Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2022 Posted July 18, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I recently visited the Welch village of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Lots of double LL’s there also. Oh, you saw that name too? Gotta be the longest word I’ve ever seen — in any language. The internet is such an amazing, albeit pervasive element in our modern age. We tend to take it for granted: all that information instantly available to us, on most any topic. Here’s one that discusses dangling modifiers: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/moduleDangling.htm Edited July 18, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
CV75 Posted July 18, 2022 Posted July 18, 2022 7 hours ago, Islander said: I suggest that such position approaches superstition rather than truth, and quickly. Truth can not and will not be denied by science since truth belongs to God and exits in the realm in which He created it. We discover truth by empirical means and become aware of it at some point in time but it has always existed. It is absurd to hold on to a position that is clearly unsupported by science, no matter who claims to have revelation to the contrary. I am not referring in particular to the Adam and Eve issue since those are elements that could still be argued on scientific basis. I suggest that the DNA issue in relationship to the Lamanites is a lot more problematic in the light of recent scientific breakthroughs. Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise by Nathaniel Jeanson, significantly shakes the position of the Church in connection to the Lehi family migration and expansion proposition of the BoM. The Y chromosome transgenerational defect clock provides a solid foundation for the creation theory and the Christian position of a young earth based on genetics. At the same time, it closes the door to the possible migration of a definitively Jewish group that later expanded to millions of inhabitant in the north American continent whom later vanish whiteout leaving a genetic echo. The apologetic position in the Gospel Topic essay does not hold water in the face of this newest research. In sum, holding on to a position that is unequivocally denied by sound scientific inquiry is not faith. It's superstition, to say the list. It will put us in the same group of other 19th century cults that made failed prophesies and prediction which history obviously proved categorically wrong. That should be a concern. I would engage, but you come across as lacking a grasp of genetic science while holding to a dogmatic bias in your clunky semantic rhetoric concerning epistemics. 2
pogi Posted July 18, 2022 Posted July 18, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: But knowing that they have taught falsehoods as truth when do you know their current truth claims aren’t just more false truth claims or false promises? The spirit isn’t reliable in being able to detect the difference The spirit is reliable, it is us humans who are not reliable. The spirit (just like pure data in science) must inevitably be interpreted by imperfect and limited humans, and pass through all of our human filters. We are going to be wrong sometimes in how we perceive/interpret things. That is just part of the territory of mortality. I have become increasingly comfortable in uncertainty. I feel quite liberated in it, honestly. You keep using the word "know", and I am assuming that you mean 'absolute perfect knowledge'. I believe you are tied to a philosophy that will not serve you well. I think we need to free ourselves from absolutism in life. Such things belong to the Gods, not mortal men. Not until we are God's will we be able to see like Him with his absolute and holistic perspective of all things. Only then will all the puzzle pieces fall into place for us to be able to interpret the big picture with any reliable degree of clarity. I believe that we are here to each be guided in a very individual process of spiritual progression. It is a progressive process of line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. The process is conveniently outlined in Alma 32. The light is universally recognizable, I believe, even if we may interpret it in different ways. As we adhere to that light and seek more light, our understanding and interpretation will evolve. Even if we are wrong in our interpretation temporarily, we are still on the right path if we do not cast off the seed. It will grow. Our confidence grows brighter in the process as we receive of the spiritual assurances mentioned in Alma 32. My point is that we can't know, at least not with absolute certainty. But we are not left alone without confidence building assurances either. Such is faith - assurance of things hoped for. Edited July 18, 2022 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2022 Posted July 18, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Islander said: Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise by Nathaniel Jeanson, significantly shakes the position of the Church in connection to the Lehi family migration and expansion proposition of the BoM. The Y chromosome transgenerational defect clock provides a solid foundation for the creation theory and the Christian position of a young earth based on genetics. A A young earth creationist is looking down on Latter-day Saints using an appeal to science? That’s … I’m not sure I have the right words for that. Edited July 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2022 Posted July 18, 2022 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Are you able/willing to provide an iron-clad guarantee that this 'latest research' is the end of all 'sound scientific inquiry' and therefore the final say that all rational beings have universally embraced? And if not, is it your plan that we update our beliefs each and every time some 'latest research' drops? So now suppose we find out there was never an Exodus. Just suppose. Do we throw out all the wisdom in the bible? We have to read it for its wisdom, not its historicity! Will these folks EVER get it??? SO frustrating. I can't even respond to these folks anymore 1
Fair Dinkum Posted July 19, 2022 Author Posted July 19, 2022 On 7/17/2022 at 6:20 PM, mfbukowski said: So so TRUE! We want to make everything into fake science- when the only thing remotely "empirical" is whether or not the BELIEF makes life "sweeter". Alma 32. Theoretically I suppose a poll of opinions might be "objective" for what that's worth. "23.7% Christian Creation believers prefer the "Organization " paradigm to the "Ex nihilo" paradigm " At last we have an inter- subjective but worthless "TRVTH" etched in stone What is Truth?
Fair Dinkum Posted July 19, 2022 Author Posted July 19, 2022 On 7/18/2022 at 5:11 AM, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, you saw that name too? Gotta be the longest word I’ve ever seen — in any language. The internet is such an amazing, albeit pervasive element in our modern age. We tend to take it for granted: all that information instantly available to us, on most any topic. Here’s one that discusses dangling modifiers: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/moduleDangling.htm Actually... here's a longer town name. It's in New Zealand and No I didn't need to google it to know of it's exsistance. Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu. Just don't ask me to pronounce it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Actually... here's a longer town name. It's in New Zealand and No I didn't need to google it to know of it's exsistance. Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu. Just don't ask me to pronounce it. Nor do you need to visit a place to know of its existence — not in this day and age.
JLHPROF Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: What is Truth? D&C 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. And when combined with light it forms intelligence, becoming the glory of the Gods. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: What is Truth? Alma 32. Other than that it can't be described. A special treat: https://youtu.be/CzynRPP9XkY 2
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: D&C 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. And when combined with light it forms intelligence, becoming the glory of the Gods. Which of course directly contradicts the idea that now we "see things through a glass darkly, but then face to face" Is seeing the color blue seeing waves or particles? All we see in this world are humans observing human obsevations! We don't see reality- we only see for example, SOME frequencies of light or some frequencies of "sounds" which our brains assemble into images. In a sense, all we know is what our bodies are built to know. So we observe human observation, not "things as they are". Ever seen an atom? An electron? Or are molecules not "real"? How do the WORDS "SYMBOLIZE" things we have never even SEEN "as they are?" What is blue, independent of our observations ? Is blue "actually" red? Or nothing? Alma 32 will tell you! Truth is sweet and propositions are "justified" by how well they work as observed. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Is seeing the color blue seeing waves or particles? In either case, it's a thoroughly 'modern' experience! 3
OGHoosier Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 46 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: In either case, it's a thoroughly 'modern' experience! This kind of content is the reason I'm here. 4
Kenngo1969 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 On 7/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, pogi said: ... My point is that we can't know, at least not with absolute certainty. But we are not left alone without confidence building assurances either. Such is faith - assurance of things hoped for. ... and evidence, even of things not seen. 3
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: In either case, it's a thoroughly 'modern' experience! Yes I love that article! It's an excellent summary of all the things I have been saying (not my stuff- but virtually all contemporary philosophy is about this concept or arguing against this concept. But the main argument against is "logical positivism" a relic of the past- I encourage folks to google "the death of logical positivism" to see HOW dead the correspondence theory of truth really is. SO the bottom line, and the reason I am LDS is that IF the closest we can get to "things as they are" is what we DO observe- and what is included in 'real experiences" whch we have? Spirtual Experience! Seeing "bue" is as real as a testimony experience or even a vision! It, like all of reality as we know it is based not on "things as they are but ON THINGS AS OBSERVED/ EXPERIENCED. Alma 32- and the experience is SWEET! Belief in God and spiritual experience is just as logically justifiable as seeing "blue". Yet some can be "colorblind" until culturally and socially they change! I love this article!
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: ... and evidence, even of things not seen. .....yet! Until of course one learns how to "see" what is in Moroni's promise. It's written in blue ink! 🥶 I mean after all, it IS a test..... "Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5." Edited July 20, 2022 by mfbukowski 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: In either case, it's a thoroughly 'modern' experience! 9 hours ago, OGHoosier said: This kind of content is the reason I'm here. Best to be skeptical of extraordinary claims, especially when they are made up. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237 ” The BBC's presentation of the mocked-up experiment — purporting to show that the Himba are completely unable to distinguish blue and green shades that seem quite different to us, but can easily distinguish shades of green that seem identical to us — was apparently a journalistic fabrication, created by the documentary's editors after the fact, and was never asserted by the researchers themselves, much less demonstrated experimentally. This explains why the "experiment" was never published, and why the stimuli shown in the documentary don't make sense. ” 2
why me Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 On 7/18/2022 at 2:05 AM, Fair Dinkum said: But knowing that they have taught falsehoods as truth when do you know their current truth claims aren’t just more false truth claims or false promises? The spirit isn’t reliable in being able to detect the difference I don't expect perfection from anyone, not even general authorities. I look at the big picture. I see a group of people who are attempting to navigate a problematic world. And who attempt to explain the scriptures the best as they can do at that time. At the end of the day, I need to make a judgement: all in all, they have done quite well in navigating members to live a good life and to avoid the pitfalls of modern life. And maybe that's enough. 3
smac97 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 (edited) On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: The Bible and BoM speak to the size of the flood. We addressed this last year (in June) : Quote Quote {Fair Dinkum}: But it seems that Jesus did in fact believe in a universal flood...but to paraphrase Clinton...it depends on what the meaning of "all" is Luke 2:1 Quote “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Do you believe Caesar was taxing the inhabitants of South America? The Japanese Archipelago? The aborigines in what is today Australia? Is "all the world" necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed? You did not respond. We also addressed this in August 2021: Quote Quote Quote Our spirit has always been immortal and at one time our other body was too, when our spirit had never separated from it. We don't die until or unless we actually die, with our other body no longer regenerating our body parts, and our spirit separates from it. {Fair Dinkum}: This is a unprovable claim. As are virtually all of the points you raise in these posts of yours. There are very few things that happened long ago that can be empirically proven or disproven. That's just a very tall order. This seems particularly important where, as here, the issues under discussion are an admixture of historical events (what actually happened), poetic description and metaphor (how it actually happened), and so on. It seems like you want to take an absolutist, hyper-literal approach to these things. I hope you can come to apply some measure of nuanced exegesis. Consider Luke 2: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." How literally do you take "all the world" in this verse? Did Caesar attempt to tax the inhabitants of what is to day the Japanese archipelago? The people living in the South Pacific? The Americas? Did the decree extend to plants and animals? To the literal planet? If you can find a way to construe "all the world" with some measure of figurativeness, perhaps you could do the same with the poetry of Genesis? It needn't be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Again, you did not respond. You did respond, at least a little, to my comments here (from August 2021) : Quote Quote If you want to own the myth that the earths languages were confounded at the tower of Babel, be my guest. The key word there being "if." Also, "the earth's languages." I encourage you to not be so absolutist in your thinking. See, e.g., here: Quote Question: At the beginning of the Tower of Babel story, we read that “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”[ii] Later, we are told that “the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.”[iii] But the scientific history of languages tells us that the diverse tongues of the world did not originate from the splitting of a single language. Must we choose between science and scripture? Summary: To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood[iv]) can mean either “earth” or “land,” and it is impossible to know which except from context.[v] Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language.[vi] Read the whole thing here: Does Science Support the Idea of the Splitting of an Original Language at the Tower of Babel? And here: The Tower of Babel Reexamined Further, consider this story published yesterday: Did archaeologists find the Trojan Horse? Quote Archaeologists who claimed they had unearthed remnants of the legendary Trojan Horse in Turkey have now found significant evidence that further supports their claim, according to an article by the Greek Reporter. Turkish archaeologists excavating the site of the city of Troy on the hills of Hisarlik have discovered a large wooden structure that they believe are the remains of the Trojan Horse. These excavations include dozens of fir planks and beams up to 15 meters (49 feet) long, assembled in a strange form. The wooden structure was found inside the walls of the ancient city of Troy. Now, Boston University professors Christine Morris and Chris Wilson believe that "the carbon dating tests and other analyses have all suggested that the wooden pieces and other artifacts date from the 12th or 11th centuries BC." Morris and Wilson believe with a "high level of confidence" that the structure is linked to the iconic horse. They say that tests have only confirmed their theory. “This matches the dates cited for the Trojan War, by many ancient historians like Eratosthenes or Proclus. The assembly of the work also matches the description made by many sources. I don’t want to sound overconfident, but I’m pretty certain that we found the real thing!” The Trojan Horse is associated with the Trojan War, written about by Homer in his epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Iliad closes right before the war ends, so it does not feature the legendary horse. The Trojan Horse was used to seize Troy and win the war. The story was prominently featured in the Aeneid by Virgil. Historians have suggested that the horse was an analogy for a war machine or natural disaster. I assume you are familiar with Virgil's Aeneid and Homer's Odyssey, both of which reference the Trojan Horse? However, both also reference intervention of the Greco-Roman gods. The narrative in The Aeneid speaks of Juno's anger at not being chosen by Paris, and also of the predicted destruction of her favorite city, Carthage, by the descendants of Aeneas. Aeolus, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Cupid, Apollo also play significant roles. Athena, Zeus and Poseidon figure heavily into the narrative of the journey of Odysseus in Homer's poem. By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected. There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept. So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether. Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety. Is that a fair summary of your reasoning? Is it possible, though, for the specific contours of a historical event to become obscured or misunderstood over time? Or embroidered over time? Must we therefore reject the entirety of an ancient narrative because some of its constituent parts, or our grasp of them, are flawed in some sense? I have commented on Troy vis-à-vis its historicity previously: Quote Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity. ... William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller: Quote William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility. Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps. William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus? Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject. William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus? And here: Quote Plenty of ancient books are scrutinized by scholars without having "dramatic physical evidence supporting [their] historicity." Consider the use of Homer's Iliad in the search for Troy. One of the candidates for Troy, Hisarlik, has been debated about for a while. Hence we get items like this: Quote Many scholars were skeptical about Hisarlik being Troy because it was so small, and Homer's poetry seems to suggest a large commercial or trading center. But excavations by Manfred Korfmann discovered that the small central hilltop location supported a much larger population, perhaps as many as 6,000 living in an area estimated to be about 27 hectares (about one-tenth of a square mile) lying adjacent to and stretched out 400 m (1300 ft) from the citadel mound. Scholars used Homer's poem about Troy as a source of data points about Troy. And yet I don't think any of these scholars subscribe to the Iliad's references to Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Thetis, Hermes, etc. playing prominent and pivotal roles in the narrative. Put another way, I think we need to be reasoned and reasonable in how we approach the confluence of faith with purportedly "empirical" data points. We ought not ignore these points, but we do need to contextualize them. Quote But even BYU linguists accept that languages evolved over 10's of thousands of years and certainly not at a central point in the middle east/Asia minor. "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." (Luke 2:1) How do you construe "all the world" in this verse? Here are some additional thoughts I have posted previously (from here) : 1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial There are some "stories in the scriptures" that are helpful and valid even if they never "actually happened." The Parable of the Talents, for example. Historicity is not necessary for such stories to be instructive and "true." The Parable of the Talents. The Good Samaritan. Zenock's Allegory of the Olive Tree. The story of Job (maybe - I'm sort of conflicted on this one). These are stories that may have actually happened, or may be purely fiction. We'll never really know, I suppose. But it doesn't matter, since these stories are intended to preach moral precepts, not establish the reality of the events described. So they can be historical or ahistorical. It doesn't matter. 2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood Then there are some stories that happened, but about which we lack the particulars, or about which we may harbor erroneous notions. For example, I think it's sort of hard for an observant Latter-day Saint to deny that Noah's Flood happened at all, but I think the scope of it (local rather than literally every square inch of dry land in the world covered) is open for principled, reasoned discussion. We must, in the end, construe/interpret scripture. We should seek to understand it both in the way it was originally intended, and also in ways that reconcile the narrative with observable things. Consider, for example, Luke 2:1, which states: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Dan Peterson noted: Quote Augustus was much too savvy to have invited the Persians and the Chinese -- or even the Germanic tribes of Scandinavia, the Picts of Scotland, or the ancient Irish -- to pay taxes to him. He wasn't savvy enough to have demanded taxes from the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, and the Congolese. Augustus, a competent and realistic ruler, sought to collect taxes from all of those who were subject to him. Which, though many, wasn't exactly "all the world." It wasn't even all the known world. In other words, even though the text says "all the world should be taxed," nobody interprets this verse in an absolutist, literal way. For this category of narratives from scripture we really need to remember the Church's teachings on A) inerrancy (we reject it), B) continuing revelation (we are big into this), and C) seeking knowledge and wisdom from the "best books" (we are big into this, too). For me, I view Noah's Flood through this lens. I believe there was a literal flood, but I have real reservations about the notion that I am required to believe that the flood was global. I like this comment by William Hamblin (responding to Brent Metcalfe) : Quote Historicity and Truth Thus the real historical problem is quite different from the one Metcalfe claims is central to the "apologist" enterprise. Metcalfe would have us believe that I (whom he would place squarely in the camp of the apologists) am arguing that "the Book of Mormon is only true if the personalities and events it describes were objectively real (p. 154). In fact, this is simply Metcalfe 's own faulty presentation of the argument. He is thereby obscuring the real issue of the connection between the antiquity and historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophet hood of Joseph Smith. by shifting the grounds of the argument from the historical truth of the events of the book, to the ethical or doctrinal truth of statements that are made in the text. While it is quite true that doctrinal statements made in the Book of Mormon-such as "Jesus is the Christ"-may be true even if the book is not ancient, the prophethood of Joseph is still compromised. Furthermore, the authoritative power of the statement that "Jesus is the Christ"--even if it is true-is greatly diminished when we realize that the stories of the power, prophecy, and miracles of God, and of the resurrection of Jesus and his visitation to the New World, are simply pious fictions. Let me state my position on the question of the relationship be tween historicity and truth. First, it is quite possible for scripture to be ahistorical. For example. the parables of Jesus are true, and yet entirely fictional. Likewise the story of Job may well be an extended parable. Second, I make no claim that everything in the Book of Mormon itself is in fact historical. For example, I doubt that anyone would argue that Zenos' allegory of the olive tree (Jacob 5) ever really happened. Likewise, it is possible that there may be historical or scientific mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Thus, the issue is not, as Metcalfe would have us believe, that the Book of Mormon must be historical for it to be considered scripture. The argument is that the Book of Mormon must be historical for Joseph to be a prophet. Those who would argue that Joseph is the prophetic author of a nineteenth-century pious forgery must provide a cogent explanation for why Joseph's prophetic claims should be taken seriously in light of the falsity of his visionary claims-a falsity which necessarily follows from the nonexistence of the plates and Moroni. 3) Stories that Require Historicity I will note that there are major portions of the scriptures that must be "historical" (meaning that the persons described were real, and that the events described really happened). Consider, for example, these comments by Daniel C. Peterson: Quote It is vastly important that the scriptures be reliable guides to salvation and to the nature of God and His purposes. It is far less important that they be entirely accurate on the numbers of Israelites who left Egypt, or on the magnitude of the number it in the construction of Solomon’s temple. Historicity is essential. Inerrancy is not. And the two are not the same. Some skeptics want us to abandon our belief in the historicity of the scriptures because the scriptures do not appear to be infallible. But this is a leap we need not take. Some among those skeptics want us to believe that the scriptural stories can still be religiously meaningful even if they are purely fictional. In some cases, of course, this is true. The story of Job illustrates various answers to the problem of evil just as well if it is fictional as it does if it is an accurate historical account. In this regard, it rather resembles Plato’s Republic, or his Symposium, where we really do not care whether Thrasymachus or Alcibiades really said or did the things Plato relates. But Jesus is not Job, and it matters very much whether the story of Christ really happened as the Gospels say it did. Even here, though, we must distinguish the essential from the nonessential. And these remarks by Kent Jackson (regarding the historicity of the origins of the Book of Mormon) : Quote Given all the clear and consistent claims in favor of historicity made by the Book of Mormon itself, by Joseph Smith, by other witnesses, and by the revelations of God to Joseph Smith, what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical? Can the Book of Mormon indeed be “true,” in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? This is not an invitation for anyone to leave the Church. It is, instead, an invitation to abandon the fallacious and logically impossible argument that the Book of Mormon can be true, though not historical, while Joseph Smith, the revelations of God, and the book itself claim in clear and unmistakable terms the opposite. And these remarks by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon) : Quote The Book of Mormon’s major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable—whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them? Professor John W. Welch pointed out to me that this new wave of antihistoricism “may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but it has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.” Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. I highly recommend Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul H. Hoskisson, and available online for free. As Daniel Peterson put it: "{W}e must distinguish the essential from the nonessential." I have no problem with construing Luke 2:1 is a non-absolutist, 100% literal way. "All the world" requires contextualization and reasoned analysis. In fact, I think it is facile, even foolish, to insist on a black-or-white, hyper-literal interpretation. "The New Testament can only be true if Caesar taxed the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, the Congolese, etc. Since reason requires us to reject that Caesar taxed every human being on the planet, the entirety of the New Testament is a fabrication and falsehood." That doesn't really work for me. Similarly, I don't really approach the Tower of Babel in a 100% literal way either. See, e.g., here: Is the Tower of Babel historical or mythological? I also feel quite at ease viewing the Flood as possibly-but-unlikely-to-have-been "global." I don't really need to know whether the Flood every square inch of dry land, or whether it was a localized event. As I have said previously: Quote I believe Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. I believe in the miracles described in the scriptures. I believe in angels and heavenly manifestations. I believe in Joseph Smith's theophanies and the reality of the Gold Plates and Joseph's translation of them. I believe in all sorts of things that are amazing, and that are treated with scorn, disbelief, etc. in many quarters. But I have real reservations about the idea that Noah's Flood necessarily encompassed the whole earth, up to fifteen cubits above Mount Everest. If I am wrong to harbor such reservations, I believe the Lord will forgive me. ... I think the Flood happened, but I doubt it was global. Meanwhile, I think we need to spend more time and effort to focus on loving God, loving our neighbor, and keeping our covenants. Robert Millet put it well: Quote An Evangelical Christian colleague, Craig Blomberg, once observed: “You know, it’s ironic: The Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does not require evidence. Remember how Jesus replied to doubting Thomas: ‘You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ And I know evidence can never compel or coerce faith. We cannot supplant the role of the Holy Spirit, which is often a concern of Christians when they hear discussions of this kind. “But I’ll tell you this; there are plenty of stories of scholars in the New Testament field who have not been Christians, yet through their study of these very issues have come to faith in Christ. And there have been countless more scholars, already believers, whose faith has been made stronger, more solid, more grounded, because of the evidence—and that’s the category I fall into” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan) 1998), 52-53). In writing of faith in the unseen, a Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, explained: “Belief in the existence of God is already an act by which one ‘entrusts’ oneself to a world that is not entirely defined by what can be seen and counted, heard, and accounted for.” Further: “Christians need to begin by insisting, first of all to themselves, then to each other, and finally to the world, that faith itself is a way of knowing reality. They need to insist that faith establishes contact with reality in a way different from, but no less real than, the very limited (though, in their fashion, extremely impressive) ways of knowing by which the wheels of the world’s empirical engine are kept spinning.” As an illustration, “If religion can hold as true only what is ‘within the bounds of reason,’ and if ‘reason’ is defined in terms of the empirically verifiable, then the resurrection is excluded by definition. But if the resurrection is excluded, why should Christians continue to revere Jesus, who is then only one of many figures from antiquity worthy of attention and honor?” (The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 45, 101, 180). True believers will always be challenged by those who refuse to see. In a very real sense, believing is seeing. No member of the Church need feel embarrassed when they cannot produce the golden plates or the complete Egyptian papyrus. No member of this Church should ever feel hesitant to bear testimony of those verities that remain in the realm of faith, that are seen only with the eyes of faith. Elder Neal A. Maxwell has written: “It is the author’s opinion that all the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding” (Plain and Precious Things (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 4.). ... Those who choose to follow the Brethren, believe in and teach the scriptures, and be loyal to the Church—no matter the extent of their academic training or intellectual capacity—open themselves to ridicule from the cynic and the critic. Ultimately, doctrinal truth comes not through the explorations of scholars, but through the revelations of God to apostles and prophets. And if such a position be labeled as narrow, parochial, or anti-intellectual, then so be it. I cast my lot with the prophets. I am one who sincerely believes that education need not be antithetical to conversion and commitment; it all depends on where one places his or her trust. “True religion,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie testified, “deals with spiritual things. We do not come to a knowledge of God and his laws through intellectuality, or by research, or by reason. . . . In their sphere, education and intellectuality are devoutly to be desired. But when contrasted with spiritual endowments, they are of but slight and passing worth. From an eternal perspective what each of us needs is a Ph.D. in faith and righteousness. The things that will profit us everlastingly are not the power to reason, but the ability to receive revelation; not the truths learned by study, but the knowledge gained by faith; not what we know about the things of the world, but our knowledge of God and his laws” (Conference Report, April 1971, 99). You responded: Quote As usual you make it impossible to respond. But to this point: Quote By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected. There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept. So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether. Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety. Is that a fair summary of your reasoning? That is not what I said. I asked where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth. the gold from the panning sand. Yes there can be elements of truth sprinkled within a myth, stories are often based on elements of a truthful story and then embellished, we was demonstrated with the recent discussion on President Nelson, but given the passage of time it is nearly impossible to separate truth from reality. Unless there is evidence that can be scrutinized it is not possible beyond feelings FD, I think it's odd that you keep coming here, keep posting these "What about..."-style questions (in, I think, a Jeremy-Runnells-esque kind of way), and then you often don't meaningfully interact with the responses you get. You having done this for a few years now, I sort of have the impression that you do it mostly to stir the pot, not to actually go anywhere with these inquiries. I hope I am wrong about that, and if so I will certainly revise my assessment. In the hopes that we can actually have a substantive conversation, here are a few questions I request you address: Question 1. In your view, is the phrase "all the world" as used in Luke 2:1 ("And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed") necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed? Question 2. If you can find a way to construe "all the world" with some measure of figurativeness, poetic license, etc., if you can give some room for the possibility that the author of Luke 2 had a more finite and decidedly non-scientific view/perspective of things, could you do the same with other portions of the Bible? Or do you think that a 100%-literal interpretation is the only way to go? Question 3. What are your thoughts about the exegesis of Genesis 11:1 referenced above ("To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood) can mean either 'earth' or 'land,' and it is impossible to know which except from context. Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language.")? Do you find this plausible? Question 4. You asked "where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth." I have previously laid out a basic framework that appears to be responsive to this inquiry (see above) : 1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial 2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood 3) Stories that Require Historicity Do you agree that this framework is responsive to your question? If so, what are your thoughts about this framework? Question 5. Do you insist that Christians everyone have a comprehensive and empirically testable explanation for Jesus turning water to wine, multiplying the loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, etc.? Question 6. You have previously stated that you "question the reality of an actual resurrection." I certainly understand and respect that position. My questions, though, are: (A) On what basis do you think Christians should accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a factual, it-really-happened event? (B) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically explained/defined/quantified (as to the physilogical mechanics of how it works)? (C) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically proven as having actually happened (that the individual referenced as "Jesus" in the New Testament was literally resurrected from the dead)? Question 7. You have previously argued, or at least strongly implied, that some of the truth claims of Christianity in general, and/or of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular, can be "empirically" disproven. Is that a fair characterization of your position? If so, could you itemize which events/claims you believe are empirically testable/falsifiable? On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: For the waters to recede from America it had to be universal. See Ether. Michael Ash addressed this briefly here: After the Manner of Their Language: The Key to Wisdom Some excerpts: Quote Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?” The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, and then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says, “OK, now what?” I’m a firm believer that truth is truth regardless of the source. As Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[i] While no endeavor in which humans are engaged can be infallible, I find that “science” (as an umbrella term for multiple disciples) typically moves forward in our understanding of the cosmos and how our planet and life evolved to its current state. Scientific discoveries shed increasing light on how we humans fit into this world. While scientific findings have, at times, contributed to the faltering of testimonies, I personally find that science illuminates belief in positive ways and sheds light on obscure or misunderstood areas of religious understanding My interest in these and other scientifically-related topics, and how they can be understood from within a framework of belief, compelled me—a couple of years ago—to begin a book-length project addressing this general theme and how Latter-day Saints can embrace, rather than distress over scientific discoveries and their sometimes apparent clash with religious beliefs. ... Many Latter-day Saints have found support for a global flood within the pages of the Nephite record, but a closer examination reveals that such a conclusion is not required. In Ether, for example, we read that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands” (Ether 13:2). We know that the Jaredites (as interpreted by Moroni) were familiar with Noah’s ark (Ether 6:7) so these verses imply a world-wide global flood. It’s important to remember, however, that the Book of Mormon peoples themselves didn’t experience the flood. Neither Moroni nor Ether would have known from personal experience that the waters receded from the face of the New World. They believed that this is what happened, but that’s not the same as claiming to be witnesses to the event. It’s entirely possible that either Ether, Moroni, or even Joseph Smith included the comment about the waters receding from the land based on their understanding of the ancient New World and according to their interpretation of the Noachian flood as recorded in Genesis. If we apply the framework to other scriptures we open the doors to greater enlightenment and wisdom as well. What do you think? Is Ash making a valid point here or not? I hope you read his entire presentation at the above link, as I think it's quite good and responsive to the various "What about"-style inquiries you keep posting here. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: And for the flood to exceed the height of the mountains and destroy “all flesh” it had to be universal. There are plenty of faithful and observant Latter-day Saints who disagree with this. I am one of them. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: Yes LDS prophets have made Noah, a fictional character based off the Babylonian Gilgamesh flood myth, literal. Geez the 5 Books of Moses weren’t even written until the Jews returned to Israel in 538 BCE. I addressed this reasoning above. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: but you forget…the universal flood is essential for Noah, living near Adams Missouri Eden to leave the Americas for the Middle East…how else did his fictional ark get there from America? First demonstrate that Latter-day Saint doctrine requires the Ark to have originated in America and landed in "the Middle East," then we can talk. As in so many of the topics you raise, the unspoken presuppositions you bring with you deserve as much, if not more, attention and consideration as the topics themselves. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: you start picking at one truth claim and they all start falling apart. Well, not really. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: The Noah myth is built on the Adam myth. Both fictional but also essential for Mormonism to be what it claims. I get that you have concluded these stories to be entirely fictional. But I don't think you have demonstrated that, nor do I think that is possible. On 7/14/2022 at 7:47 PM, Fair Dinkum said: And don’t forget the foundational need for there being no death prior to adams fall. Again, we have previously discussed this: Quote Quote Quote Also, please cite, chapter and verse, this "claim that physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world through the fall of man." 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 2 Nephi 2:23 "They" = Adam and Eve, right? You were referencing "physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world..." Do you see a possibility of a difference between A) the condition of Adam and Even in the Garden, and B) everything and everywhere else in "the world?" And here (a discussion between you and JustAnAustralian) : Quote Quote Can you please provide me with the scriptural reference to support your position that death functioned differently on earth depending on where on earth you lived. The only mentions of death in the Garden story are in relation to Adam and Even eating the fruit of a specific tree. Thus death outside the garden, like I said, is not addressed. Quote Also please provide scriptural support that Adam & Eve we’re not the first man and the first woman on earth. Where did I claim otherwise? The first instance of man we have in the various scriptural accounts is Adam being placed in the garden. We have nothing about how long he was there. We have nothing about other humans outside the garden. By your logic, since cats aren't explicitly mentioned in the bible, they didn't exist right? You then responded: Quote I understand what you are doing here. You are attempting to mesh two supposed realities together so that they make cognitive sense. On the one hand we have the evolutionary model of humanity evolving over millions of years. This model has all of the scientific evidence supporting it's reality. And you're attempting to hold on to this truth while trying to make it blend with the Biblical Adam and Eve Story so you have to concoct a scenario where both of these two realities can co exist. Only problem is that this duo-humanity-history model is built on pure speculation. You have to massage or twist what the Bible actually says to force it to say what you want it to say to support your model.. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is just conclusory disparagement. It's not argument, or reason-and-evidence-based analysis. It is not a meaningful interaction with the responses to the topics you keep presenting here. It's responses like this which make me question whether you are presenting your various inquiries in good faith. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 20, 2022 by smac97 4
smac97 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 On 7/18/2022 at 5:11 AM, Scott Lloyd said: Quote I recently visited the Welch village of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Lots of double LL’s there also. Oh, you saw that name too? Gotta be the longest word I’ve ever seen — in any language. This guy is a rock star: Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: What is Truth? Per John Jaques: Quote ’Tis the fairest gem that the riches of worlds can produce, ’Tis the brightest prize to which mortals or Gods can aspire. ’Tis the last and the first, for the limits of time it steps o’er. Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst, Eternal, unchanged, evermore. Additionally or alternatively, "truth" is, per D&C 93:24, "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." "Belief" is, I suppose, the individual's hope for and acceptance of truth. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted July 20, 2022 Posted July 20, 2022 On 7/15/2022 at 9:13 AM, Fair Dinkum said: Actually I do NOT expect perfection....but I would hope for some credibility and where they are clearly wrong, wouldn't it be nice if they were willing to admit that they were wrong and led the entire church down a false pathway? What sort of "false pathway" do you believe arises from other-than-scientifically-precise geospatial parameters of Noah's Flood? Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted July 21, 2022 Posted July 21, 2022 (edited) On 7/17/2022 at 10:03 PM, Islander said: I suggest that such position approaches superstition rather than truth, and quickly. Truth can not and will not be denied by science since truth belongs to God and exits in the realm in which He created it. We discover truth by empirical means and become aware of it at some point in time but it has always existed. It is absurd to hold on to a position that is clearly unsupported by science, no matter who claims to have revelation to the contrary. I am not referring in particular to the Adam and Eve issue since those are elements that could still be argued on scientific basis. I suggest that the DNA issue in relationship to the Lamanites is a lot more problematic in the light of recent scientific breakthroughs. Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise by Nathaniel Jeanson, significantly shakes the position of the Church in connection to the Lehi family migration and expansion proposition of the BoM. The Y chromosome transgenerational defect clock provides a solid foundation for the creation theory and the Christian position of a young earth based on genetics. At the same time, it closes the door to the possible migration of a definitively Jewish group that later expanded to millions of inhabitant in the north American continent whom later vanish whiteout leaving a genetic echo. The apologetic position in the Gospel Topic essay does not hold water in the face of this newest research. In sum, holding on to a position that is unequivocally denied by sound scientific inquiry is not faith. It's superstition, to say the list. It will put us in the same group of other 19th century cults that made failed prophesies and prediction which history obviously proved categorically wrong. That should be a concern. @Islander , are you getting your info on the Y chromosome….clock solely from the book Traced and Jeansen, or do you have other sources? Just want to know what I need to look at to understand your claims. Does this article cover the material of the claim you make above or was there something else that led you to this conclusion? https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v13/post-columbian-amerindian-population.pdf Edited July 21, 2022 by Calm
smac97 Posted July 21, 2022 Posted July 21, 2022 (edited) On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: Why is the LDS faith the whipping boy for your scientific crusade? Well if by whipping boy you mean holding them accountable for their truth claims, the Why I care is because Mormonism is my tribe. There is an old adage: "Familiarity breeds contempt," meaning "The better we know people, the more likely we are to find fault with them." See also here: Quote to start disliking something when one gets to know too much about it close association causing discomfort and eventually contempt because of too much knowledge about someone or something to lose respect for someone by knowing their secrets The vibe I get from this idiom is actually not quite as described above. That is, I think it means that with familiarity comes a form of complacency, and then rudeness and contempt. And Party A's rudeness/contempt may or may not have to do with Party B's weaknesses, foibles, "secrets," etc. It may have more to do with a feeling of entitlement or privilege - again, arising from "familiarity." Party A has relationship with Party B --> Feelings of "Familiarity" arise over time --> Party A's effort at being at his "best behavior" erodes --> Feelings of "Entitlement" or "Privilege" grow up over time (either incrementally or in fits and spurts) --> Party A, perhaps not even fully realizing it, starts speaking to and treating Party B with "Contemptuous" and "Disrespectful" words/behaviors. A teenager (Party A) may be generally quite civil and polite to teachers, neighbors, employers, etc., but then at home speak and act quite disrespectfully to his parents (Party B). A husband (Party A) may be a picture of genteel manners to co-workers, neighbors, guests to his home, etc., but behind closed doors he may speak quite rudely to his wife or children (Party B). An small business (Party A) owner may be all warmth and smiles for customers, but then turn around and treat employees (Party B) poorly. I think this sort of thing can also happen in a group/community context, where Party A is a member of the group/community and Party B is . . . the group/community itself. Party A may feel privileged/entitled to disparage and insult group because of Party A's membership in Party B. Don't get me wrong, some of this "contempt-from-familiarity" stuff can be sort of benign, where Party A's harsh words signal an underlying affection for Party B, an ironic expression by Party A's value of Party B. I may jokingly say to a friend "You're an idiot" because I know he knows I don't mean it. When I was in the Army, soldiers complaining to each other about the Army was standard fare. My kids may respond to a "Dad Joke" with "Wow, that was really terrible" because they feel comfortable and "safe," they know I won't take offense. A few years ago I posted this: Quote Wednesday evening I had a very nice, but abbreviated, discussion with my older brother. He is a thoughtful fellow. He is a very observant member of the Church, but he is also pragmatic about how the Church is doing. My brother mentioned a concept of "Believe, Behave, Belong." This is, he said, the model that the Church uses. We invite people to first believe (e.g., take the missionary discussions, read the Book of Mormon, pray, etc.), then behave (start attending Church, obeying the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, etc.), then belong (get baptized and formally join the community of the Saints). My brother mentioned that he had spoken with a Jewish fellow who said that Jews generally use a different sequence, namely, a "Belong, then Behave/Believe" approach. That is to say, the Jews consider each other part of the "Jewish" community regardless of their level of religious observance. They "belong" to and in the "community" simply by being Jewish. Whether they "Believe" and "Behave" is an optional, aspirational thing. The Jewish fellow suggested that we as members of the Church might want to try the "Belong --> Belief --> Behave" approach. ... A few thoughts: 1. I wonder if Jews can take this approach in large part because "Jewishness" is as much an race/ethnicity/culture as it is a religious affiliation (if not more so). To be "Jewish" is to be part of a community, but not necessarily a community of faith. In contrast, I think the Latter-day Saint social fabric is woven mostly from commonalities in belief and behavior, and the "culture" that springs therefrom. If that is so, what sort of community would we have if faith ("Believe") and congruent conduct ("Behave") become merely optional or ornamental, as such things have for so many in the Jewish community? 2. I wonder if the Jewish fellow was a bit optimistic in his assessment. He is speaking of people who are born Jewish, whereas we as a Church are a proselytizing faith. It's one thing to "belong" to a community you are born into, but fairly different to convert to it. So do religiously observant Jews take a "Belong --> Believe --> Behave" approach to non-Jews? Apparently not. See here: ... It sounds like converting to Judaism is very much a "Believe --> Behave --> Belong" process. 3. Something like 40+% of Israeli Jews are "secular," and less than half of American Jews believe in God. Is there such thing as a "secular Latter-day Saint?" 4. My wife just left a few days ago to take her first ever trip to the UK (with her sister). On Sunday they will be attending church services somewhere in London. They will find an immediate community there. I had similar experiences when I was in the military. There was a strong sense of community and cohesion, but it arose almost entirely from religious observance. I spent a year at a military language school on a small military base in Monterey, California. There was a designated corner on the base where the members of the Church met to catch a ride (those of us who lacked transportation). The local ward would always send an empty van to pick us up (4-7 of us). Several of us arrived early at the spot early so that we could chat and catch up. Then we got in the van and went to church together. We also had periodic firesides and FHE meetings. These things were very edifying and comforting for us. We are young and far from home, so it felt great to re-connect with fellow members of the community. But again, that connection came through commonality in terms of belief and observance. Without this commonality, what unique affinity do we have? What sort of "community?" 5. I am grateful that we are taught to be kind and inclusionary to all, as we are literally all brothers and sisters. However, the Gospel provides an added element of social cohesion. Members of the Church are brothers and sisters in the Gospel. We are bound together with ties stronger than what we see in the "family of man." Joseph Smith taught: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none." To me, Joseph's use of "religion" seems to be referencing a religious community. That being so, can we really have a cohesive international community of Saints without a concerted emphasis on "Believe" and "Behave?" 6. To some extent, it seems like we may already be doing this. The "Believe, Behave, Belong" paradigm in the Church is not particularly onerous. Take some missionary discussions to find out what we believe, read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, commit to the basics, then get baptized. So our paradigm appears to be "Believe (the most basic stuff, as the rest of it will come with time), Behave (start on the commitments that are most difficult, such as regular Church attendance, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, Law of Tithing), Belong (get baptized in a matter of weeks or a few months of starting the process)." In other words, we are trying to get people to the "Belong" part as quickly as possible, and then we encourage a build-up of the "Believe" and "Behave" bits. 7. The very lown number of excommunications is, I think, evidence of the effort the Church is putting into the "Belong" part of this paradigm. We are only excommunicating those whose behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the covenants associated with baptism. We don't ritually shun (as is seen, for example, among the Jehovah's Witnesses, some Jewish communities, and Scientology), nor do we "out" people who are struggling with their faith or observances. We regularly exhort members to return to the community. I am glad you still feel part of the "tribe." But I think your relentless and public expressions of contempt, negativity and disrespect of that tribe (borne, I think, from familiarity, but also from your apparent loss of faith) is only going to further alienate yourself from it. The dynamic here is not unlike an estranged or divorced couple where one or the other of them (or both) publicly badmouths the other. What was previously a relationship based on love and romance and respect has become a relationship filled with bitterness and animosity. Those hard feelings just get worse the more they are expressed. And such expressions by Party A about Party B do nothing to preserve or improve the relationship, or to affect change in Party B. I think the Church generally takes a "Believe --> Behave --> Belong" approach. I would like to think that we have some measure of the "Belong --> Behave --> Believe" approach in us, but that's hard where we - unlike our Jewish friends - are not bound by a common ethnicity, and where what we are bound by - our common identity - is inherently mostly founded on . . . faith. We are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. That commonality was apparent to me earlier this year when my wife and I took a trip to Scotland and attended Church on Sunday. The sense of community, of cohesion, of belonging was immediate. That you keep coming here suggests (to me, anyway) that you still value the Church in some sense, hence your statement: "Why I care is because Mormonism is my tribe." It seems like, at present, you can't quite do the the "Believe --> Behave --> Belong" thing. I can respect and understand that. So perhaps we can, for now, look to the "Belong --> Behave --> Believe" approach. If you can't presently manage the progression toward belief regarding the "tribe," perhaps you could at least aim toward civility and respect regarding the tribe. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: The church demands complete loyalty in this life I am loyal to the Church, but there will always be some bit of a caveat there to account for the errors and omissions of its human-and-therefore-flawed leaders and members, both past and present. Complete loyalty to Jesus Christ? Yes. I can sign on to that. How does Jesus want us to treat His Church? Well: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." (Eph. 5:25.) That does not impute perfection onto the Church, though. So my loyalty to the Church has what I will call the "Jane Eyre Caveat." From Chapter 20 (a discussion between Jane and Mr. Rochester) : Quote "Now you look puzzled; and I will puzzle you further. You are my little friend, are you not?" "I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right." "Precisely: I see you do. I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face, when you are helping me and pleasing me—working for me, and with me, in, as you characteristically say, 'all that is right:' for if I bid you do what you thought wrong, there would be no light-footed running, no neat-handed alacrity, no lively glance and animated complexion. As it turns out, what Mr. Rochester had in mind was not altogether "right." Understandable, yes. Even rational and justifiable in a sense. But in the end, not "right." Not moral. Not congruent with God's will. As for the Church, part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church. My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption. That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations." That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works." That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works." We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility. So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it. To think about it. To study it. To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy. To weight it against the Standard Works. And most of all, to pray about it. So I think the better way would be to approach prophetic counsel with a rebuttable presumption that it comes from God. In other words, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Not blind faith. Not unthinking, reflexive, I'll-follow-you-no-matter-what obedience. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: and makes promises in this life that will only be paid after we die. The Church is the conduit through which the Lord makes promises. What happens "after we die" will be adjudicated by Jesus Christ, who is perfectly just, benevolent and righteous. Until we get there, however, He has told us to follow His prophets and apostles. Not because they are perfect and get everything right, but because our faith and reliance are on Him. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: Eternal Life, families being together forever, godhood (or has that one been taken off the the plate). Well, there are two unforgiveable sins. Assuming you haven't committed those, the promises in D&C 84 are still within reach: Quote 34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. 35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; 36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; 37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; 38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. So yes, the choice is still there. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: I think given all that the church demands of us and take aka 10%) we deserve to be told the truth Nobody's going to disagree with that. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: and we also deserve to be able to hold them accountable when their teachings are proven to be false... Not sure what you mean by "hold them accountable." Could you clarify? Also, what "teachings" do you believe have been "proven to be false?" Also, what are your thoughts about Mormon 9:31? Quote Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. How do you reconcile this with "hold{ing} {prophets and apostles} accountable?" On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: We're banking on it being true, on them being able to deliver the rewards. "Them?" Who is that? Whom is it that you think is the "author and finisher of our faith?" (Heb. 12:2.) As much as I honor past and present prophets and apostles, in the end it is up to each of us to "take care of these sacred things" and then "look to God and live" (Alma 37:47). On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: but what if it's all just a huge religious Ponzi Scheme? That we've all fallen for a fraud. How would we know? Ultimately, few of us will "know" in an ontological, absolutist "perfect knowledge" kind of way. "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7.) So . . . faith. Repentance. Obedience. Service. Patience. The "fruits of the Spirit" can, I think, get us somewhere in the vicinity of believing/knowing enough to proceed. On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: Seriously how would you know if you've been duped? I recognize that most here don't care. They're happy in their beliefs and are willing to live their lives as faithful believing Mormons through to their eventual deaths. I don't think that's fair. You claim you are pursuing "truth." Can't you grant the same to us? On 7/15/2022 at 11:24 AM, Fair Dinkum said: But IF its all just made up, if the emperor has no clothes, there are some of us that would like to know that in THIS life. The same inquiry can be approached this way: If it isn't "all just made up," if the Restored Gospel really is what it claims to be, if the foundational truth claims of the Church are "true," then I want to know that in this life. And I think we can. "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." D&C 50:24. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 21, 2022 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted July 21, 2022 Posted July 21, 2022 On 7/15/2022 at 12:29 PM, Fair Dinkum said: Please answer these questions: 01. True or False: The Garden of Eden was in Missouri Possibly. From FAIR: Quote Question: Is it true that Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith taught this Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea. ... Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, who often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter. Brigham's history records he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine): You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.[5] And here: Quote Brigham Young stated, “Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson [County] Missouri.” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, vol. 5, 15 Mar. 1857, Archives Division, Church Historical Dept., Salt Lake City.) Heber C. Kimball said: “From the Lord, Joseph learned that Adam had dwelt on the land of America, and that the Garden of Eden was located where Jackson County now is.” (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 9 vols., Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888, 7:439; see also Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967, p. 219.) Other early leaders have given the same information. Unfortunately, we do not have primary source documentation for all of Joseph Smith’s revelations or doctrinally related declarations. This is especially true for the periods when he did not have a scribe to keep a record of his daily activities. His 1831 and 1832 trips to Missouri fit into this category. And here: Quote Neither biblical records nor secular history and archaeological research identify the dimensions or the location of the garden in terms of the present-day surface of the earth. Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-Ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri (D&C 107:53-56;116:1;117:8). Several early LDS leaders, among them Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, stated that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught them that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Jackson County, Missouri (JD 10:235; cf. 11:336-7; DS 3:74). And here: Quote Since the more prominenat and “official” discussion of Adam in Missouri has related to Adam-ondi-Ahman, some Saints have tried to argue that Joseph made no such claim about the location of the Garden. But this strikes me as a non-starter. For instance, Wilford Woodruff in his journal for 30 March 1873 recorded: Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed. There are other such informal reminiscences. It seems abundantly clear that Joseph taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, presumably somewhere in Jackson County. We apparently do not have anything definitive in the records of the Church about this. Meanwhile, the Church's position on this is . . . fairly noncommittal: Quote Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. And here: Quote LDS Newsroom We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. My first question for you: 01. Do you agree or disagree with the Church about whether or not this (the specific location on the earth for the Garden of Eden) is "an important or foundational doctrine?" On 7/15/2022 at 12:29 PM, Fair Dinkum said: 02. True or False: There was NO death prior to the Fall of Adam True (as to Adam and Even), but otherwise, I think "False." From FAIR: Mormon perspectives on the concept of death on the entire earth before the Fall of Adam My second question for you: 02. Is definitively knowing whether or not there was "death prior to the Fall of Adam" an essential component of faith in Christ? On 7/15/2022 at 12:29 PM, Fair Dinkum said: 03. True or False: Christ's atonement is necessary to over come the consequences of the Fall? True. Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts