The Great Tower and the Confounding of the Languages

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Pretty sure you frequently use that word in litigation.

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The words of Yale philosopher John Pittard may be of value here, with dashes of Kierkegaard. 

AND as ideas, these have been around for a LONG time!

If you get these ideas and make them part of your life, there is no more need for "apologetics'.

You just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

Mighty tempting.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

 I've had it verified to me, by someone who was there.  How would you explain that?

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

And yet some of us have been into the furnace of doubt and come out clinging to the only thing we can - verifiable evidence.  All your tut-tutting about faith to FD, talking down to him like he's never been to church or Sunday School, isn't going to help.  I don't know when you went on a mission, but "building on common beliefs" with a doubter is far more effective than finger wagging and defensiveness.  YMMV.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Pretty sure you frequently use that word in litigation.

 

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

And yet some of us have been into the furnace of doubt and come out clinging to the only thing we can - verifiable evidence. 

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  What "verifiable evidence"?

If you have such evidence about the fundamentals of the Gospel, I would very much like to see it.

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

All your tut-tutting about faith to FD, talking down to him like he's never been to church or Sunday School, isn't going to help. 

I wasn't tut-tutting or talking down to him.  I was respectfully sharing my views.

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't know when you went on a mission, but "building on common beliefs" with a doubter is far more effective than finger wagging and defensiveness.  YMMV.

He said, wagging his finger.  

Online communications are not a perfect means of conveying nuance.  We are having a civil and polite discussion amongst peers and equals.  I have not disparaged him, and he has not disparaged me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 11, 2021 by smac97

[Fair Dinkum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Archaeologists conclude..." doesn't quite seem perfectly congruent with "confirmed its existence."

I encourage you to give Troy a bit more thought, as it is an interesting case study.  See, e.g., here:

I am reminded of previous discussions we have had about "confirmation" of ancient events, persons, etc.  See, e.g., here:

I wonder if you may have a "CSI effect"-esque set of expectations regarding the Restored Gospel.  See, e.g., here: Much left to discover between archaeology and the Book of Mormon

See also this 1993 article by William Hamblin: Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon

An excerpt:

I wonder if you should re-visit your expectations about whether matters of belief, including supposedly "testable" things, can or ought to be accepted only after supposedly empirical confirmation.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  An event either happened, or it did not.  Later "discovery" of it does not transmute it from "myth" (your synonym, I think, for a fabricated/fictitious event) to history of fact.  Wouldn't you agree?

Huge room for shading here.  World War II happened, but that doesn't mean that Captain America: The First Avenger did.

So you only believe in ancient events that have been empirically and indisputably verified by modern archaeologists?  That's the metric?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not necessarily, for example, I do not believe in the disruption of human language emanating from Babel either, but one can not disprove that Biblical claim through archeology.  For that it takes reason, logic and linguistical evolution knowledge etc.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see that as amazing.  To the contrary, I would expect that matters of faith be circumscribed so as to preclude "verifiable evidence."  Empirically testing and confirming, say, the existence of God, the miracles of Jesus Christ, the antiquity of the Gold Plates, etc. would negate the need for faith, and would fundamentally undermine our agency.

Imagine a college professor handing out a final exam, to the back of which is stapled all the answers to it.  How would that be a "test" of the student's knowledge and effort and growth in mastering the subject matter?

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Loved this retort...well done

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Separating myth from reality is the real trick.

Did you actually read the definition of 'myth' that I quoted above from the OED? I get the sense that you don't know what myth is or does.

Quote

How much credibility would you today give to someone claiming to have recently moved to your town from Gotham and also claiming to be a close personal friend of Batman.

None ... right up until he introduced me to Batman.

I share the Prophet Joseph's epidemiological approach: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself'.

Quote

And yet due merely to the passage of time since Joseph uttered words to Oliver and had them put to paper, you immediately accept that the Brother of Jared, who came allegedly from a mythical place that did not exist, was once a real breathing human being.

You seem to think you know exactly what I believe and how I came to that belief, and yet you're mostly incorrect. Why is that?

By the way, are you trying to argue that a place called Babel never existed? If so, I think you may be in a very minority position there.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Pretty sure you frequently use that word in litigation.

So let's get God on the stand right now.

Unbelievable 😆

That's a knee slapper! 🤣

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have much to learn from you about your patience.

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So let's get God on the stand right now.

Unbelievable 😆

That's a knee slapper! 🤣

 

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have much to learn from you about your patience.

Pretty sure you had absolutely no idea what my point was.

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Pretty sure you had absolutely no idea what my point was.

 

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  What "verifiable evidence"?

If you have such evidence about the fundamentals of the Gospel, I would very much like to see it.

 

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So let's get God on the stand right now.

Unbelievable 😆

That's a knee slapper! 🤣

 

13 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

At one point, I might have been willing to discuss how terrifying it is to lose one's faith.  I might have been willing to discuss the emotional pain of concluding the thing to which you'd give your life wasn't what it was represented to be.  I might have been willing to discuss how the only thing you can cling to in those early days of faith loss is the tangible; something concrete just to get through each day.  I might have been willing to discuss the intrusive thoughts that came from knowing you were losing your social community, your family, and perhaps even your spouse because you simply couldn't believe anymore.  But it's responses like these which demonstrate that it is impossible to discuss such things openly with vulnerability on this board.  It further supports my long-held opinion that the majority of the defenders on this board are devoid of empathy, choosing a win-at-all costs approach to defense.  As it is, you've simply reminded me not to waste my time with participation around here.

Edited August 12, 2021 by ttribe

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But it's responses like these which demonstrate that it is impossible to discuss such things openly with vulnerability on this board. 

Here is what I said:

Quote

 

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  What "verifiable evidence"?

If you have such evidence about the fundamentals of the Gospel, I would very much like to see it.

 

 I don't see anything in there that is disparaging, provocative, mocking, or otherwise intended to make you feel uncomfortable uncomfortable or put you ill at ease.   I asked you a question with respect and indicated that I would be interested in the evidence to which you were referring.

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It further supports my long-held opinion that the majority of the defenders on this board are devoid of empathy, choosing a win-at-all costs approach to defense.  As it is, you've simply reminded me not to waste my time with participation around here.

 I have no idea why you took offense at what I said. It was entirely benign and well intended.

Thanks,

Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

He said, wagging his finger.  

😂 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Pretty sure you had absolutely no idea what my point was.

Splain me then

Edited August 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

 

At one point, I might have been willing to discuss how terrifying it is to lose one's faith.  I might have been willing to discuss the emotional pain of concluding the thing to which you'd give your life wasn't what it was represented to be.  I might have been willing to discuss how the only thing you can cling to in those early days of faith loss is the tangible; something concrete just to get through each day.  I might have been willing to discuss the intrusive thoughts that came from knowing you were losing your social community, your family, and perhaps even your spouse because you simply couldn't believe anymore.  But it's responses like these which demonstrate that it is impossible to discuss such things openly with vulnerability on this board.  It further supports my long-held opinion that the majority of the defenders on this board are devoid of empathy, choosing a win-at-all costs approach to defense.  As it is, you've simply reminded me not to waste my time with participation around here.

Sorry but been there, done it.

If you have never been Polish Catholic, you can't know what 1000 years of cultural certainty without a nation does to a culture

"As of 2005 a majority of Poles, approximately 88%, identified themselves as Catholic, and 58% said they are active practicing Catholics, according to a survey by the Centre for Public Opinion Research.^[9] According to the Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of the Republic of Poland, 95% of Poles belong to the Catholic Church;^[10] this survey bases the number of adherents on the number of infants baptized,^[5] as provided by the Catholic Church. The CIA Factbook gives a number of 87.2% belonging to the Catholic Church in 2012.^[11] In the biggest part of Europe, the rates of religious observance have steadily decreased. However, Poland still remains one of the most devoutly religious countries in Europe. Polish Catholics participate in the sacraments more frequently than their counterparts in most Western European and North American countries. A 2009 study by the Church itself revealed that 80% of Poles go to confession at least once a year, while 60% of the respondents say they do so more often than once a year.^[12] By contrast, a 2005 study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate revealed that only 14% of American Catholics take part in the sacrament of penance once a year, with a mere 2% doing so more frequently.^[13] Tarnów is the most religious city in Poland, and Łódź is the least. The southern and eastern parts of Poland are more active in their religious practices than those of the West and North. The majority of Poles continue to declare themselves Catholic.^[14] 

Edited August 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have not disparaged him, and he has not disparaged me.

And this is how it should be when we are at our best. May I also include that we shouldn't disparage each other's faith? Most everyone here lives by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ - the good news - whether taught at an LDS stand or from a Presbyterian pulpit. I think when we endeavor to correct or convert each other, that is perhaps the ultimate form of disparagement (I don't know if that is a word!). Especially in the light of the fact that we each and everyone of us sees through the glass darkly in this dispensation.

 

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I have no idea why you took offense at what I said. It was entirely benign and well intended.

Hmmm......One of the great fallacies of these kinds of discussions - that how a response is intended is more important, vital, or accurate than how it is received; or how it is received is more important, vital, or accurate than how it was intended. Methinks both are important; empathy demands the importance of both. Blindspots can keep us from understanding the impact on a person of how we frame a response; blindspots can keep us from receiving it accurately. My 300 lb father would hit me as a child "for my own good" - I am quite sure he thought it well intended. That certainly is not how I received it. I have thought most of my life that certainty is a huge barrier to empathy. I am 72 years old and still learning the dangers of certainty in human interaction and communication. I have often thought that lack of certainty, especially in matters of faith leads to relativism - the great enemy of the faithful. I have learned that uncertainty and relativism are not inexorably linked. That has been a huge and challenging life lesson. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Navidad
additional thoughts.

[Fair Dinkum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the context of questions about a legal dispute?  Yes.

In the context of questions about the existence of God, the divinity and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

interesting

[Fair Dinkum]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you actually read the definition of 'myth' that I quoted above from the OED? I get the sense that you don't know what myth is or does.

yes I read your entire post and I understand completely what myth is

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

None ... right up until he introduced me to Batman.

I share the Prophet Joseph's epidemiological approach: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself'.

ok I can respect that

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You seem to think you know exactly what I believe and how I came to that belief, and yet you're mostly incorrect. Why is that?

I draw my understanding from your various posts but I have no doubt that that does not give me a compete picture of what and how you form your belief structure

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, are you trying to argue that a place called Babel never existed? If so, I think you may be in a very minority position there.

No a place called Babel could have very well existed.  It is the magical things claimed to have occurred there that I do not believe actually happened or took place.  For me it is just one of the many fracture points to my faith in the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see that as amazing.  To the contrary, I would expect that matters of faith be circumscribed so as to preclude "verifiable evidence."  Empirically testing and confirming, say, the existence of God, the miracles of Jesus Christ, the antiquity of the Gold Plates, etc. would negate the need for faith, and would fundamentally undermine our agency.

Wait…..knowledge fundamentally undermines agency now? What?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hmmm......One of the great fallacies of these kinds of discussions - that how a response is intended is more important, vital, or accurate than how it is received; or how it is received is more important, vital, or accurate than how it was intended. Methinks both are important; empathy demands the importance of both. Blindspots can keep us from understanding the impact on a person of how we frame a response; blindspots can keep us from receiving it accurately. My 300 lb father would hit me as a child "for my own good" - I am quite sure he thought it well intended. That certainly is not how I received it. I have thought most of my life that certainty is a huge barrier to empathy. I am 72 years old and still learning the dangers of certainty in human interaction and communication. I have often thought that lack of certainty, especially in matters of faith leads to relativism - the great enemy of the faithful. I have learned that uncertainty and relativism are not inexorably linked. That has been a huge and challenging life lesson. 

Some fair points.  But in the end I think the intent of the speaker should be considered alongside the recipient's subjective perception.  Neither side has a monopoly on things.

As it is, nothing I said was untoward or uncivil.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I don't see that as amazing.  To the contrary, I would expect that matters of faith be circumscribed so as to preclude "verifiable evidence."  Empirically testing and confirming, say, the existence of God, the miracles of Jesus Christ, the antiquity of the Gold Plates, etc. would negate the need for faith, and would fundamentally undermine our agency.

Wait…..knowledge fundamentally undermines agency now? What?

Sure knowledge would undermine agency relative to belief in and obedience to God, yes.

“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching." --Aldo Leopold

From Frasier:

Quote

Frasier: Do you really want to see me lying under oath?

Martin: Well, it's better than seeing your brother lying under a piano.

Frasier: You know, I can't believe you're being so casual about this. Do you realize you're asking me to do something completely unethical?

Martin: Oh, for God's sake, nobody's even gonna know!

Frasier: Yes, but that's the point! Ethics are what we do when no one else is looking. For heaven's sake, I learned that from you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching." --Aldo Leopold

But if one is ethical, it makes no difference if others are watching, does it?  The person is not somehow not ethical just because others watched.