The Non-Imperative for a historical Book of Mormon

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not really. The supernatural is outside the purview of history.

The problem of course is that neither doctrine nor revelation have any standing to address historical questions, just as history and science have no standing to address theological questions.

I think Moroni 10: 1-5 supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon according to the terms it sets (study, faith, gratitude, prayer, etc.) for confirming the truthfulness of its contents since “these things” from “these records” include the various ways the word “history” is used. The resurrection of Christ is a key feature in that history.

[Navidad]

On 3/1/2019 at 2:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

The doctrines of the Restoration are based on the historical appearance of resurrected beings. Perhaps someone could explain how those doctrines stand if those appearances were not events in history. 

There have been many studies of religious experiences. Very complicated stuff. Someone here mentioned Ann Taves' works the other day. She wrote a wonderful book on the subject. If the faithful believe that Joseph Smith had special access to communications with the Divine and with other Biblical figures,  it doesn't matter whether it was a real historical event or not. Doctrines don't always exist because of facts; nor are they often defeated by facts. 109,000,000 Mexicans believe that Mary appeared to Juan Diego in 1531. That event has been described as the "fulcrum on which rests all of Mexican history." No historical evidence will ever make a believer not believe it happened. No historical evidence will ever make a non-believer believe it happened.  I once asked the men in elder's quorum if they believed Mary appeared to Juan Diego as did Christ and the Father to Joseph Smith. I wasn't trying to be ornery; I just wanted to know if they believed in both apparitions. The room was deathly quiet. The teacher gave me "that look" at moved on! 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Navidad

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There have been many studies of religious experiences. Very complicated stuff. Someone here mentioned Ann Taves' works the other day. She wrote a wonderful book on the subject. If the faithful believe that Joseph Smith had special access to communications with the Divine and with other Biblical figures,  it doesn't matter whether it was a real historical event or not. Doctrines don't always exist because of facts; nor are they often defeated by facts. 109,000,000 Mexicans believe that Mary appeared to Juan Diego in 1531. That event has been described as the "fulcrum on which rests all of Mexican history." No historical evidence will ever make a believer not believe it happened. No historical evidence will ever make a non-believer believe it happened.  I once asked the men in elder's quorum if they believed Mary appeared to Juan Diego as did Christ and the Father to Joseph Smith. I wasn't trying to be ornery; I just wanted to know if they believed in both apparitions. The room was deathly quiet. The teacher gave me "that look" at moved on! 

I can only speak for myself, not millions of Mexicans. It matters very much to me that Jesus, Nephi, Mormon, et al., are real people. In the end we shall know the truth. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:23 PM, clarkgoble said:

Doctrine does address many historical questions though. Perhaps some who'd like religion to just be about what science doesn't address might prefer it differently of course.

Do you feel like getting into this again?

As we know I suppose I'm in the second category. 

In one sense of course doctrine addresses for example the historical question of the Resurrection. Doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as a historical statement, on a specific date and time even if we perhaps do not know that date and time with precision but still assert it as a historical event nevertheless.

But certainly no believer would want to assert that it was on April 6th of 33 AD, at 3 p.m. that Jesus died, and if that is an error the atonement never happened.

So if the fact of it occurring cannot be placed exactly in history, and proven to have happened in that particular date and time, what exactly is the difference between saying "Yes I believe it happened, but it doesn't matter when exactly" and a similar but different statement like "Yes I believe it happened but the history of it doesn't really matter." ?

At what point does a statement about history become a statement about the atonement, that my sins and yours were forgiven as an alleged event which cannot be in fact shown to be historical?

I chose the atonement to make a point but I think it becomes much more clear when we speak of things like King Benjamin's address.  We have far more evidence from Josephus and others for example then we do about King Benjamin's address.  It is not at all clear to me how belief in the teachings of King Benjamin depend upon historical facts.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you feel like getting into this again?

As we know I suppose I'm in the second category. 

In one sense of course doctrine addresses for example the historical question of the Resurrection. Doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as a historical statement, on a specific date and time even if we perhaps do not know that date and time with precision but still assert it as a historical event nevertheless.

But certainly no believer would want to assert that it was on April 6th of 33 AD, at 3 p.m. that Jesus died, and if that is an error the atonement never happened.

So if the fact of it occurring cannot be placed exactly in history, and proven to have happened in that particular date and time, what exactly is the difference between saying "Yes I believe it happened, but it doesn't matter when exactly" and a similar but different statement like "Yes I believe it happened but the history of it doesn't really matter." ?

At what point does a statement about history become a statement about the atonement, that my sins and yours were forgiven as an alleged event which cannot be in fact shown to be historical?

I chose the atonement to make a point but I think it becomes much more clear when we speak of things like King Benjamin's address.  We have far more evidence from Josephus and others for example then we do about King Benjamin's address.  It is not at all clear to me how belief in the teachings of King Benjamin depend upon historical facts.

Yes, the same believed-in teachings could be gotten (and are indeed found) elsewhere, from both actual and imaginary events, speakers and sources. The light of Christ and the Holy Ghost bear witness of such things. So, for the sake of learning and applying principle, it doesn’t matter if Jesus or King Benjamin are real people or correctly documented according to today’s reporting standards (e.g. vital statistics, publication, etc.).

I think the added clout/gravitas from applying Moroni 10 to “these things” is the intimacy of having tangible, real-life examples and testaments that actual, living people (including Jesus) saw us, knew us and spoke to us. I think it is as strong as the difference between the Restoration and the Reformation, or revelation and conscience. The connection between the truthfulness of “the new covenant (D&C 84),” the fulness of the gospel, and the Restoration is not the belief in principle and precept alone but in the tangible results of the faith in or power obtained from preparing the world for the Second Coming.

That said, Moroni 10 is only an invitation with a promise, and not an imperative.

ETA: It's also like the difference between those who believe in the principles found in C.S. Lewis' writings and those who believe in those plus the results they've gotten from applying Moroni's promise. Or, believing in Jesus vs. believing Him, or knowing of Him vs. knowing Him, or emulating Him vs. becoming like Him.

Edited March 4, 2019 by CV75

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I can only speak for myself, not millions of Mexicans. It matters very much to me that Jesus, Nephi, Mormon, et al., are real people. In the end we shall know the truth. 

The question isn't whether they were real; but whether the visions were really them, isn't that right? 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The question isn't whether they were real; but whether the visions were really them, isn't that right? 

 

I don't understand this at all.

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

There have been many studies of religious experiences. Very complicated stuff. Someone here mentioned Ann Taves' works the other day. She wrote a wonderful book on the subject. If the faithful believe that Joseph Smith had special access to communications with the Divine and with other Biblical figures,  it doesn't matter whether it was a real historical event or not. Doctrines don't always exist because of facts; nor are they often defeated by facts. 109,000,000 Mexicans believe that Mary appeared to Juan Diego in 1531. That event has been described as the "fulcrum on which rests all of Mexican history." No historical evidence will ever make a believer not believe it happened. No historical evidence will ever make a non-believer believe it happened.  I once asked the men in elder's quorum if they believed Mary appeared to Juan Diego as did Christ and the Father to Joseph Smith. I wasn't trying to be ornery; I just wanted to know if they believed in both apparitions. The room was deathly quiet. The teacher gave me "that look" at moved on! 

Regarding Taves, I reviewed her Revelatory Events book at length here:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/

I start with this quote from a talk she gave:

Quote

We can decide situationally whether to define key concepts such as religion, spirituality, theology, and ministry or sit back and track how others are defining them. Either stance has its strengths and liabilities. Each allows us to see some things while obscuring others. The key is to figure out what we want to see under any given circumstances.

All she chooses to see about the Book of Mormon is the problem of producing bulk. Details, specific content, in her model, don't arise in her explanation, and therefore don't matter at all. After all, if Enid Blyton can write children's books about an animated wooden toy, why couldn't Joseph Smith compose the Book of Mormon.  Problem solved, you think?

As I said in my review:

Quote

Personally, I find the superficiality of her approach to the Book of Mormon to be astonishing in a book that purports to authoritatively account for its existence. And this is true even considering the comment of another sympathetic Catholic scholar, Thomas O’Dea, who famously observed, “The Book of Mormon is not one of those books that one must read in order to have an opinion of it.”

Regarding non-LDS visions, and silent priesthood quorums, in mine you'd get me saying "Why not?"

Quote

Alma realizes that his own wish to speak with a voice of thunder and resolve everything by forceful demonstration is wrong and that “the Lord doth grant unto all nations of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, all that he seeth fit that they should have” (Alma 29:8). Nephi remarks that God “speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3), which explains how “he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33), how “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of him,” (2 Nephi 11:4), and how there are “divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men which were good” (Moroni 7:24).

And this:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

For for LDS spirituality in the context of comparative religious experience, this:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 4, 2019 by Kevin Christensen

[lostindc]

Acceptance of the potential that the BOM is non-historical is likely needed.  

A member is in trouble if their testimony is tied to the idea that either, (1) the BOM is historical and the Church is true or (2) that if the BOM isn't historical then the Church isn't true.

I don't necessarily believe the Church isn't true if the BOM isn't historical.  I don't believe the Church is true for many reasons but this doesn't necessarily have to be one of the reasons.  IMO, a non-historical BOM isn't the end of the truth claims of Mormonism and I can see why the discussion continues.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Acceptance of the potential that the BOM is non-historical is likely needed.  

A member is in trouble if their testimony is tied to the idea that either, (1) the BOM is historical and the Church is true or (2) that if the BOM isn't historical then the Church isn't true.

I don't necessarily believe the Church isn't true if the BOM isn't historical.  I don't believe the Church is true for many reasons but this doesn't necessarily have to be one of the reasons.  IMO, a non-historical BOM isn't the end of the truth claims of Mormonism and I can see why the discussion continues.

It’s not self-evident that a member “is in trouble” if his/her “testimony is tied to” either of those ideas you list. 

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

The question isn't whether they were real; but whether the visions were really them, isn't that right? 

 

Do you mean the visions were hallucinations?

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Taves, I reviewed her Revelatory Events book at length here:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/

I start with this quote from a talk she gave:

All she chooses to see about the Book of Mormon is the problem of producing bulk. Details, specific content, in her model, don't arise in her explanation, and therefore don't matter at all. After all, if Enid Blyton can write children's books about an animated wooden toy, why couldn't Joseph Smith compose the Book of Mormon.  Problem solved, you think?

As I said in my review:

Regarding non-LDS visions, and silent priesthood quorums, in mine you'd get me saying "Why not?"

And this:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

For for LDS spirituality in the context of comparative religious experience, this:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin. I couldn't get your first link to work. I look forward to reading your article later today. I did enjoy reading Taves' earlier work on Trances, Visions, etc. 

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you mean the visions were hallucinations?

Sorry, I didn't make my comment clearer. No, I was not referring to hallucinations at all. The other night I dreamed about being with my wife's family in a place and event that never really happened. Several of the members of her family I was with are deceased. There is no doubt that the folks in my dream existed during their lifetime. My dream was composed of symbolic memories of them stored away in the memory tapes of my hippocampus. They were not literally present in my dreams even though I still can describe what they were wearing, doing, and saying. The first vision of Joseph Smith or the vision of the Virgin of Guadalupe are filled with stylized images of Mary, Christ, and the Father. Could they have been a dream in which those present were there symbolically, not literally? I guess we will never know factually. That is why faith is so very powerful a factor; nay a force in our journey to arrive at truth. The brain senses the facts; the mind conforms them into the truth as we see it. As an aside, this is why I often see the personality, speech, and culture of the faithful LDS church member quite differently from the faithful Saint on this forum. Obviously, we interpret the facts of our own experiences differently and our minds convert them into our own unique version of truth. We then argue about the truth - not fully acknowledging that what we are arguing about are constructs we have created out of our own experience.

[lostindc]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not self-evident that a member “is in trouble” if his/her “testimony is tied to” either of those ideas you list. 

true, definitely not an absolute, just a possibility.  

I had missionaries drop by yesterday and one insisted that the only way the Church is true is if the BOM is historical.  Poor fella.  I am always absolutely nice to missionaries but this kid was a mess.  Pretty contentious kid.  He had no idea about any of the highly debated topics and I didn't want to be the one that drops these on his doorstep.  I tried to give him an out, saying the church may still be true even if the BOM is not historical but he didn't agree. 

I will say that he disgusted me.  He insisted that if one prays and reads the BOM they will definitely receive confirmation.  I insisted this may not the case and that his position can harm others that haven't received a confirmation but have fervently attempted.  He didn't care.  Some days, I feel like I am too nice.  Some of these missionaries are absolutely destroying the lives of others.

Edited March 4, 2019 by lostindc

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, lostindc said:

true, definitely not an absolute, just a possibility.  

I had missionaries drop by yesterday and one insisted that the only way the Church is true is if the BOM is historical.  Poor fella.  I am always absolutely nice to missionaries but this kid was a mess.  Pretty contentious kid.  He had no idea about any of the highly debated topics and I didn't want to be the one that drops these on his doorstep.  I tried to give him an out, saying the church may still be true even if the BOM is not historical but he didn't agree. 

I will say that he disgusted me.  He insisted that if one prays and reads the BOM they will definitely receive confirmation.  I insisted this may not the case and that his position can harm others that haven't received a confirmation but have fervently attempted.  He didn't care.  Some days, I feel like I am too nice.  Some of these missionaries are absolutely destroying the lives of others.

You bring up a point that interests me. Do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit has agency? Is the Spirit free to give one answer to one person and a different answer to another? I have read on this very forum that Saints view God as a God of order, thus implying that He would never provide conflicting revelation. I don't see God as a God of order. God is order. That is quite a difference. Anyway, this whole prayer of confirmation about the BOM fascinates me. Does the Holy Spirit have agency?

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, lostindc said:

true, definitely not an absolute, just a possibility.  

I had missionaries drop by yesterday and one insisted that the only way the Church is true is if the BOM is historical.  Poor fella.  I am always absolutely nice to missionaries but this kid was a mess.  Pretty contentious kid.  He had no idea about any of the highly debated topics and I didn't want to be the one that drops these on his doorstep.  I tried to give him an out, saying the church may still be true even if the BOM is not historical but he didn't agree. 

I will say that he disgusted me.  He insisted that if one prays and reads the BOM they will definitely receive confirmation.  I insisted this may not the case and that his position can harm others that haven't received a confirmation but have fervently attempted.  He didn't care.  Some days, I feel like I am too nice.  Some of these missionaries are absolutely destroying the lives of others.

I sometimes think we forget what it is like to be 18-19.

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Does the Holy Spirit have agency?

In Mormon theology I believe we think it does, but that raises the question of how such agency could ever manifest itself? IOW could  it choose to do the wrong thing? If not then how does it really have agency?

[lostindc]

19 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In Mormon theology I believe we think it does, but that raises the question of how such agency could ever manifest itself? IOW could  it choose to do the wrong thing? If not then how does it really have agency?

I would say no one knows.  Some people hang out with the holy ghost meaning they get confirmation and some don't.  It sounds like the holy ghost is picky and even if one is really sincere that doesn't guarantee that one will ever receive any sort of confirmation.  Which adds the next question, why?  AND if this is the case, then can we continue to claim Moroni's promise is accurate?  

Edited March 4, 2019 by lostindc

[clarkgoble]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

Not really. The supernatural is outside the purview of history.

[...]

The problem of course is that neither doctrine nor revelation have any standing to address historical questions, just as history and science have no standing to address theological questions.

"Supernatural" as a category is of course deeply problematic. Further it tends to end up being the source of equivocations in arguments. My sense is that you are doing that. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by supernatural, but my guess is that you're following a more or less Humean approach. That is the supernatural is that which violates natural law. I just don't agree with that view.

To me the question of the resurrection is a fairly simple one in terms of history. Did Jesus' body come to life and move spatially from his grave and appear to people. As such it entails fairly mundane historical claims regarding the nature of that body that died on the cross. Now it may well be that we don't have historical evidence to be able to determine whether or not Jesus' body did this. However saying something is historical is simply to make the claim that if sufficient evidence appeared to reach a conclusion, it'd point to Jesus' body becoming reanimated and appearing to people. It seems hard to understand how, as a category question, that is outside the purview of history.

Likewise when you claim doctrine or revelation have no "standing" to address historical questions I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If doctrine is just a factual claim, then surely one can make such claims about history. It's not at all clear to me why "there were gold plates given to Joseph by an angel" is any more problematic than "Joseph ran for President of the United States." Now again we may get into the question of evidence. But surely the question of evidence is separate from the question of truth. However if I read your claims right you're saying that regardless of evidence that revelation and doctrine can't address such things. Which just seems easy to demonstrate as false. 

My guess is that you're just confusing the taxonomy questions with the epistemological (justification of knowledge). Now you may believe that revelation or "the supernatural" can't do anything simply because you think them false or completely untrustworthy. Which is a fine claim. However it seems odd that isn't the track you take. Instead you seem to see them as simply addressing different topics. But again, that seems an odd approach.

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In one sense of course doctrine addresses for example the historical question of the Resurrection. Doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as a historical statement, on a specific date and time even if we perhaps do not know that date and time with precision but still assert it as a historical event nevertheless.

But certainly no believer would want to assert that it was on April 6th of 33 AD, at 3 p.m. that Jesus died, and if that is an error the atonement never happened.

So if the fact of it occurring cannot be placed exactly in history, and proven to have happened in that particular date and time, what exactly is the difference between saying "Yes I believe it happened, but it doesn't matter when exactly" and a similar but different statement like "Yes I believe it happened but the history of it doesn't really matter." ?

At what point does a statement about history become a statement about the atonement, that my sins and yours were forgiven as an alleged event which cannot be in fact shown to be historical?

I chose the atonement to make a point but I think it becomes much more clear when we speak of things like King Benjamin's address.  We have far more evidence from Josephus and others for example then we do about King Benjamin's address.  It is not at all clear to me how belief in the teachings of King Benjamin depend upon historical facts.

It seems to me the question is what practical effects an event has. That is what effects any event would have that would then be measurable in some sense. I think everything else flows out naturally from that basic pragmatic stance. The second thing is to acknowledge a degree of generality or vagueness in claims. So I may know that George Washington was born in the 18th century but not know the year. My knowledge is thus vague. I have no problem with vague claims. Indeed I'd say the vast majority of our claims are vague along some dimension even within theoretical physics.

To the question of atonement, I think to really answer that we'd have to clarify someone's assertions or beliefs about the atonement. The notion "atonement" is an exceedingly vague term which is often so vague as to be nearly meaningless. Individuals may have more particular views, but the fact so many different views on what the atonement means are allowed within Mormonism just points, I think, to how vague the term is doctrinally.

So I'm open to talking about atonement, but I think we have to acknowledge the problematic nature of the term compared to the question of whether Jesus' body became reanimated. If history is claims about spatial-temporal events and their relationship to other events and larger structures, then atonement is hard to discuss historically simply because of its vagueness. (And because it's so hard to differentiate from alternatives) The resurrection, even if still having a degree of vagueness, at least makes specific claims - particularly in the New Testament.

To more general sermons, like King Benjamin's, all we have to do is ask what the implications are if the assertions are true versus the implications of their being false. Those are historic claims I think. Realize that when we talk about generalities - even the extreme generalities in say theoretical physics - we're making historical claims. While it might be odd to talk about it as history, it is the case that claims about say the mass of the electron is a claim about measurements of electrons which are then historical claims. (And indeed any history of 20th century physics will quickly go into examples of such measurements as historical events) This is also the case with regards to ethical claims. It may well be that the "ought" part of an ethical claim is hard to treat historically, but practical effects still happen.

Now to the degree you or "Gray" want to say religion is ethics and only is concerned with the "ought" component of claims, I'll fully admit that becomes much more tricky as history. To the degree religion is not only focused on the "ought" of an ethical claim but also the "is" or "will be" claims, then it seems we're completely within the realm of history in some sense. Unavoidably so.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

I would say no one knows.  Some people hang out with the holy ghost meaning they get confirmation and some don't.  It sounds like the holy ghost is picky and even if one is really sincere that doesn't guarantee that one will ever receive any sort of confirmation.  Which adds the next question, why?  AND if this is the case, then can we continue to claim Moroni's promise is accurate?  

Just to make a semantic point, a claim that is generally true but not universally true may still be accurate. So it may well be that there are people that perhaps for physical developmental reasons aren't able to recognize answers as well as someone else. That doesn't render Moroni's promise invalid. It's just not an universal.

The other thing to note is the temporal aspect of the promise. He doesn't say people will know right now. It may well be that if there is a biological/physical

basis for cognitive recognition of spiritual communications (which I think there would have to be) that this will be resolved in the next life which is when we're told most will receive the fulness of the gospel.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

In Mormon theology I believe we think it does, but that raises the question of how such agency could ever manifest itself? IOW could  it choose to do the wrong thing? If not then how does it really have agency?

Going a bit afield but we should be careful not to conflate agency with free will. The latter is usually tied to intuitions of philosophy professors (for which there's often not agreement). Agency isn't terribly well defined scripturally. Some tie it to 2 Nephi 2:26 where it's the ability to act without being acted upon. That is it's defined as external to the agent.

It's interesting given how much "agency" is used doctrinally that it's not a term in the Book of Mormon and only pops up in a few places in the D&C. D&C 93:30-31 is probably the best place and that's fairly close to 2 Nephi 2:26. It's seen as a place where something is place where it can act and not be acted upon. It's a type of independence, particularly from God. Again though this makes it somewhat orthogonal to questions of free will and determinism which aren't only talking about independence from external interference.

[CA Steve]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Going a bit afield but we should be careful not to conflate agency with free will.

Anyone who would conflate those two would have to come up with a brand new word like....."free agency". 😉

 

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The latter is usually tied to intuitions of philosophy professors (for which there's often not agreement)

Clarke,

I love your posts but sometimes I think you forget your audience here. Perhaps a better way for me to have put my question would be:

In Mormon theology, does the HG ever make choices? As in, is there more than one way for the HG to act given a particular set of circumstances? Similar to what Navidad was trying to ask above. My uninformed answer is, no, that given the same set of circumstances the HG will always react (act?) the same way. So I see a conflict between the idea that the HG has (insert correct philosophical  term here -free will, agency, free agency or...?) and the inability of the HG to act any other way.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I love your posts but sometimes I think you forget your audience here. Perhaps a better way for me to have put my question would be:

In Mormon theology, does the HG ever make choices? As in, is there more than one way for the HG to act given a particular set of circumstances? Similar to what Navidad was trying to ask above. My uninformed answer is, no, that given the same set of circumstances the HG will always react (act?) the same way. So I see a conflict between the idea that the HG has (insert correct philosophical  term here -free will, agency, free agency or...?) and the inability of the HG to act any other way.

I think Mormon theology entails the personage of the HG being a person like you or I.

The idea that for any choice there’s only one best choice seems problematic. So I suspect there are lots of different live choices open to the HG.

My ultimate point is just that this topic is more complex than it appears.

Edited March 4, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Kevin Christensen]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Kevin. I couldn't get your first link to work. I look forward to reading your article later today. I did enjoy reading Taves' earlier work on Trances, Visions, etc. 

Links work for me now.  Initially, they were accurate but not active. I fixed that.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Anyone who would conflate those two would have to come up with a brand new word like....."free agency". 😉

 

Clarke,

I love your posts but sometimes I think you forget your audience here. Perhaps a better way for me to have put my question would be:

In Mormon theology, does the HG ever make choices? As in, is there more than one way for the HG to act given a particular set of circumstances? Similar to what Navidad was trying to ask above. My uninformed answer is, no, that given the same set of circumstances the HG will always react (act?) the same way. So I see a conflict between the idea that the HG has (insert correct philosophical  term here -free will, agency, free agency or...?) and the inability of the HG to act any other way.

I look at the Holy Spirit in a very personal way. That is why I asked for clarification as to the LDS concept of the Holy Ghost. I know I have a book around here somewhere, maybe by Millet. Anyway, my understanding of the Holy Spirit is as a comforter, an advocate; one called along side someone to minister to them. As we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit he guides, directs, and comforts us. In my understanding this necessitates that he act in different ways with different responses to different folks. Yet, the Saints believe that if one prays about the Book of Mormon he will always provide confirmation. In this sense he is advocating for the book, not for the supplicant (unless one believes the confirmation response is always the best one. The last thing is the Saint seems to believe that non-baptized Christians can never be fully indwelt by the Holy Ghost. Only occasional contact is possible. I reject this view because I have too many confirmations of the leading of the Spirit in my life over my 70 years on this earth. It is a bit too late for someone to tell me I have been hoodwinked all these years. Take care. 

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Links work for me now.  Initially, they were accurate but not active. I fixed that.

Thanks so much. I will check it out. Best wishes to you.