Follow F.A.I.R, They Know the Way

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Signs of the Times, 41:

 

 

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

And just so I'm clear, you think JFS didn't believe in a literal, global flood, even though he said this:
 

And this...?
 

 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

if the source is trustworthy

The source (based on my googling) was FAIR. And no it was not reliable. It is grossly (and knowably by whoever grabbed it initially) ripped from context and in context JFS meant quite the opposite. 
 

I spent $10 on the ebook and the quote came with a footnote to make the irony clearer. 
 

Footnote:

Quote

To my great astonishment this has been misunderstood by some, who failed to recognize the irony of this remark. For the benefit of such I will say I do not know of any other kind of water except literal water—H20, the kind we drink, bathe in, and which makes floods and drowns people. I think fire which consumes will also be literal when it comes. J.F.S.

Yet again FAIR should be ashamed of themselves for hosting this quote wrested from context. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood#Joseph_Fielding_Smith_.281942.29:_.22Oh.2C_no.2C_it_will_not_be_literal_fire_any_more_than_it_was_literal_water_that_covered_the_earth_in_the_flood.22

Edited August 2, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I spent $10 on the ebook and the quote came with a footnote to make the irony clearer. 

Way to take one for the team.  If true, then FAIR has some 'splainin' to do.  That is just not acceptable.  The lack of context with the Widstoe quote also left something to be desired.  I thought I could trust fair to check context etc. but it looks like I may have to fact check and contextualize quotes from FAIR from now on. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Way to take one for the team.  If true, then FAIR has some 'splainin' to do.  That is just not acceptable.  The lack of context with the Widstoe quote also left something to be desired.  I thought I could trust fair to check context etc. but it looks like I may have to fact check and contextualize quotes from FAIR from now on. 

FAIR takes the faithful approach.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

FAIR takes the faithful approach.

I don't think it is fair to equate "the faithful approach" with sloppy apologetics.  One can take the faithful approach without relying on cheap tricks.  If anything, it only hurts the faithful by making us look like we can only be faithful by misleading and deceiving.  When peoples faith rely on these defenses, it can cause one to experience disillusionment and loss of faith when they realize that these arguments are really shoddy and defenseless.  They need to be more careful.  From my experience, they mostly do a good job, but this case seems pretty indefensible - if what seeking understanding is reporting is true. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think it is fair to equate "the faithful approach" with sloppy apologetics.  One can take the faithful approach without relying on cheap tricks.  If anything, it only hurts the faithful by making us look like we can only be faithful by misleading and deceiving.  When peoples faith rely on these defenses, it can cause one to experience disillusionment and loss of faith when they realize that these arguments are really shoddy and defenseless.  They need to be more careful.  From my experience, they mostly do a good job, but this case seems pretty indefensible. 

I shouldn't have just came on like a troll with that answer. It didn't really have much to do with the discussion at hand. Maybe this was a slip up on their part. But I know Calm will straighten it out, she always does. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

The source (based on my googling) was FAIR. And no it was not reliable. It is grossly (and knowably by whoever grabbed it initially) ripped from context and in context JFS meant quite the opposite. 
 

I spent $10 on the ebook and the quote came with a footnote to make the irony clearer. 
 

Footnote:

Yet again FAIR should be ashamed of themselves for hosting this quote wrested from context. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood#Joseph_Fielding_Smith_.281942.29:_.22Oh.2C_no.2C_it_will_not_be_literal_fire_any_more_than_it_was_literal_water_that_covered_the_earth_in_the_flood.22

I will pass on the info. Thanks.

We use volunteers and trust each other to get it right. Most of the time this works. This sounds like an occasion it didn’t. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Way to take one for the team.  If true, then FAIR has some 'splainin' to do.  That is just not acceptable.  The lack of context with the Widstoe quote also left something to be desired.  I thought I could trust fair to check context etc. but it looks like I may have to fact check and contextualize quotes from FAIR from now on. 

It is wise to check everything.  Even the best researcher will make mistakes.  We aren’t paying anyone at FAIR to do the work, so sometimes it may be less than our best work if rushed to fit our volunteer work in with the rest of life.  There are going to be errors.  We really appreciate people who let us know when we have made a mistake.

It is conference time and the people who oversee the wiki have other tasks to do right now, so it may be next week or two before they can take care of it.  I will try and remember to keep an eye on it, but if someone wants to check it later and give me a big nudge to remind someone to take care of it, I would appreciate it.  My memory has had some odd glitches lately.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

FAIR takes the faithful approach.

This time it had nothing to do with faithfulness.    I cannot imagine it was intentional though.  That would be stupid.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is wise to check everything.  We aren’t paying anyone at FAIR to do the work.  There are going to be errors.  We really appreciate people who let us know when we have made a mistake.

That is fair (pun intended). 

If I have to pay $10 to purchase a book to fact check a quote though, it probably won't happen.  The author of this article was probably betting that a critic likely wont waste $10 to fact-check an obscure quote on the global flood from an obscure book, thus slipping past any radar.   But they have not met seekingunderstanding.  Ha! 

It would probably be good practice for FAIR to take note of egregious authors who seem to intentionally and knowingly mislead (I know it can't be proven, but if true, this seems really hard to get out of context that bad without being intentional), and either not use them in the future or have someone fact-check all their previous and future work.  Because it is not likely the first or last time in their life that they have or will do such a thing. 

Edit:

Quote

This time it had nothing to do with faithfulness.    I cannot imagine it was intentional though.  That would be stupid.

I hope not, but it seems really, really hard to understand how anyone could read that in context ("to my great astonishment, this has been misunderstood by some...") and not understand what he meant.  

Edited August 2, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

The author of this article was probably betting that a critic likely wont waste $10 to fact-check an obscure quote on the global flood from an obscure book, thus slipping past any radar.

My guess is they got it (just the part that was posted) from something they trusted that they shouldn’t have in this case, just like you did with us this time.  Depending on how long it has been up, we may never know as some of our volunteers are gone (and not just retired from FAIR).

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

See next post

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Found the likely source our editor got it from:

https://rsc.byu.edu/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-covenants/second-coming-christ
 

That it was Robert Millet the FAIR editor got it and didn’t doublecheck it from makes sense to me.  I would myself assume Millet got it correct enough, would not assume he could have missed not reading a footnote. I would have cited Millet though.  Unfortunate error that could have, should have been avoided (so speaks some who doesn’t volunteer for wiki contributing because I am too lazy).

Quote

The Second Coming of Christ in glory is a day in which “every corruptible thing, both of man, or of the beasts of the field, or of the fowls of the heavens, or of the fish of the sea, that dwells upon all the face of the earth, shall be consumed; and also that of element shall melt with fervent heat; and all things shall become new, that my knowledge and glory may dwell upon all the earth” (D&C 101:24–25; see also 133:41; 2 Peter 3:10). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “Somebody said, ‘Brother Smith, do you mean to say that it is going to be literal fire?’ I said, ‘Oh, no, it will not be literal fire any more than it was literal water that covered the earth in the flood.’” [11]

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I spent $10 on the ebook and the quote came with a footnote to make the irony clearer. 

 

Footnote:

Yet again FAIR should be ashamed of themselves for hosting this quote wrested from context. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood#Joseph_Fielding_Smith_.281942.29:_.22Oh.2C_no.2C_it_will_not_be_literal_fire_any_more_than_it_was_literal_water_that_covered_the_earth_in_the_flood.22

Okay, I thought you were making that up because the wording was too perfect (and casual), and honestly, it sounded like something I would have made up. So I bought the ebook because I was too embarrassed to ask.

It's legit! (But I did think it was really suspicious that Joseph Fielding Smith would have ever said anything like that. I mean, seriously. It's Joseph Fielding Smith.)

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by cinepro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Okay, I thought you were making that up because the wording was too perfect (and casual), and honestly, it sounded like something I would have made up. So I bought the ebook because I was too embarrassed to ask.

It's legit! (But I did think it was really suspicious that Joseph Fielding Smith would have ever said anything like that. I mean, seriously. It's Joseph Fielding Smith.)

 

Maybe the author of the FAIR article owns the rights to the ebook? 😜

[Calm]

Perfect, the two of you doing my homework for me. Thank you, Seeking and Cinepro. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Okay, I thought you were making that up because the wording was too perfect 

 

This instinct is definitely what we need more of in the world though. If something seems too perfect to us, we should be extra skeptical not less. 

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This instinct is definitely what we need more of in the world though. If something seems too perfect to us, we should be extra skeptical not less. 

Years ago, someone gave me an article about the Book of Mormon that was one of those "How could Joseph Smith have known" things. It seemed like pretty compelling stuff, until I spent about 2 hours looking at the original sources. It was all half-truths and misrepresentations, and I read where the author had explicitly said he could no longer stand by his assertions. So, yes, it does behoove one to check sources.

Edited August 2, 2022 by jkwilliams

[cinepro]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This instinct is definitely what we need more of in the world though. If something seems too perfect to us, we should be extra skeptical not less. 

I mean, you have a (future and assumed humorless) Prophet who said exactly what Pogi wanted him to say, and was cited by Millett. But then you have a footnote of him saying "Hey, I was just kidding about that. Don't listen to me!"  I'm still surprised on several different levels.

Wouldn't the logical instinct be to take out the confusing joke in the first place?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I mean, you have a (future and assumed humorless) Prophet who said exactly what Pogi wanted him to say, and was cited by Millett. But then you have a footnote of him saying "Hey, I was just kidding about that. Don't listen to me!"  I'm still surprised on several different levels.

Wouldn't the logical instinct be to take out the confusing joke in the first place?

Well these were given as a series of live talks. Given that it was 1942, people knew his position at the time, he likely gave it in a very dry sarcastic voice, and there was likely laughter at the line, I can see the footnote vs the change. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I mean, you have a (future and assumed humorless) Prophet who said exactly what Pogi wanted him to say, and was cited by Millett. But then you have a footnote of him saying "Hey, I was just kidding about that. Don't listen to me!"  I'm still surprised on several different levels.

Wouldn't the logical instinct be to take out the confusing joke in the first place?

I would think so, but maybe he told jokes privately a lot and decided to let this peek into his private persona stand. 

I have heard that Bruce R McConkie had a great sense of humor, which I never see in his writing and don’t remember in his speech. 
 

added:  Seeking’s idea of not wanting to change a public speech makes more sense. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/31/2022 at 5:03 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Please save your money.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes gambling.  I know you probably don't support the Church of Jesus Christ enough to pay Tithing, but please consider putting the money you were going to "put[ ] on FAIR" to good use by contributing it toward Fast Offering, which, of course, benefits the needy in your local area. [(I should add, of course, that, always, you're welcome to contribute to FAIR, but, as FAIR sees part of its its mission to strengthen faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, in which, no longer do you seem to believe, you might not see that as a viable option.)  ]

 

WARNING: Kenngo1969's brain has been taken over by Scott Lloyd

Edited August 3, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/31/2022 at 9:13 AM, Chum said:

My usual answer: No (well examined) belief sets are ever in perfect harmony. The option I prefer is to shelve the inevitable disharmonies and wait for time to provide a more complete understanding. The alternative is a forced decision to abandon/depreciate a belief set (that had served us well).

The church is guilty of having taught many falsehoods throughout the years...fortunately many of these formerly taught beliefs are no longer believable except to the willingly uninformed, due to the overwhelming evidence that makes belief in these false teachings untenable.  This has forced the church to slowly drift towards the truth by allowing a more nuanced belief system ( a church within the church) to exist for some of these falsehoods.  They have abandoned and thrown many former doctrines down the memory hole.

[Fair Dinkum]

I'll play:  Generally speaking I prefer to believe in claims where the same outcome and/or conclusion is consistently reached through repeatable, independent testing. 

Take the claim for the BoM being "True"  It can't and will NEVER pass this test.  It is left at best being a book that only claims to be true...but it will never actually be true.

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/20/2022 at 11:48 AM, smac97 said:

We addressed this last year (in June) :

You did not respond.

We also addressed this in August 2021:

Again, you did not respond.

You did respond, at least a little, to my comments here (from August 2021) :

You responded: 

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?

Michael Ash addressed this briefly here: After the Manner of Their Language: The Key to Wisdom

Some excerpts:

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.

There are plenty of faithful and observant Latter-day Saints who disagree with this.  I am one of them.

I addressed this reasoning above.

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.

Well, not really.

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.

Again, we have previously discussed this:

And here (a discussion between you and JustAnAustralian) :

You then responded:

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

My participation was quite robust in each of these threads you've referenced

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

My participation was quite robust in each of these threads you've referenced

Okay.  Here are my questions again:

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 everywhere 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 physiological 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?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2022 by smac97