Liberal Theology and Traditional Lds Apologetics

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, whether Jesus said this specific phrase or not, "historicity" of Him as the Son of God and Savior of the world actually existing remains a necessity.

Thanks,

-Smac

To rephrase, it must be a historical fact, based on what actually happened in the past, that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world.  Because if he isn't, believing he is or was would be akin to believing in Greek mythology.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

To rephrase, it must be a historical fact, based on what actually happened in the past, that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world.  Because if he isn't, believing he is or was would be akin to believing in Greek mythology.

Well said.

I am not advocating an every-jot-and-tittle-of-the-scriptural-record-about-Jesus-must-be-precisely-and-100%-"historical" approach.  I'm thinking in a more worldview/paradigm sort of way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You got the wrong guy.

I think @churchistrue said that 

Sorry Take care!

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Some people need it and others don't. 

I"d say it's more along the lines of "Some people think they need it and others don't."  I don't think anyone needs it at all.  Some just prefer it.  

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would refer  you to the Perry Scheme again to see what he might say about this.

https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry-positions.html

I can't begin to tell you the intellectual and spiritual bliss that can happen when you know that all these historical issues are fluff in the wind and irrelevant to living the absolutely best paradigm that has been given mankind by the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

To be able to understand these principles in a philosophical way is a great blessing in my life- and it frees me completely from these apologetic wars about Joseph, Blacks and the Priesthood- and 99% of all that goes on on this board, and I have tried over the years to express that to these fine folks.

I believe that what we worship is at it's most basic level- "family values" as the highest good of mankind, given to mankind that we may have joy and live in peace.

Following the commandments are simply a source of joy because they are the most basic and simple ethical system devised to promote the raising of children in peace, and one could even see them "as" evolutionary- that these principles have evolved simply because they work to produce healthy and happy families. 

Wittgenstein speaks of "seeing as" when he puts forth his famous rabbit/ duck analogy

What is this a picture of?  A rabbit or a duck?   You can see it both ways.  Witt.'s point was that we can often see propositions as meaning one thing or another, and switch between either reading.

I believe there are at least two readings possible of the gospel, and neither one is wrong, and those readings have been the subject of this thread.

My reading has enabled me to see our philosophy as worship of the IDEAL HUMAN and God simultaneously, of seeing the Godhead simultaneously as the Ideal Family, unified by love and purpose.   For me, what I worship is the Ideal Family with man and woman sealed and most importantly, committed to living that ideal.

You have the ying and yang, male and female, sealed as one as co-creators of worlds without end, in their children and in the world they create for them.  Hopefully it will end in a Zion society unified as one people, together as a family.  That is one of the purposes of genealogy for me- the understanding and PROOF of the belief that all humanity is one family.  The more one studies genealogy the more one sees that.   The more one goes to the temple, one practices seeing those "names" as human beings like us with the same wants and needs

But of course it is also the temple that teaches us all these principles through the journey of Adam as Everyman and Eve as Everywoman as well, as they learn symbolically the rules of life that are needed to create first an ideal family and then- as would follow - the ideal society.

This church is pure bliss if one can see it that way.  There is no one or nothing to threaten or "make afraid" when we "see it as" the ideal philosophy as well as the best possible way to present a paradigm of the nature of God.  There is no argument that is more valid than the one I present - no paradigm "better" than the one I postulate as the "best" for me!!

And what of "the spirit"?   Who is it that speaks to my heart in the deep night of despair?  Who is it that comforts me in incalculable loss?  Is that voice inside me- perhaps my unconscious mind speaking to me out of survival needs to inject the right chemical into my brain to ensure that I contribute to society for one more day?

Even atheists believe in the "still small voice" but do not "see it as" I do.

I know with certainty- which is a psychological state like all others- I believe-  that that voice is outside of me.  It tells me to do things which I would never have thought of doing- and some how "magically" things work out right simply by following it.  Yet again, straight Alma 32- "experiment on this and see if it works" - and IT WORKS!  At a certain point, nothing else matters about "where" that voice is- I have learned that if I follow it, in the big picture, everything works out.

That is where the pragmatism comes it- we find out that the spirit "works" regardless of if we see the rabbit or the duck, the as yet not incarnate Spirit of God or the unconscious mind, or something else- belief in that simply "works"

And then we have Perry Scheme where commitment to a paradigm becomes the highest state.  In my life I have found my  to the church as an organization of people committed to my same ideals, as one of the highest privileges I have experienced.

And so I can stand up at the pulpit on Sunday and, seeing the rabbit and not the duck, and say fearlessly and truthfully before God angels and witnesses that "I know the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the truest church of all" and absolutely mean and be totally committed to that statement.  I can see things literally- could God have done it that way? Absolutely- or I can see them philosophically with the same lack of effort that it takes to see the rabbit or the duck. 

It could be either, and the joy in my life tells me the verbiage in the final analysis makes no more difference than if that picture is of a rabbit or a duck.

For me though, the philosophical way of seeing is much easier than worrying about all those "ifs".  Six day creation?  Evolution?  Invisible people?  Mumbo jumbo gets me higher in heaven?  Joseph marrying alrady married women?  Racism coming from supposedly perfect prophets?  Meh.  Of no consequence.  There is always my way out. 

It's the best way of life mankind can imagine

Because I know the philosophy is sound and the spirit really "is"- whatever that is- I live fearless and joyful before God, until I get on this board and try to convince these folks to think the same way. 

I want to make it easy for all, but I guess most are used to making it hard and want to keep it that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  That was interesting.

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, churchistrue said:

How would you classify him or how would you define liberal theologians? Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly.

This is not an easy distinction. For me, it involves taking the whole body of someone's work, preaching, and lived life. Peter Enns is an Evangelical for sure, however he is on the progressive side of Evangelicalism. He used to teach at a very conservative Presbyterian seminary. He wrote a book on Old Testament interpretation that some of the board members did not like because he questioned some points of innerancy. The faculty reviewed his work and declared him to be Evangelically orthodox, but the board fired him anyway. He now teaches at a Baptist college and seminary where I attended. Someone, in this discussion quoted D. Moody Smith (not to be confused with Dwight L. Moody) from Duke University (he has passed away). He was a great scholar of the New Testament, but was much more a mainstream Liberal theologian. Typically a Liberal theologian believes the scriptures become inspired when they become active in a human experience. That process of becoming alive in someone's life is how they become inspired. They are not in and of themselves, sitting on the shelf inspired or inerrant. Notice I capitalize the terms Evangelical and LIberal, because together with Fundamentalists they comprise the three tiers or groups of non-LDS Christian Biblical interpretation. I am not merely using the terms as adjectives, but as categories. It is very hard to categorize my LDS Christian friends in this regard. Most of the folks I know in the pews are Fundamentalists in their interpretation, but would be rejected by non-LDS Fundamentalists for adding to the scriptures. It is not fair or accurate to say that only LDS Christians believe in additional revelation. What is fair and accurate is that the LDS belief that those additional revelations constitute scriptures is what sets them apart. I hope all this helps a little bit.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with that.  There's no objective evidence that He does not exist, either.

That is my entire point, and I am not starting a fight. It's ok for brothers to disagree 

I am arguing the same point, that there is no objective evidence that the atonement is NOT historical, nor that it IS.

There is no objective evidence either way and YET WE BELIEVE !!

And that PROVES that historicity is irrelevant to the belief.

That's a wonderful way to put it.

Edited June 12, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

Perhaps this is an irrelevant question in the midst of such weighty philosophical debates, but it interests me so I will ask anyway. Is there really any evidence that apologetics help solve faith crises? My understanding of faith crises is that they are more often likely to be about wounds, hurts, psychological disturbances in the force that impact belief and sow doubt. They are first and foremost about loss, whether we are talking LDS member's faith crises or Amish faith crises. If that is true, then how would apologetics help those involved in faith crises? It seems like an unhelpful approach. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

I'm okay with that.  There's no objective evidence that He does not exist, either.

That is my entire point, and I am not starting a fight.

Sure seems like you're spoiling for one.

Quote

It's ok for brothers to disagree 

I agree.

Quote

I am arguing the same point, that there is no objective evidence that the atonement is NOT historical, nor that it IS.

I have not been speaking of "objective evidence."  I am instead speaking of the necessity of historicity, which historicity can (must, really) be accepted a matter of faith.

Quote

There is no objective evidence either way and YET WE BELIEVE !!

And that PROVES that historicity is irrelevant to the belief.

I strongly disagree.  I think historicity is hugely relevant.  The historicity of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of His role as our Savior and Redeemer.  Without historicity, He plays no particular role in our salvation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

there really any evidence that apologetics help solve faith crises?

Anecdotal as in some self reports of those who write into FairMormon.

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is there really any evidence that apologetics help solve faith crises?

Yes.

I have seen many who have returned just on this board. 

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not been speaking of "objective evidence."  I am instead speaking of the necessity of historicity, which historicity can (must, really) be accepted a matter of faith.

So faith necessitates the religious belief in historicity?

I, and many others can skip that step.

[Ahab]

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps this is an irrelevant question in the midst of such weighty philosophical debates, but it interests me so I will ask anyway. Is there really any evidence that apologetics help solve faith crises? My understanding of faith crises is that they are more often likely to be about wounds, hurts, psychological disturbances in the force that impact belief and sow doubt. They are first and foremost about loss, whether we are talking LDS member's faith crises or Amish faith crises. If that is true, then how would apologetics help those involved in faith crises? It seems like an unhelpful approach. 

Faith from God conveys an assurance that is far superior to simply having an intellectual understanding on an issue, but it is or at least can be helpful to have a reasonable and intellectual understanding of an issue, even if someone who understands is not sure if it is true.  Like understanding what it means for Jesus to be the Christ/Messiah, or understanding why we need a Savior, for example.  Someone who understands those issues won't automatically receive any assurance from God to confirm that understanding is true, but God could assure someone that what they understand is true.

[rodheadlee]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So faith necessitates the religious belief in historicity?

I, and many others can skip that step.

But many can't skip that step. We use historocity to help us define God, how He acts in certain situations. What He expects of us in certain situations. 

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  I think historicity is hugely relevant.  The historicity of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of His role as our Savior and Redeemer.  Without historicity, He plays no particular role in our salvation.

I see that as question begging. You are identifying the savior as Jesus Christ, the historical person,  and then claiming that we needed the savior Jesus Christ to be saved.  Circular.

All one needs in the paradigm is a mechanism for God to forgive sin.  It could be a person who lived in another time or place, or any other mechanism.

I know with certainty that there IS a person out there, who teaches me all these things through spiritual experiences, but the nature of that person does not have to be a historical being

Neither the Holy Ghost, nor our Father are historical beings for that matter!

It could be that God decides at some point to forgive our sins by Grace after all that we can do at some point.

We are always saying that the Savior died for everyone even on other worlds. How do you think it feels to be on one of those other worlds and know that your savior lived at a galaxy far away?

How would they feel about historicity?

Without historical evidence we ARE them!

I am not saying I believe in any of those things I am simply saying that in structuring a theory of how the gospel works, there are many mechanisms for healing and forgiving sin, and different ways of seeing the atonement

As you admit there is no evidence for or against the atonement, therefore historical evidence is not necessary for the belief. 

What do you see as the evidence then if there is no "historical " evidence?

 

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I see that as question begging. You are identifying the savior as Jesus Christ, the historical person,  and then claiming that we needed the savior Jesus Christ to be saved.  Circular.

All one needs in the paradigm is a mechanism for God to forgive sin.  It could be a person who lived in another time or place, or any other mechanism.

I know with certainty that there IS a person out there, who teaches me all these things through spiritual experiences, but the nature of that person does not have to be a historical being

Neither the Holy Ghost, nor our Father are historical beings for that matter!

It could be that God decides at some point to forgive our sins by Grace after all that we can do at some point.

We are always saying that the Savior died for everyone even on other worlds. How do you think it feels to be on one of those other worlds and know that your savior lived at a galaxy far away?

How would they feel about historicity?

Without historical evidence we ARE them!

I am not saying I believe in any of those things I am simply saying that in structuring a theory of how the gospel works, there are many mechanisms for healing and forgiving sin, and different ways of seeing the atonement

As you admit there is no evidence for or against the atonement, therefore historical evidence is not necessary for the belief. 

What do you see as the evidence then if there is no "historical " evidence?

 

 

 I think I've said just about everything I'd like to say. I don't think we're communicating well.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I think I've said just about everything I'd like to say. I don't think we're communicating well.

Finally we agree 

If anyone cares I will be gone for a while.

I will check for PM's occasionally

 

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes.

I have seen many who have returned just on this board. 

So is the definition of having solved a faith crisis a return to the church? Hmmmm.....

[Navidad]

There is another historicity that none of you have mentioned - the historicity of the Christian church. I have found in my faith journey that church history validates and reinforces my faith. I understand that my LDS friends are not likely to find inspiration in pre-1830 church history, but I and many evangelicals do. There is a crimson thread of faithfulness that is inspiring to me. In fact, many years ago that is more or less what sparked my interest in LDS history. I couldn't figure out how the early LDS writers settled in on a total apostasy of the church. The historicity of the Christian church is an area of great neglect by the LDS scholars I know. Over the years, theological study at non-LDS universities has become much more normal for LDS scholars, but I have yet to see that same movement towards the formal study of the history of the Christian church. Not a criticism; just an observation. The faithfulness of folks down through the centuries of the history of the Christian church is an inspiration to me and a key part of my testimony.

I remember a few years ago being excited about a new book that came out entitled: "A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History." I thought, Wow! This is great! Imagine my disappointment to discover it was not a book about Navigating LDS Doctrine and Christian Church History! It was about LDS Doctrine and LDS Church History. Oh well!

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

So is the definition of having solved a faith crisis a return to the church? Hmmmm.....

Yes

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

There is another historicity that none of you have mentioned - the historicity of the Christian church. I have found in my faith journey that church history validates and reinforces my faith. I understand that my LDS friends are not likely to find inspiration in pre-1830 church history, but I and many evangelicals do. There is a crimson thread of faithfulness that is inspiring to me. In fact, many years ago that is more or less what sparked my interest in LDS history. I couldn't figure out how the early LDS writers settled in on a total apostasy of the church. The historicity of the Christian church is an area of great neglect by the LDS scholars I know. Over the years, theological study at non-LDS universities has become much more normal for LDS scholars, but I have yet to see that same movement towards the formal study of the history of the Christian church. Not a criticism; just an observation. The faithfulness of folks down through the centuries of the history of the Christian church is an inspiration to me and a key part of my testimony.

I remember a few years ago being excited about a new book that came out entitled: "A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History." I thought, Wow! This is great! Imagine my disappointment to discover it was not a book about Navigating LDS Doctrine and Christian Church History! It was about LDS Doctrine and LDS Church History. Oh well!

Same problem for non LDS Christians, history cant prove that Jesus is the savior, just possibly that He existed.

You have to accept him as savior by faith then some need to find in addition a testimony of his historicity.

But I have said that here already at length 

[RevTestament]

On 6/12/2020 at 2:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

So faith necessitates the religious belief in historicity?

I, and many others can skip that step.

I think one difference for some may be how they define historicity. For me historicity is not very objective. Most of recorded history is not objective. It cannot be verified other than by what we read. History is not science. It can't be verified in some lab. That is one reason the New Testament is the way it is imho. There are multiple witnesses. This gives it historical cred. Enough so that if presented in a court of law, the fact finder would probably have to rule there was this Yeshua guy. But it cannot be objectively verified by anyone - so some still don't believe. I guess this depends on how one defines objectiveness as well, but I just tend to think of historicity differently - as more of a preponderance of the evidence kind of thing. And the preponderance of the available historical evidence shows Yeshua existed, and claimed to be the Son of God. Kind of like the preponderance of the evidence shows that Buddha existed, and claimed to be enlightened. The differences seem to be exactly how to follow the Buddha. Somewhat similar differences exist in Christianity. But I definitely think of the Buddha as an historical figure, and believe the claims of historicity. To me it does matter. I don't worship some fictional character.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think one difference for some may be how they define historicity. For me historicity is not very objective. Most of recorded history is not objective. It cannot be verified other than by what we read. History is not science. It can't be verified in some lab. That is one reason the New Testament is the way it is imho. There are multiple witnesses. This gives it historical cred. Enough so that if presented in a court of law, the fact finder would probably have to rule there was this Yeshua guy. But it cannot be objectively verified by anyone - so some still don't believe. I guess this depends on how one defines objectiveness as well, but I just tend to think of historicity differently - as more of a preponderance of the evidence kind of thing. And the preponderance of the available historical evidence shows Yeshua existed, and claimed to be the Son of God. Kind of like the preponderance of the evidence shows that Buddha existed, and claimed to be enlightened. The differences seem to be exactly how to follow the Buddha. Somewhat similar differences exist in Christianity. But I definitely think of the Buddha as an historical figure, and believe the claims of historicity. To me it does matter. I don't worship some fictional character.

Yet again we totally agree!

Because there is less objective evidence, as you say, in history itself and then we add more uncertainty with spiritual statements attributed to "this Yeshua guy"  the evidence gets so mushy that what rational person would base their eternal destiny on it??

So for the spiritual statements we have spiritual evidence, which in my opinion is capable of producing "knowledge" and certainty- and  the historical statements producing mush.

Take your pick!  Mush or certainty?  When God speaks to you there is no going back to mush and no need for it!

BESIDES the fact that every low-level argument in favor of atheism starts with attacking historical evidence for everything religious.

I cannot imagine why a person who has spoken with God would want to justify his religious FAITH using what the atheists want him to use.

I just cannot fathom it.

Especially when even atheists like Rorty concede that religious belief is fully justifiable logically- and he is considered one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and he is just one cog in a huge philosophical movement including all of phenomenology as well as Pragmatism.

One grows tired of banging one's head against the wall.   What was that definition of insanity again? 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/13/2020 at 12:38 PM, Navidad said:

I have found in my faith journey that church history validates and reinforces my faith.

Just curious- how does history "validate" the atonement?

Historically how does one man's death 2000 years ago cause your sins to be forgiven?  What objective link could there possibly be that would make that a rational connection strong enough that one would use the word "validates"?

"Jesus died on Calvary therefore my sins are forgiven". 

I get it in the world of faith but as a historian, where is the syllogism?   Where is the connection ?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think one difference for some may be how they define historicity.

I think the dictionary definition is a good place to start: "historical authenticity."

To that we can add this bit of sage wisdom from Joseph Smith:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that he actually exists;

Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes;

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. But with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

As I see it, the "historicity" of Jesus Christ is more or less synonymous with "the idea that he actually exists."  That He is not a figment of our imagination.  He is not a fictional hero, like Superman or Captain America.

I think it is not really possible for "any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation" without that first, vital point: acceptance (usually on faith) that God "actually exists."

Similarly, I submit that this principle extends to The Book of Mormon.  The "Inspired Fiction" concept would have us reject the reality of the Lehites/Jaredites/Mulekites, and instead view them as admirable, but nevertheless fictional, characters in a story imaginged by Joseph Smith.  I just cannot get on board wtih that.  Such a sentiment requires us to reject virtually all of the narrative of the Restoration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tishbite]

On 6/9/2020 at 3:35 PM, smac97 said:

The "inspired fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon requires an affirmative rejection of The Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is. To accept it on those grounds would be like saying "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Lord and Savior, even though I reject the idea that he ever actually existed." A fictional Christ does not work, and neither does a fictional Book of Mormon.

While agree that viewing the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" does require "an affirmative rejection of the Book of Mormon as what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith and the Witnesses said it is," I do not think that necessarily entails the death of the Book of Mormon as scripture. Much of the Bible is pseudepigrapha, and Jews and Christians still find scriptural value in its words. Moses did not actually write the Pentateuch, Job is probably religious fiction, the second part of Isaiah was not written by the same person as the first part, and even the gospels were most likely not authored by those to whom they are traditionally ascribed. But that does not necessarily mean they are not necessarily inspired, or that we cannot at least find inspiration in them. The Book of Mormon could be similarly viewed as pseudepigraphic without rejecting their scriptural value, and such a view is not the same as the illogical rejection of the existence of Christ while still claiming his divine Saviorship.