Gospel Writers, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

President Kimball on "Absolute Truth"

“Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.’ (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family."

Seriously, y'all.

Who wants to argue now for religious belief being based on history?

If historical/scientific "facts" are NOT relevant to religious belief, - like basing religion on.... what? Plumbing?  Psychology?  Math? Sociology?-  even Evolution, why do we constantly argue about them here?

Click on that link, read the rest of the DC passage and then come back and explain to me why murder's "wrongness" is based on an historical fact.

Or God's existence for that matter.   What historical event alone proves that God exists and did it? 

 I'm waiting.   🤓 

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:22 AM, mfbukowski said:

Re:

Above post

"

noun

plural noun: groundlings

1. 1.

   a spectator or reader of inferior taste, such as a member of a theater audience who traditionally stood in the pit below the stage.

   "Dante is not for groundlings"

A week ago my class started studying Hamlet. I explained who the groundlings (or pennylings) are. Nice to see it show up right away!

[MiserereNobis]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If historical/scientific "facts" are NOT relevant to religious belief, - like basing religion on.... what? Plumbing?  Psychology?  Math? Sociology?-  even Evolution, why do we constantly argue about them here?

Could it be because your religion has linked the two? That the truth of the Book of Mormon is 1) religious and 2) historical. It seems to me that the vast majority of LDS couldn’t accept a Book of Mormon that was historically inaccurate, i.e. didn’t historically happen. Am I misunderstanding you?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could it be because your religion has linked the two? That the truth of the Book of Mormon is 1) religious and 2) historical. It seems to me that the vast majority of LDS couldn’t accept a Book of Mormon that was historically inaccurate, i.e. didn’t historically happen. Am I misunderstanding you?

I think it is the lack of nuance in the minds of members and the phrase "I know the church is true" which is taken to mean that every proposition stated in talks or in our scriptures is factually and scientifically true and corresponds to "reality" perfectly which has created the problem- it comes I believe from the fundamentalist attitudes found in Protestant circles, because in the first years of the church virtually EVERY convert to our church was raised in an enviroment of sola scriptura Protestantism, just as in the beginnings of Christianity the first "converts" were from Judaism.   Everyone knows that it was controversial about whether or not "gentiles" could even become Christians.   If you were not Christian could you be Mormon?   I am not a historian (obviously!).   And our members even today are shocked when they find out that virtually all the early leaders were Masons.

But what is weird, since virtually every leader had experience with Masonry and were probably Masons themselves- it was perfectly normal that one could be a Mason AND a Mormon at the same time.  Isn't everyone?    And now because the church is "true" and clearly  because Masons are tools of the devil, then the fact that the Nauvoo temple has inverted stars all over it, obviously it must be that the Mormons are Satanists.

It is all an upside-down flip of culture.  My own mother was horrified that I was becoming a Mason!

Most of the Founding Fathers were Masons but that fact has been squeezed out of the American culture.

That I think was the way the early leaders thought.   So yes we absorbed a LOT of Protestant beliefs by osmosis even though they might be actually ANTI- Mormon doctrines not found in LDS scriptures anywhere.  Speaking in tongues in Sacrament meetings was common and expected- if you did that today, who knows what would happen?  We still have new converts wanting to clap after sermons, and saying "Halleluyah Brother" etc during a good sermon- oh wait- I mean "talk".   We don't have sermons!  Even Confrence Talks are just that- and not "sermons".

But the FACTS are that there is NOT a lot of evidence for Nephites as a culture for many reasons.   Some point out that in several hundred years what evidence will there be for Mormon" pottery shards?   It is commonly believed that the Nephites lived as subcultures  within the cultures we now know as "Mayan" etc, just like in the US we just live in communities with an "American" identity and not a "Mormon" identity, so it could be possible we would just be swallowed up in studies of "America" while many would not have even heard of "Mormons".   Besides-what the heck is a Mormon??   I was 25 before I even had a clue!   I thought they worshiped "American Indians" who were Saints.

And so finally President Nelson has finally corrected that- and hopefully many who didn't know we are Christians will figure it out.

Philosophically we are behind the rest of the world by 200 years- and still condem "philosophies of men" as opposed to scripture, when at least in my mind, "your truth" and "my truth" are perfect fits for our view of testimonies, and our desire for the perfection of Humankind, makes us Humanists of the highest order.  We are talking about ETERNAL perfection of humanity- not just making a nicer human world!

But very few get that- even here our our highly , uh, enlightened (  ) bored.  

 

(intended)

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

A week ago my class started studying Hamlet. I explained who the groundlings (or pennylings) are. Nice to see it show up right away!

I never could figure out how a little piggy (Ham-let) could do all that.🤔

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never could figure out how a little piggy (Ham-let) could do all that.🤔

Years ago one of my classes decided that they wanted a class hamster. They named him Hamlet. After a few weeks he pooped out his intestines and died. Fitting, I suppose..,

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

A week ago my class started studying Hamlet. I explained who the groundlings (or pennylings) are. Nice to see it show up right away!

Don’t forget to cover the last-minute changes to the script.

 

[Islander]

On 4/19/2023 at 10:53 PM, The Nehor said:

Refutation:

The Codex Parisino-petropolitanus
The Birmingham Quran Manuscript
The Sana’a Manuscript

All dated to the 7th century or earlier.

I do not quote muslim sources as a general rule. They are biased and, of course, try to validate their claims. But this is where the rubber meets the road:

 

The 2002-2007 ‘al Mushaf al Sharif’ Investigation

Prof. Dr. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu
• Founding Director General of IRCICA (1980- 2004)
• Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference Research Centre

 

Dr. Tayyar Altıkulaç
• Leading scholar in Qur’anic studies
• Ex-president of Turkish religious affairs
• Deputy in the Turkish parliament

 

They concluded that NONE of the existing oldest manuscripts are from the 7th century. NONE of them are complete and there are TOUSANDS of variances between them. Thus there is NO ONE Q'ran, brought down from heaven, preserved, unchanged and perfect as the Muslims claim.

“We have none of Uthman’s Mushafs”
“Nor do we have any copies from those Mushafs”
“These Mushafs date from the later “Umayyad period”
“No serious scholarly work has been done on them”
“These Mushafs date from the early – mid 8th c.”
“They are not Uthmanic, nor copies sent by him”

“Even though we would like to publish this sacred text as the Muṣḥaf of Caliph
‘Uthmān, our research indicated that it was neither the private Muṣḥaf of Caliph
‘Uthmān, nor one of the Muṣḥafs he sent to various centers.” (Altıkulaç, ‘Al-Mushaf al-Sharif’ 2007:23)

“There are deviations from grammatical rules (Laḥn) and spelling mistakes in the
Muṣḥafs attributed to Caliph ‘Uthmān” (Altıkulaç, ‘Al-Mushaf al-Sharif’ 2007:41f)
He concludes: “2,270 instances where there is a difference from the [consonantal
skeleton] of the Fahd Muṣḥaf” (Altıkulaç, ‘Al-Mushaf al-Sharif’ 2007:81

 

Therefore NONE of the texts you site are from the the time of Muhammad, there are no complete copies of the Q'ran from the 7th century or fragments thereof. In fact, none of the texts (hadith, Seerah and current Q'ran texts) come from the 7th century.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Islander said:

They concluded that NONE of the existing oldest manuscripts are from the 7th century. NONE of them are complete and there are TOUSANDS of variances between them. Thus there is NO ONE Q'ran, brought down from heaven, preserved, unchanged and perfect as the Muslims claim.

That is not true of that investigation since there are manuscripts from the 7th century. There aren’t any complete manuscripts but if you were saying that you should be clear.

It is pretty clear that while you claim to be scrupulous by avoiding pro-Islam sources that you are quite willing and eager to slurp up the interpretations of those that are anti-Islam and call those “the rubber meeting the road”.

I don’t think there was one Quran brought down from heaven and preserved unchanged. I also don’t think your dime-store anti-Islam polemic proves anything either way.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Years ago one of my classes decided that they wanted a class hamster. They named him Hamlet. After a few weeks he pooped out his intestines and died. Fitting, I suppose..,

Now that's the kind of defec..t for which the manufacturer ought to be liable.

Get God on the phone asap! I know you will at least get a refund. 😥

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not true of that investigation since there are manuscripts from the 7th century. There aren’t any complete manuscripts but if you were saying that you should be clear.

It is pretty clear that while you claim to be scrupulous by avoiding pro-Islam sources that you are quite willing and eager to slurp up the interpretations of those that are anti-Islam and call those “the rubber meeting the road”.

I don’t think there was one Quran brought down from heaven and preserved unchanged. I also don’t think your dime-store anti-Islam polemic proves anything either way.

I have a translation of the Quran that doesn't even say it IS "The Quran", it refers to itself as "An Interpretation of the Quran".

Now THAT is a level of honesty seldom seen!

Every Bible and BOM should be described that way!  If it's a translation, it's an interpretation!

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have a translation of the Quran that doesn't even say it IS "The Quran", it refers to itself as "An Interpretation of the Quran".

Now THAT is a level of honesty seldom seen!

Every Bible and BOM should be described that way!  If it's a translation, it's an interpretation!

This is one reason why the Catholic Church has traditionally used Latin, a dead language. The meaning is frozen and then translations/interpretations can be updated. 
 

ETA: updated as meanings in living languages change

Edited April 22, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Smiley McGee]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could it be because your religion has linked the two? That the truth of the Book of Mormon is 1) religious and 2) historical. It seems to me that the vast majority of LDS couldn’t accept a Book of Mormon that was historically inaccurate, i.e. didn’t historically happen. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is the lack of nuance in the minds of members

C’mon, really? I hope your usage of the term “members” includes leadership since Joseph Smith, because none of them seemed to have much of an appetite for Bukowski-esque Mormonism. There is no space in the church to publicly assert the BoM is “true” but NOT historical. @MiserereNobis is correct — the church has made its religious and historical claims so inseparable that bifurcating the two doesn't compute. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

 

C’mon, really? I hope your usage of the term “members” includes leadership since Joseph Smith, because none of them seemed to have much of an appetite for Bukowski-esque Mormonism. There is no space in the church to publicly assert the BoM is “true” but NOT historical. @MiserereNobis is correct — the church has made its religious and historical claims so inseparable that bifurcating the two doesn't compute. 

That is not my position.

Religion based on archaeology?

Show me Moses' Stone tablets or I will never follow the commandments again.  Absurd.

Throw away Mormonism because there is  NO evidence of Nephites?

I didn't take you for being anti-Mormon!

That's THEIR logic.

WHERE'S your empirical evidence of God?

You are arguing for the wrong side and cannot even see it.

[Hamilton Porter]

16 hours ago, Islander said:

NONE of them are complete and there are TOUSANDS of variances between them.

The Quran is still a more stable text than the New Testament.

[Smiley McGee]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are arguing for the wrong side and cannot even see it.

You're making an incorrect inference and cannot even see it. Surely you have enough self-awareness to realize that your views, though constituting probably the best brand of Mormon theology I’ve heard, are not accepted by leadership and the general membership. Where the hell do you think ex-Mormons developed their logical reasoning?

Edited April 22, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Niblo]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have a translation of the Quran that doesn't even say it IS "The Quran", it refers to itself as "An Interpretation of the Quran".

Now THAT is a level of honesty seldom seen!

Every Bible and BOM should be described that way!  If it's a translation, it's an interpretation!

Yes. Every translation of the Qur'an is, essentially, an interpretation of meaning. 

[Navidad]

Interesting conversation!

I can't quite understand the idea that it is of benefit to the LDS Church for the Book of Mormon to be read, interpreted, or accepted as "American Literature." When I was in college, my favorite translation of the Bible was the NASV - the New American Standard Version. But nobody I knew interpreted that to mean that the Bible was American literature as is Moby **** and therefore is more likely to be acceptable as a spiritual device. I don't see the path from great literature to the revealed ancient Word of God translated from an ancient text by a miraculous process (whatever the methodology) by one under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Ghost).

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

You're making an incorrect inference and cannot even see it. Surely you have enough self-awareness to realize that your views, though constituting probably the best brand of Mormon theology I’ve heard, are not accepted by leadership and the general membership. Where the hell do you think ex-Mormons developed their logical reasoning?

Wrong. What do you think all these changes are about?

Why is Pres Nelson stressing getting your own testimony? It's getting your own truth.

Why have there been all the temple changes? They had to back it up to a third grade level.

Why aren't we "Mormons" any more?

Because our views on history do not match 21st century sensibilities.

EVERY HISTORIC "FACT" IS HEARSAY, THAT PEOPLE ACCEPT

Maybe they happened, maybe not.

Today people have FAITH in science.

Every belief you keep is because you BELIEVE it is " true", without evidence. You have to BELIEVE the evidence IS "evidence"

We need to understand that evidence is 100% in the eyes of the beholder.  It is a MIRROR of what is already in your mind; there are no "facts"- only interpretations- Nietzsche.

The old god- spirit in the sky- everywhere and nowhere at once- is dead

Did God make humanity, or did humanity make God?

Both!

God IS Humanity perfected, and we know it. He IS the Ubermensch we can become.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Niblo said:

Yes. Every translation of the Qur'an is, essentially, an interpretation of meaning. 

As is any translation of everything, not to mention everything we see or hear, or smell, taste or think.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Interesting conversation!

I can't quite understand the idea that it is of benefit to the LDS Church for the Book of Mormon to be read, interpreted, or accepted as "American Literature." When I was in college, my favorite translation of the Bible was the NASV - the New American Standard Version. But nobody I knew interpreted that to mean that the Bible was American literature as is Moby **** and therefore is more likely to be acceptable as a spiritual device. I don't see the path from great literature to the revealed ancient Word of God translated from an ancient text by a miraculous process (whatever the methodology) by one under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Ghost).

Pragmatism/William James/ Rorty is the connection.  We are each our own "prophets"  Pragmatism tells us how that works philosophically, which give us insight into how reason goes with faith.

We may be the only Christian church which CAN BE seen as fully compatible with contemporary philosophy AND scripture.

That is what I was looking for, and was what I "found".

And others have seen it as well.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

As is any translation of everything, not to mention everything we see or hear, or smell, taste or think.

 

You might want to check with him, but I don't think he believes the Arabic original is an interpretation.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Interesting conversation!

I can't quite understand the idea that it is of benefit to the LDS Church for the Book of Mormon to be read, interpreted, or accepted as "American Literature." When I was in college, my favorite translation of the Bible was the NASV - the New American Standard Version. But nobody I knew interpreted that to mean that the Bible was American literature as is Moby **** and therefore is more likely to be acceptable as a spiritual device. I don't see the path from great literature to the revealed ancient Word of God translated from an ancient text by a miraculous process (whatever the methodology) by one under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Ghost).

I used to be apprehensive about one of my holy books being scrutinized by godless people, but LDS scholars have univocally said, Go for it!

There are many reasons for this. First, all people have been taking about is whether it really happened, and not about its actual contents. Being read for its literary merits moves the conversation in the right direction.

Second, we realize not everyone will become LDS, so we want as many people reading it as possible, and we should trust its power to convert.

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wrong. What do you think all these changes are about?

Why is Pres Nelson stressing getting your own testimony? It's getting your own truth.

Why have there been all the temple changes? They had to back it up to a third grade level.

Why aren't we "Mormons" any more?

Because our views on history do not match 21st century sensibilities.

EVERY HISTORIC "FACT" IS HEARSAY, THAT PEOPLE ACCEPT

Maybe they happened, maybe not.

Today people have FAITH in science.

Every belief you keep is because you BELIEVE it is " true", without evidence. You have to BELIEVE the evidence IS "evidence"

We need to understand that evidence is 100% in the eyes of the beholder.  It is a MIRROR of what is already in your mind; there are no "facts"- only interpretations- Nietzsche.

The old god- spirit in the sky- everywhere and nowhere at once- is dead

Did God make humanity, or did humanity make God?

Both!

God IS Humanity perfected, and we know it. He IS the Ubermensch we can become.

 

 

You’re dreaming. You think that recent policy changes are evidence for some post-modern awakening in Salt Lake? Yes, headquarters is circulating talking points from Rorty and Nietzsche and wondering to themselves “this is it, but gee whiz if only our members weren’t so dumb to not understand the nuance of our doctrine.” 
 

I get that you came to the church via philosophy and have your own perspective, but you don’t get to tell someone who has attended church since before they could speak, graduated from seminary, BYU, served a mission, and married in the temple that they don’t understand what the church’s “views” are, and you’re way out of line for suggesting I’m “anti-Mormon” for sharing my observations from a lifetime of membership. You can piss off with your nonsense accusations. You clearly take for granted the amount of violence your philosophy deals to mainstream Mormon thought. Do you really not understand the amount of deconstruction that is necessary to accept your views? Have you just been pointing the same people to that Rorty quote in your signature for years without actually listening to their responses? Yes, it’s stupid to conflate historical and religious facts, but that’s your church bro, and it doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.  

Edited April 23, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Hamilton Porter]

6 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

You’re dreaming. You think that recent policy changes are evidence for some post-modern awakening in Salt Lake? Yes, headquarters is circulating talking points from Rorty and Nietzsche and wondering to themselves “this is it, but gee whiz if only our members weren’t so dumb to not understand the nuance of our doctrine.” 
 

I get that you came to the church via philosophy, but you don’t get to tell someone who has attended church since before they could speak, graduated from seminary, BYU, served a mission, and married in the temple that they don’t understand what the church’s “views” are, and you’re way out of line for suggesting I’m “anti-Mormon” for sharing my observations from a lifetime of membership. You can piss off with your nonsense accusations. You clearly take for granted the amount of violence your philosophy deals to mainstream Mormon thought. Do you really not understand the amount of deconstruction that is necessary to accept your views? Have you just been pointing the same people to that Rorty quote in your signature for years without actually listening to their responses? Yes, it’s stupid to conflate historical and religious facts, but that’s your church bro, and it doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.  

There are more and more postmodern professors at BYU making postmodern arguments. I even saw one of my Sunday school teachers carry a book titled Postmodern Theology. He didn't quote the book during the lesson but I have no doubt he slipped some in.

It's more pervasive in the church than you think.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Hamilton Porter