The Non-Imperative for a historical Book of Mormon

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

"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.

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.

I'm with you on this. Historicity definitely has its place in religious claims and validity, related to supernatural experience. Supernatural experience that has crossover to the material world and can be evaluated through normal human and scientific observation should be evaluated that way. ie Jesus suffered for our sins in Garden of Gethsemane is purely supernatural. But Jesus suffered for our sins in Garden of Gethsemane and bled great drops of blood through his pores could be evaluated (couldn't be confirmed but it could be ruled out) by looking for blood stains. Assuming the claim was made in real time and you could perform that analysis.

With regards to historicity in the LDS religion, we should be very careful that we're not betting on non-crucial aspects of our religion that are falsifiable using science and historical scholarship. Global flood and 6,000 year old Earth were assumed to be crucial aspects in the past for Judeo-Christian religions but are no longer considered crucial. Seems like it would be really wise to prepare for a non-historical BOM.

 

 

 

 

[Gray]

On 3/3/2019 at 3:27 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, if you refuse to accept the Book of Mormon’s self identification as being historically authentic, your faith is incoherent. 

You don’t have to prove it scientifically; you can accept it as a matter of religious faith. But to regard it as a fiction eviscerates it as a matter of faith. 

The young earthers say the same thing. It's folly. Theology doesn't give you a special insight into the sciences. Religious faith ought to be reserved for areas outside of the purview of the academy.

[Gray]

On 3/3/2019 at 3:55 PM, CV75 said:

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.

The problem with that is that prayer isn't a method for discovering history.

[CV75]

Just now, Gray said:

The problem with that is that prayer isn't a method for discovering history.

It depends.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

"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.

It doesn't really matter. Call it whatever you like - miracles, acts of God - all outside of the purview of history.

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

It's true that there isn't any historical evidence to support the resurrection, however, the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead wouldn't be a historical question in the first place. You could certainly make a historical argument that Jesus was executed and his followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead.

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

History is an academic discipline, not a spiritual one. If you want to get at history you must use the tools of the historian. If you want to get at theology you use the tools of the theologian. They don't cross over. If you're talking about faith-based narratives about the past, that's something different from history.

 

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It depends.

No, it doesn't depend on anything.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It doesn't really matter. Call it whatever you like - miracles, acts of God - all outside of the purview of history.

 

It's true that there isn't any historical evidence to support the resurrection, however, the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead wouldn't be a historical question in the first place. You could certainly make a historical argument that Jesus was executed and his followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead.

 

History is an academic discipline, not a spiritual one. If you want to get at history you must use the tools of the historian. If you want to get at theology you use the tools of the theologian. They don't cross over. If you're talking about faith-based narratives about the past, that's something different from history.

 

 

Even the standards of the American Historical Association don't forbid the study of the spiritual, or the historian acknowledging his or her own spiritual inclinations in his or her work. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It doesn't really matter. Call it whatever you like - miracles, acts of God - all outside of the purview of history.

[...]

It's true that there isn't any historical evidence to support the resurrection, however, the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead wouldn't be a historical question in the first place. You could certainly make a historical argument that Jesus was executed and his followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead.

[...]

History is an academic discipline, not a spiritual one. If you want to get at history you must use the tools of the historian. If you want to get at theology you use the tools of the theologian. They don't cross over. If you're talking about faith-based narratives about the past, that's something different from history.

This seems to confuse what is acceptable in contemporary academic publications in the field of history with history itself. When people talk about history or historicity typically they're not making a claim about what history journals will publish. If that's what you mean that's fine, but it seems like you're then making a trivial largely irrelevant point to the claims being made.

[blueglass]

On 2/27/2019 at 6:35 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Bumping this again for bluegrass. Please cite verbatim with a link or a reference this alleged “recent announcement” from the Church. Where precisely did the Church leaders say, “No geographical model works for us,” much less use it as an occasion to take “a step away from historicity”?

And yes, we’ll call this a CFR.

In case you are confused on this point, declining to formally endorse a particular theory about Book of Mormon geography is <not> tantamount to saying, “No geographical model works for us.” 

One can earnestly believe in the historicity of the book without staking out a particular position about the precise location in the Americas where the events of the book transpired. 

Where did the events take place within 1000miles?   Which model is your favorite and why?

[blueglass]

Finished the scatter plot by searching all of the dedicatory prayers for "father Lehi" quotes.  

Here's what I found.

"descendants of father Lehi"
Mexico	4
Utah	3
South America	3
Islands (NZ, Samoa, Hawaii)	3
Arizona	2
Guatemala	2
Alberta, Canada	1
California	1
Honduras	1

 

I'm a bit surprised but North America and Mesoamerica are tied.

Meso America	7
North America	7
South America	3

https://ibb.co/zrhHcCK

https://ibb.co/6vygVC7

https://ibb.co/wshPfb7

What happened to the heartland model, hill of cumorah?  Anyone surprised by these results?  Pretty much expected? 

I'm a little concerned that after Moroni left Guatemala, hung out relaxing in Mazatlan for a few years, and then traveled north through Arizona and dedicated the Manti temple site that he never made it to the East coast.  

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by blueglass

[blueglass]

Here I uploaded a document with all the sections pertaining to the descendants of Lehi in the temple dedicatory prayers.   Interesting phrases used, and references.

Tuxtla Gutierrez, 12 Mar 2000, Faust "We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell. Bless these Thy children. Lift them out of the depths of poverty. Bring new light and understanding into their minds. Cause them to rejoice at Thy watchcare over them. May there be food upon their tables and clothing on their backs, shelters over their heads, and all that which their hearts can desire in righteousness. "

Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Mexico, 1999 Hinckley
"May they be prospered as they cultivate their farms and pursue their vocations. May the sons and daughters of father Lehi grow in strength and in fulfillment of the ancient promises made concerning them. "

Mexico City temple, 1983, Hinckley
"Bless Thy saints in this great land and those from other lands who will use this temple. Most have in their veins the blood of Father Lehi. Thou hast kept Thine ancient promise. Many thousands "that walked in darkness have seen a great light."

Villahermosa, Mexico, 2000 Monson
"May Thy eternal purposes concerning the sons and daughters of Lehi be realized in this sacred house. May every blessing of the eternal gospel be poured out upon them, and may the suffering of the centuries be softened through the beneficence of Thy loving care."

Quetzaltenango guatemala , Uchtdorf- 11 dec. 2011, "Thou kind and gracious Father, our hearts are filled with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi. Thou hast heard their cries and seen their tears. Thou hast accepted their righteous sacrifices.  We thank Thee for the sacred record of Lehi, Nephi and Jacob, Alma and Mosiah, Benjamin and Mormon, and of Moroni. We thank Thee for this voice that has come from the dust to bear witness of the divinity of Thy Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Guatemala City, Hinckley 1984
"Thou kind and gracious Father, our hearts are filled with gratitude for Thy remembrance of the sons and daughters of Lehi.
 We thank Thee, O God, for lifting the scales of darkness which for generations clouded the vision of the descendants of Lehi." 

Tegucigalpa Honduras, 2013, Uchtdorf
"Our hearts are filled with gratitude for Thy blessing of the sons and daughters of Lehi. Thou hast heard their cries and seen their tears. Thou hast accepted their righteous sacrifices."

Buenos Aires Argentina,1986 Monson
"Wilt Thou, our Father, continue to bless the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and likewise the descendants of Lehi and Nephi, that the promises contained in the Holy Bible and in the Book of Mormon may be brought to fulfillment and our homes and families blessed abundantly."

Cochabamba Bolivia 2000, Hinckley
"May Thy work grow and prosper in this area of Thy vineyard. We remember before Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. Wilt Thou keep Thine ancient promises in their behalf. Lift from their shoulders the burdens of poverty and cause the shackles of darkness to fall from their eyes. May they rise to the glories of the past."

Lima Peru 1986, Hinckley
"We are particularly mindful this day of the sons and daughters of Lehi. They have known so much of suffering and sorrow in their many generations. They have walked in darkness and in servitude. Now Thou hast touched them by the light of the everlasting gospel. The shackles of darkness are falling from their eyes as they embrace the truths of Thy great work. Surely father Lehi has wept with sorrow over his posterity. Surely he weeps today with gladness, for in this holy house there will be exercised the fullness of the priesthood to the blessing, not only of those of this and future generations, but also to the blessing of those of previous generations."

San Diego, CA, APril 1993, Hinckley
"This temple will be used by many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. We thank thee for their faithfulness. We thank thee for this day when thou art remembering thine ancient covenant in behalf of these thy children, from whose eyes the shackles of darkness are now falling. Bless the posterity of Lehi, we pray thee. Lift from their weary shoulders the burdens of the past."

Snowflake,AZ Mar2002,Hinckley
"We are grateful that this Thy house will be available to the sons and daughters of Lehi who live nearby. Let the scales of darkness fall from their eyes and bring a fulfillment of the ancient promises made concerning them. May this house become a hallowed sanctuary for many of these, our brothers and sisters."

Mesa, AZ 1927 Grant
"We beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt stay the hand of the destroyer among the descendants of Lehi who reside in this land and give unto them increasing virility and more abundant health, that they may not perish as a people but that from this time forth they may increase in numbers and in strength and in influence, that all the great and glorious promises made concerning the descendants of Lehi may be fulfilled in them; that they may grow in vigor of body and of mind, and above all in love for Thee and Thy Son, and increase in diligence and in faithfulness in keeping the commandments which have come to them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that many of them may have the privilege of entering this holy house and receiving ordinances for themselves and their departed ancestors."

Hamilton New Zealand, 1958, mcKay
"We express gratitude that to these fertile Islands Thou didst guide descendants of Father Lehi, and hast enabled them to prosper, to develop and to become associated in history with leading and influential nations among mankind."

Apia Samoa 1983 Hinckley
"We are grateful for these beautiful islands of Samoa, and for Thy faithful saints who dwell here. Jacob, son of Lehi, declared anciently: "Great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:21). We have witnessed the fulfillment of Thy covenant, for Thou hast not forgotten them."

Laie Hawaii, 1919 Grant
"We thank Thee, that thousands and ten of thousands of the descendants of Lehi, in this favored land, have come to a knowledge of the gospel, many of whom have endured faithfully to the end of their lives."

Cardston,Alberta Canada, 1923, Grant
"We beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thou wilt stay the hand of the destroyer among the descendants of Lehi, who reside in this land, and give unto them increasing virility and more abundant health, that they may not perish as a people, but that from this time forth they may increase in numbers and in strength and in influence, that all the great and glorious promises made concerning the descendants of Lehi, may be fulfilled in them; that they may grow in vigor of body and of mind, and above all in love for Thee and Thy Son, and increase in diligence and in faithfulness in keeping the commandments which have come to them through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that many of them may yet have the privilege of entering this holy house and receiving ordinances for themselves and their departed ancestors. "

Monticello, Utah 1998, Hinckley
"We remember before Thee in a special way the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. May they rise to new levels of growth and prosperity as they embrace and follow the gospel of Thy Son. May they be magnified and enlarged in knowledge and testimony as they come to this sacred temple and receive the blessings to be had within these consecrated walls. "

Vernal, Utah 1997, Hinckley
"May there come about a reconciliation of feelings between the descendants of Lehi and those who have come to reside in these valleys. May old animosities be dispelled, and may there come a renewed spirit of brotherhood and love and respect."

Salt Lake City, UT 1893 Woodruff
"Remember in like pity the dwindling remnants of the House of Israel, descendants of Thy servant Lehi. Restore them we pray Thee, to Thine ancient favor, fulfill in their completeness the promises given to their fathers, and make of them a white and delightsome race, a loved and holy people as in former days. "

Edited March 5, 2019 by blueglass

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Even the standards of the American Historical Association don't forbid the study of the spiritual, or the historian acknowledging his or her own spiritual inclinations in his or her work. 

I'm not sure that's really relevant for a number of reasons.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This seems to confuse what is acceptable in contemporary academic publications in the field of history with history itself. When people talk about history or historicity typically they're not making a claim about what history journals will publish. If that's what you mean that's fine, but it seems like you're then making a trivial largely irrelevant point to the claims being made. 

If by history you really mean sacred myth, then we're talking about two different things. History IS an academic discipline. When we're talking about science it's usually understood that we don't mean grandma's ideas about burying potatoes to cure warts. Likewise, history isn't the same thing as myth or legend or stories modern people tell about the past.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Gray

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If by history you really mean sacred myth, then we're talking about two different things. History IS an academic discipline. When we're talking about science it's usually understood that we don't mean grandma's ideas about burying potatoes to cure warts. Likewise, history isn't the same thing as myth or legend or stories modern people tell about the past.

So it does depend...

And i know people who prayerfully approach their academic discipline and obtain results, even discoveries, thereby.

Edited March 5, 2019 by CV75

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

I am not nearly as familiar with other Christian beliefs as I would like to be. In your view, can a non-Christian be affected fully in the same way by the Holy Spirit as a Christian?

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Only in the fact that it is a distinct individual, but given the HG has reached Godhood (maybe has always been there?) the gulf between the HG and ourselves is enormous.

 

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Are all these choices equal? That also seems problematic, and if they are not equal than can the HG choose one that is less somehow than the idea?

 

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Agreed, in the end I think it is the age old question of how classic omniscience conflicts with free will.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If by history you really mean sacred myth, then we're talking about two different things. History IS an academic discipline. When we're talking about science it's usually understood that we don't mean grandma's ideas about burying potatoes to cure warts. Likewise, history isn't the same thing as myth or legend or stories modern people tell about the past.

There are two senses of history. One is the academic discipline and what's acceptable socially within that organization at a given time. (Clearly that changes with time) However the more widespread use is just facts about events in the past. When Mormons talk about whether something is historical or talk historicity clearly they're talking in this more common sense rather than making a claim about academic publications.

Now <i>you</i> may think that nothing significant in religion is historical in this sense. That's fine. But to presuppose that as a way of dismissing religion as historical is just circular at best. So if you think all religion is just myth with no connection to actual historical events that's fine. But just be upfront and say that. I think you're wrong of course but that's fine. But trying to play up the ambiguity between academics and normal senses of history is just a bit misleading and unhelpful.

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Only in the fact that it is a distinct individual, but given the HG has reached Godhood (maybe has always been there?) the gulf between the HG and ourselves is enormous.

Given that the HG apparently hasn't experienced mortality it's worth asking what that even means. Given the importance of mortality, we may well easily say that there are many things we know better and certainly experiences we've had that the HG hasn't. So I think we have to be careful.

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Are all these choices equal? That also seems problematic, and if they are not equal than can the HG choose one that is less somehow than the idea?

This presupposes something about the ideal I'm not sure I agree with. Most of our choices simply don't have deep ethical implications. If I'm hungry and want a chocolate bar, I'm not sure there's a huge ethical choice between picking peanut M&Ms or a Butterfinger. Most choices are like that. It's not at all clear to me why it'd be any different for a divine being.

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Agreed, in the end I think it is the age old question of how classic omniscience conflicts with free will.

But don't we first have to establish if they even have classic omniscience?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Given that the HG apparently hasn't experienced mortality it's worth asking what that even means. Given the importance of mortality, we may well easily say that there are many things we know better and certainly experiences we've had that the HG hasn't. So I think we have to be careful.

Well if that's true then the HG needs to get the gift of The CA Steve, so it can confirm what I am saying is true.

 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

This presupposes something about the ideal I'm not sure I agree with. Most of our choices simply don't have deep ethical implications. If I'm hungry and want a chocolate bar, I'm not sure there's a huge ethical choice between picking peanut M&Ms or a Butterfinger. Most choices are like that. It's not at all clear to me why it'd be any different for a divine being

The really important question, is Coke or Pepsi? But on a more serious note, I guess it depends on how we view divine status. Will we still be arguing with our wives 😉 about who left up the toilet seat in the eternities? is the Snow couplet accurate or are we just going to achieve some sort of demigodhood? If so does the HG fall into our category or is it a full blown deity like God the father? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

As you said, this is a much deeper discussion, one which I really don't think Mormonism has fleshed out thoroughly.

 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But don't we first have to establish if they even have classic omniscience?

In Mormon theology, they don't. God is not the ground of being as it were.

[Gray]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

So it does depend...

And i know people who prayerfully approach their academic discipline and obtain results, even discoveries, thereby.

No, it doesn't depend. Plenty of good scholars are people of faith, but they follow the methods of their discipline when they do their work. If not they're not acting as scholars.

[Gray]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There are two senses of history. One is the academic discipline and what's acceptable socially within that organization at a given time. (Clearly that changes with time) However the more widespread use is just facts about events in the past. When Mormons talk about whether something is historical or talk historicity clearly they're talking in this more common sense rather than making a claim about academic publications.

Now <i>you</i> may think that nothing significant in religion is historical in this sense. That's fine. But to presuppose that as a way of dismissing religion as historical is just circular at best. So if you think all religion is just myth with no connection to actual historical events that's fine. But just be upfront and say that. I think you're wrong of course but that's fine. But trying to play up the ambiguity between academics and normal senses of history is just a bit misleading and unhelpful. 

Actually it's the other way around. To claim something is historical but to try to divorce that from the methodology that historians use is fallacious (equivocation). Especially when you use a word like historicity - there is no colloquial usage of that term. You can believe God caused things to happen in the distant past based on theological reason, but what you're talking about isn't history - it's a sacred narrative.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Gray

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, it doesn't depend. Plenty of good scholars are people of faith, but they follow the methods of their discipline when they do their work. If not they're not acting as scholars.

Nice that you can say "it depends" and "it doesn't depend" at the same time on the same point! Net effect: it depends!

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Nice that you can say "it depends" and "it doesn't depend" at the same time on the same point! Net effect: it depends!

No. I said that prayer isn't a method for discovering history. You said it depends. It doesn't depend. It's no more a method for discovering history than dowsing is a method for discovering the atomic weight of carbon.

[The Nehor]

Having visions of the past is much more fun then reading history books.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Actually it's the other way around. To claim something is historical but to try to divorce that from the methodology that historians use is fallacious (equivocation).

How is that fallacious? After all historians will regularly make claims about what is or isn't historical without being able to establish it as historical.

Further you're again assuming your conclusions that only academic history can determine what is historical. Yet that seems demonstrably false given that nearly every person on the planet has knowledge of things in the past yet the vast majority know nothing about academic history.

It seems to me that academic history is parasitic on regular common sense ways of knowing events in the past and not the other way round. 

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Especially when you use a word like historicity - there is no colloquial usage of that term.

Historicity is the claim of something being historical. So you're conflating meanings with terms.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You can believe God caused things to happen in the distant past based on theological reason, but what you're talking about isn't history - it's a sacred narrative.

That presumes that "theological reason" can't produce justified knowledge. So you're assuming your conclusions again.

It's fine you believe that of course. I just think it's wrong.

 

[teddyaware]

On 3/5/2019 at 11:30 AM, clarkgoble said:

Given that the HG apparently hasn't experienced mortality it's worth asking what that even means. Given the importance of mortality, we may well easily say that there are many things we know better and certainly experiences we've had that the HG hasn't. So I think we have to be careful.

It doesn’t matter that the Holy Ghost hasn’t had the experience that comes with having a body. The Holy Ghost doesn’t speak out of his own experience, but speaks only those things that the Father and the Son tell him to speak.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will she’s you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16)

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by teddyaware