson and Delbert Stanley visited our branch in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to call a bishop and make it into a ward. My mom arranged special music and my dad agreed to come to see what happened. After the meeting, we all went up to shake hands with the apostles. When my dad introduced himself to Elder Peterson, the apostle put his arm around dad’s shoulder and said, “Pleased to meet you. My name is Mark, too.” At that moment my dad said he felt an electric shock move through his body and the Spirit told him he was in the presence of a true apostle of Jesus Christ. When we went home after the meeting my dad threw away his cigarettes, coffee, and beer. Susequently he was baptized. His entire personality was transformed and when he passed away decades later, in his wallet were the missionary cards of Elders Stewart and Hirschi who baptized him. Of course others, even non-LDS, have life-changing experiences. I believe God loves and reveals himself to his children. Something changed him, though. Other than the witness of those who saw what happened to dad, Is there anyway to accurately determine if he experienced a spirituallife-changing conversion from a factual or historical perspective? How would a historian writing in the future verify our story? This Mark had a similar experience. When you know you know and the words don't really matter much after that. I got zapped big time- I knew it and I knew God knew that I knew it- just like Joseph. So like, now I am going to leave because they changed home teaching to "ministering?" That is about how serious I see these silly squabbles about the "truth" of the church. I am on the side of Tertullian, Kirkegarrd, Pascal, James, Wittgenstein, and all the mystics of the Christian tradition- all brilliant people who get this rationally and explain it all rationally- that religion cannot be explained rationally! We need to get used to it and get over it. I have found that learning that this approach is fully "rational"- in explaining the role of "rationality" in our lives- allows one full freedom to say all the allegedly "silly" things like "I know the church is true" as a TRUE statement and a philosophical position regardless of the opposition's ignorance that this is a fully rational philosophical position- that religion is not based on "reason", except to establish the limits of reason. We mystics gotta stick together. Those who do not get it are the ones who are "irrational" because they do not know what "rationality" is! One cannot study a discipline without knowing the limits of the discipline. All truth is circumscribed into one whole and when one gets outside the circle- one is outside the circle. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/ Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 3
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: By your earlier comments, you can't say "there were plates", you can only say that there are some witness statements claiming the plates existed, and some contradictory statements as well. Other than contradictory witness statements, we have no solid evidence to support that plates existed. Using your logic about Christmas I think we could apply this to exaggerated religious narratives as well. Couldn't those of us who no longer believe in a historical BoM and a divine Jesus, continue to apply the good lessons of Christianity and Mormonism and have these ideals stay with them throughout their lives? That is sincerely what I'm attempting to do at this stage in my journey. but now you have to show that these witnesses were contradicting each other. I can say there were plates because there were witnesses that said as such. You can do whatever you want. Can I ask you a question? what is the word "learning" mean to you? when you learn new things how do you react? There are plenty of examples where witnesses contradicted not only each other but themselves as well. Harris and David Whitmer both did that. What does learning mean to me? Acquiring knowledge and wisdom through experience and study I guess. I don't know exactly what your'e looking for, does that help?
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Steven Harper knows a lot about church history. He said that we can learn things about history all day long, but we can't prove the church is true or untrue, he seems to be making contradictory claims from my vantage point. He claims that his experience through prayer is proof of the truth of the BoM. But he's also saying that no amount of historical evidence can prove or disprove Mormonism. So essentially it sounds like he wants to put a fence around the BoM and other fundamental religious propositions and say that these things can be studied and researched all you want, but that will never change the foundational assumption that these things are true. So evidence doesn't matter on these core foundational claims. BoM historicity, Joseph Smith prophet, God is real, Jesus Resurrection. If all these things are fundamentally true and no level of evidence can prove or disprove them, then that seems contradictory to me. Yes, exactly. And yes that is the exact point that you have had trouble understanding in our discussions. That is what I have been saying from the start. Scientific evidence does not prove spiritual things. They are totally independent Realms having nothing to do with each other. He is exactly right. History has nothing to do with the spiritual value of Mormonism as a paradigm for religious values. It is not an " assumptjon" it is a "revelation". Do you assume that murder is wrong? No, you know in your heart that murder is wrong independent of objective evidence that it is. Ok, perhaps we're getting closer to a key insight on our back and forth discussions, this is getting me excited. So explain to me if scientific evidence does not prove spiritual things (and I would agree with you that it doesn't), what does prove spiritual things? And how can we avoid confirmation bias on this these confirming spiritual ways of knowing? I agree these are two different categories completely, and shouldn't be mixed. My problem is that I see scholars in Mormonism mixing them together all the time. That is what I'm critiquing about Dr. Harper. He's making a faith claim that he can only prove through spiritual means and mixing it into his basic assumptions that he uses for his scholarly historical inquiry. This revelation that he received about the BoM, cannot by category definition be considered evidence to support a historical BoM. That is a category error if that is what Dr. Harper is doing (and I think it is exactly what he's doing). Otherwise how can he or any other Mormon scholar claim with a straight face that the scholarly evidence for the historicity of the BoM is compelling. It just isn't. Their revelation is what is compelling them to believe in the historicity of the BoM, but the actual scholarly evidence on that point is abysmal. If people would be clear about this distinction between faith propositions and scholarly inquiry it would keep people like me from pulling my hair out when I'm trying to listen to these scholars and take them seriously.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: hm...I disagree. Pretty much the opposite. What you describe feels very much like members telling less active or leavers why they leave. "your problem is, you were too lazy, got offended, and were never far enough in..." I think a problem that occurs all too often is others trying to tell someone what is wrong with him/her and how to fix it. Sure. But the problem is it's all broke to some extent or another. No one's running around living a life of perfection. So, if someone's happily living in a religion not seeing or accepting the warts, more power to ya. Because no matter what we're all just living our own life, in our own way, ending up short of doing anything and everything perfectly. I'm not trying to suggest that we should be judgmental about our awareness of others, I'm just pointing out that we often are confused about what we perceive, whether its our ability to remember things, or our ability to interpret things. I would recommend two podcasts that have some very interesting material about self deception topics. Also there were a couple episodes about memory problems on Malcome Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast this season that were excellent as well. All of these podcasts are just an entry way on this topic and there are books and other materials that you can read about as well. I find this stuff fascinating. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/ http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1 http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: Hence my great dislike of the Santa example, and preference for the biology one instead. Truth doesn't change, our understanding of it does. Again, I just really dislike the Santa comparison at all and would prefer to steer clear of such a flawed comparison completely. The scientific method is a great tool, but cannot address every question, such as "whether or not there is a God". Hence that question cannot be addressed by any science. We do still have other tools in the epistemological tool box though, and it is through those tools I have personally come to the conclusion that there is a God. And (for me) understanding those mechanisms better in no way changes the wonder. God's not a magician to pull a bunny out a hat and rely on that 'magic' that all fades if you know the trick. Rather He's a carpenter who can choose to use these tools and mechanisms to accomplish His purposes. Ok, I don't disagree with anything you've said here. So if God can be distilled down to a sense of wonder about the universe, then that is very compatible with my non-theistic view of God. But all of this doesn't make any of the exaggerated myths of Mormonism or Christianity true in a material/tangible sense. So I'm trying to steer clear from the Santa analogy since you don't like it. But how would you describe what happens when primary aged kids are taught in very concrete terms that the BoM is a real history of ancient Americans, and that Joseph Smith received tangible golden plates from a flesh and blood resurrected angel Moroni who was one of these ancient American's who buried these plates in a hill in upstate NY. You claim that the church is teaching truths that don't change. In what sense are these simple primary stories actually true?
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I think it’s clearer now. But to clarify, do you believe that general authorized have (ever) told lies to each other, or the laiety, or to the US government? who knows, I have never read everything every General Authorities have written
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: There are plenty of examples where witnesses contradicted not only each other but themselves as well. Harris and David Whitmer both did that. What does learning mean to me? Acquiring knowledge and wisdom through experience and study I guess. I don't know exactly what your'e looking for, does that help? Are you talking about witnesses in general or just the 11 plus witnesses to the plates of the BOM? How do you react when you learn new information? do you think people were lying to you when they they told you previous information to the new information that you just learned?
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: There can be factual matters that we believe on faith. For example was the Big Bang a singularity? We look at the data and it's not a slam dunk. Yet fora certain purpose we might want to assume that the Big Bang did come out of the singularity. We kind of take that on faith for the purposes of the discussion. We might take it on faith that the person Jesus of Nazareth actually lived, even supposing that the evidence is scant. I am not saying it is scant I'm just saying that we take it on faith. We take it on faith that the historical event of Joseph's walking into the woods actually happened. Maybe he made it all up, And it rained that day and he never went outside. Based on our feelings we trust people, or we don't. A jury makes a factual decision true or false by preponderance of the evidence. There is no way to decide what a preponderance is it's just the best guess with the evidence we have. We all do that all the time. I have no problem with it. Why should I take on faith that Jesus was resurrected when the evidence seems more compelling that he wasn't. Is deference to authority or tradition the reason I should take that proposition on faith? Same with Joseph's first vision, the evidence tells me he may have had some experience as a vision of some sort, but contemporary church leaders interpret that experience differently than I do. Which is more important, that I follow my personal interpretation of the evidence or that I defer to church authority figures and correlated propaganda? I trust people, sure, I trust church leaders generally have good intentions. They've also demonstrated that they don't research the history in great depths, so I don't trust their interpretations of history they haven't invested time and effort into studying. Shouldn't I trust my own conclusions about the evidence over that of someone who hasn't put the time and study into this topic? 1
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have never seen Harper confuse testimony with science. Trained historians rarely do that. Perhaps you have a specific example of him doing that. A great many believers appeal to faith, rather than secular evidence, whenever they are at loggerheads. Faith is a personal matter, and it is not the same as fudging on the facts -- since the debate is not usually about the facts, but rather about interpretation of facts. I think that Harper is asking the same general question that Ryan Dahle asks: Why don't we accept rational and fact-based evidence? Often we just don't want to. Too much bother. Did you listen to the Dr. Harper's video? His two points that I mentioned in the OP seem in contradiction to me. If he isn't using his personal revelatory experience about the BoM to inform his scholarly position on the historicity of the BoM, then I would have no problem at all with what he's saying. Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what he is doing. If you have evidence to support a different interpretation of what Dr. Harper is saying, please provide it. I've listened to him many times, read essays and books of his as well. If I'm misreading him, I'd like to see evidence otherwise.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yep. So we are supposed to ignore what we feel when we are talking about what gives us purpose in life? Do you ignore what you feel when you pick a spouse? Do you ignore what you feel when you vote for a Republican or Democrat? Did you ignore what you feel when you pick your occupation? When you decide how to raise our kids? Do you ignore what you feel when you decide to vote in favor of abortion? Do you ignore what you feel when you decide ANYTHING that is important in your life? That's the whole deal. Religion is about the important questions in your life not the factual ones. It gives you guidance about your feelings. It is not about facts and never was. Yes it is always biased because what it is about is figuring out what your biases are. It is an examination of your biases and feelings what is right and what is wrong etcetera. It helps you make decisions about what IS what is right and wrong and IMPORTANT. And yes it does the same thing for secular people as well. What is the most important issue facing Mankind and what should I do about it? Secular people make decisions like that all the time but they don't understand that what they are doing is following their gut or the spirit inside them to decide what is right or wrong. Theists just believe they have help in doing that. Atheists don't think they have help in doing that. That's the only difference. Of course I don't ignore all these things. They are very important parts of living and experiencing life. So important and perhaps much more important than any scholarly inquiries or discussions about historicity. I realize this is the essence of what makes meaning in life and I don't want to diminish it. I also have learned a lot about how bias influences our feelings about things, and this awareness makes me more mindful of how I need to listen to my feelings and try and think about what they are telling me before taking action. This has been informed by study and mindfulness, and hopefully is making me a more informed, thoughtful and reasonable person. Our feelings often are inaccurate about multiple things and just following feelings or being ruled by our passions seems a very poor way of operating in the world. So feeling that the BoM is true, doesn't make it historical. Feeling that God loves us, doesn't mean God is an actual entity in the universe. Feeling these religious claims doesn't make them factually true. I'm not saying we should be like Spock in Star Trek, but I am saying that we need to balance our feelings with reason and I think that the more we learn about how our feelings work, the better we can avoid erroneous thinking. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: On 7/24/2018 at 2:54 PM, hope_for_things said: 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? Why not? As the famous scripture says... Quote 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. But, why would we want or need to ask God if Harry Potter, The Good the Bad, and the Ugly, or Jabberwocky are true? Why would we want to ask God if anything is true? It seems to me there is truth and error everywhere. I'm haven't seen compelling evidence that prayer is an accurate way of distinguishing between truth and error unfortunately. It sounds like a very useful tool if it could accurately do this, but I don't think it can.
hope_for_things Posted July 26, 2018 Author Posted July 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: On Oct. 17, 1957, my dad, Mark, experienced a miraculous conversion to the LDS Church. Previously he was kind of a benign friend of the Church, but when my mom invited missionaries for dinner, he always told them, “You can eat my food, but you can’t cram your religion down my throat!” He came to a few activities and had some friends in the branch. On that day, Elders Mark Peterson and Delbert Stanley visited our branch in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to call a bishop and make it into a ward. My mom arranged special music and my dad agreed to come to see what happened. After the meeting, we all went up to shake hands with the apostles. When my dad introduced himself to Elder Peterson, the apostle put his arm around dad’s shoulder and said, “Pleased to meet you. My name is Mark, too.” At that moment my dad said he felt an electric shock move through his body and the Spirit told him he was in the presence of a true apostle of Jesus Christ. When we went home after the meeting my dad threw away his cigarettes, coffee, and beer. Susequently he was baptized. His entire personality was transformed and when he passed away decades later, in his wallet were the missionary cards of Elders Stewart and Hirschi who baptized him. Of course others, even non-LDS, have life-changing experiences. I believe God loves and reveals himself to his children. Something changed him, though. Other than the witness of those who saw what happened to dad, Is there anyway to accurately determine if he experienced a spirituallife-changing conversion from a factual or historical perspective? How would a historian writing in the future verify our story? I love stories like this, so great when people's lives are changed for the better and they have religious experiences that prompt the changes. I think what we can accurately say about what your Dad and others who've had similar experiences have gone through is a marvelous transformation conversion experience. That doesn't make the BoM historical or mean Apostles have exclusive authority or anything from an objective factual perspective. It just means that certain people in the right circumstances have experiences that are personally powerful and life changing, inside and outside religion. This is part of the human story.
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why should I take on faith that Jesus was resurrected when the evidence seems more compelling that he wasn't. Is deference to authority or tradition the reason I should take that proposition on faith? You shouldn't just believe something in deference to either authority or tradition. In this case, coming to know the resurrected Christ personally in the here and now is the best evidence that I can think of for the resurrection. Thankfully, that's a real option! Quote Same with Joseph's first vision, the evidence tells me he may have had some experience as a vision of some sort, but contemporary church leaders interpret that experience differently than I do. Which is more important, that I follow my personal interpretation of the evidence or that I defer to church authority figures and correlated propaganda? By all means, follow your interpretation of the evidence. But I think you've left off a third and rather important option: get your own visions (or other revelation). As Joseph himself said near the end, he didn't expect anyone to believe what he told them since he wouldn't believe it himself outside of personal experience. Faced with a choice between competing interpretations of past events, on one hand, and personal experience in the present, on the other, I'm not sure why anyone would choose the former. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 26, 2018 Author Posted July 26, 2018 29 minutes ago, Duncan said: Are you talking about witnesses in general or just the 11 plus witnesses to the plates of the BOM? How do you react when you learn new information? do you think people were lying to you when they they told you previous information to the new information that you just learned? I thought we were talking about the BoM plates witnesses, thats why I mentioned Martin Harris and David Whitmer. How do I react when I learn new information? I try to use critical thinking skills to square the information with other information that I've learned. I ask a lot of questions, especially if this new information contradicts older information that I had learned. In all honesty I think I need to work harder on being more critical of information that confirms positions I currently hold. That is a more difficult thing to do naturally because we are wired to accept things we already believe. But one way I try to counter balance this is by listening to and reading those with whom I disagree with. Even participation on this board is one way for me to challenge my current paradigms. Do I think people are lying when the tell me new information than what they told me previously. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and don't attribute motives to them. I'm very hesitant to consider that someone doing this is intentionally lying. But after further research that might be my conclusion.
mfbukowski Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, perhaps we're getting closer to a key insight on our back and forth discussions, this is getting me excited. So explain to me if scientific evidence does not prove spiritual things (and I would agree with you that it doesn't), what does prove spiritual things? And how can we avoid confirmation bias on this these confirming spiritual ways of knowing? I agree these are two different categories completely, and shouldn't be mixed. My problem is that I see scholars in Mormonism mixing them together all the time. That is what I'm critiquing about Dr. Harper. He's making a faith claim that he can only prove through spiritual means and mixing it into his basic assumptions that he uses for his scholarly historical inquiry. This revelation that he received about the BoM, cannot by category definition be considered evidence to support a historical BoM. That is a category error if that is what Dr. Harper is doing (and I think it is exactly what he's doing). Otherwise how can he or any other Mormon scholar claim with a straight face that the scholarly evidence for the historicity of the BoM is compelling. It just isn't. Their revelation is what is compelling them to believe in the historicity of the BoM, but the actual scholarly evidence on that point is abysmal. If people would be clear about this distinction between faith propositions and scholarly inquiry it would keep people like me from pulling my hair out when I'm trying to listen to these scholars and take them seriously. Yes they are often mixed in Mormonism, which I think is a great obstacle to church growth. I dont think Bro Harper is doing this- I think he knows however that the problem exists and that he is using nuanced language to communicate to both sides, walking a tight rope as many of us feel we have to Because my nuanced beliefs are rather esoteric I have trouble being understood and so I choose either "Mormonese" to express myself and then the philosophy gets misunderstood or if I use "philosophese" then Mormons do not understand it and think I am an apostate, It's a ton of fun 1
Duncan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I thought we were talking about the BoM plates witnesses, thats why I mentioned Martin Harris and David Whitmer. How do I react when I learn new information? I try to use critical thinking skills to square the information with other information that I've learned. I ask a lot of questions, especially if this new information contradicts older information that I had learned. In all honesty I think I need to work harder on being more critical of information that confirms positions I currently hold. That is a more difficult thing to do naturally because we are wired to accept things we already believe. But one way I try to counter balance this is by listening to and reading those with whom I disagree with. Even participation on this board is one way for me to challenge my current paradigms. Do I think people are lying when the tell me new information than what they told me previously. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and don't attribute motives to them. I'm very hesitant to consider that someone doing this is intentionally lying. But after further research that might be my conclusion. but you are aware that there were the 8 witnesses to the plates as well?
hope_for_things Posted July 26, 2018 Author Posted July 26, 2018 Just now, Hamba Tuhan said: 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why should I take on faith that Jesus was resurrected when the evidence seems more compelling that he wasn't. Is deference to authority or tradition the reason I should take that proposition on faith? You shouldn't just believe something in deference to either authority or tradition. In this case, coming to know the resurrected Christ personally in the here and now is the best evidence that I can think of for the resurrection. Thankfully, that's a real option! How is this evidence for the resurrection? I think a personal experience with Jesus is just fine, but I would assert that this personal experience has no connection to factual resurrection at all. Its the assumptions people bring to the table, the interpretation they have of spiritual experience that make them think this is proof of a resurrection event. Unless you are claiming a tangible visitation from Jesus where you touched his resurrected body, that would be different. 2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Quote Same with Joseph's first vision, the evidence tells me he may have had some experience as a vision of some sort, but contemporary church leaders interpret that experience differently than I do. Which is more important, that I follow my personal interpretation of the evidence or that I defer to church authority figures and correlated propaganda? By all means, follow your interpretation of the evidence. But I think you've left off a third and rather important option: get your own visions (or other revelation). As Joseph himself said near the end, he didn't expect anyone to believe what he told them since he wouldn't believe it himself outside of personal experience. Faced with a choice between competing interpretations of past events, on one hand, and personal experience in the present, on the other, I'm not sure why anyone would choose the former. I wouldn't trust visions as necessarily evidence for religious claims. I would need corroborating evidence that the vision had some connection to the real world and wasn't just part of my imagination. After studying the life of Joseph, I don't think he was good at accurately distinguishing between imagination and reality. As for claiming personal experience is a better tool for understanding historical past events, could you give some evidence to support why that way of viewing the past is accurate?
mfbukowski Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why should I take on faith that Jesus was resurrected when the evidence seems more compelling that he wasn't. Is deference to authority or tradition the reason I should take that proposition on faith? Same with Joseph's first vision, the evidence tells me he may have had some experience as a vision of some sort, but contemporary church leaders interpret that experience differently than I do. Which is more important, that I follow my personal interpretation of the evidence or that I defer to church authority figures and correlated propaganda? I trust people, sure, I trust church leaders generally have good intentions. They've also demonstrated that they don't research the history in great depths, so I don't trust their interpretations of history they haven't invested time and effort into studying. Shouldn't I trust my own conclusions about the evidence over that of someone who hasn't put the time and study into this topic? It is not a question of what "really" happened to Jesus' body it is a question of the difference in your life that belief in the resurrection gives you when you put that faith into practice in your life It is not deference to authority- it is you deciding that there are benefits in believing what cannot ever be proven either way. It's committing your life to a cause to make the world better. Suppose you decide that some secular cause gives you purpose in life and changes your life for the positive. Maybe "save the whales" or cutting down your CO2 footprint. Let's say the benefits of whatever it is cannot be proven proven by science in principle nor can it be disproven. You dedicate your life to it and your life changes. You understand a "bigger picture" of the world that gives you purpose in life where you had none before. It's kind of like that, but in my opinion- a couple of more magnitudes of importance. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 26, 2018 Author Posted July 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes they are often mixed in Mormonism, which I think is a great obstacle to church growth. I dont think Bro Harper is doing this- I think he knows however that the problem exists and that he is using nuanced language to communicate to both sides, walking a tight rope as many of us feel we have to Because my nuanced beliefs are rather esoteric I have trouble being understood and so I choose either "Mormonese" to express myself and then the philosophy gets misunderstood or if I use "philosophese" then Mormons do not understand it and think I am an apostate, It's a ton of fun If you are right about Dr. Harper, that makes me feel better. But I question why a more clear approach wouldn't be better. This seems to suggest that the nuanced language is being used to hide the implications of this way of thinking from the orthodox member that couldn't handle it. That seems disingenuous to me.
hope_for_things Posted July 26, 2018 Author Posted July 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: but you are aware that there were the 8 witnesses to the plates as well? More than 8, the Whitmer mother and others too could potentially be included. What's your point?
Duncan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: More than 8, the Whitmer mother and others too could potentially be included. What's your point? I know, but you only mentioned the two and I was thinking you were only talking about the 3 witnesses
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Its the assumptions people bring to the table, the interpretation they have of spiritual experience that make them think this is proof of a resurrection event. Unless you are claiming a tangible visitation from Jesus where you touched his resurrected body, that would be different. How is a 'tangible visitation from Jesus' any different? Are you sincerely telling me that if you met some guy who claimed to be the resurrected Jesus, touching his body would be enough to convince you? Quote I wouldn't trust visions as necessarily evidence for religious claims. I would need corroborating evidence that the vision had some connection to the real world and wasn't just part of my imagination. You mean like having an angel tell you about a buried ancient record in a nearby hill and then going to the hill and finding the buried record? Cos that's exactly how this all works. Exactly. Quote As for claiming personal experience is a better tool for understanding historical past events, could you give some evidence to support why that way of viewing the past is accurate? Pick any artefact that exists in the present. Which would be a more fruitful course of inquiry: reading what people who didn't agree with each other wrote about it 100 years ago OR actually picking up the artefact and forming your own conclusions? 2
mfbukowski Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Of course I don't ignore all these things. They are very important parts of living and experiencing life. So important and perhaps much more important than any scholarly inquiries or discussions about historicity. I realize this is the essence of what makes meaning in life and I don't want to diminish it. I also have learned a lot about how bias influences our feelings about things, and this awareness makes me more mindful of how I need to listen to my feelings and try and think about what they are telling me before taking action. This has been informed by study and mindfulness, and hopefully is making me a more informed, thoughtful and reasonable person. Our feelings often are inaccurate about multiple things and just following feelings or being ruled by our passions seems a very poor way of operating in the world. So feeling that the BoM is true, doesn't make it historical. Feeling that God loves us, doesn't mean God is an actual entity in the universe. Feeling these religious claims doesn't make them factually true. I'm not saying we should be like Spock in Star Trek, but I am saying that we need to balance our feelings with reason and I think that the more we learn about how our feelings work, the better we can avoid erroneous thinking. No it doesn't MAKE it historical- it is an option among paradigms some of which are more fulfilling to your life than others. Accepting its historicity on FAITH despite uncertainty- might for example- make you more peaceful in interaction with relatives who are believers. You may find "wisdom" which you might have rejected before because it was not "historical" that now you might accept because it "could be" historical. (I actually don't care either way- I know that wisdom is not science but you perhaps have not yet seen that) In that list I reviewed listing things like finding your wife and where to go to school, what decision could you have made which would have been "erroneous" and how would you define that criterion? Would you have an "erroneous wife" or "erroneous" occupation? How would that differ from your present wife or present occupation? Does such a classification even make sense? Yes people change careers and get divorces but is the criteria for those changes truth or falsity or what works better for the individuals? Objective evidence just does not exist in the most important decisions we make in life.
SouthernMo Posted July 26, 2018 Posted July 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Duncan said: who knows, I have never read everything every General Authorities have written Sure - who has? But, would you believe a general authority if he told you that he had lied?
Recommended Posts