Paul Reeves, Prophetic fallibility, and the problem of evil

[MrShorty]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:59 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that this is an interesting example for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that Jewish tradition doesn't uniformly come down on the side of Abraham here. Many Jews (present and past) saw the binding of Isaac as a failure on Abraham's part - where Abraham chose blind obedience instead of making the right decision, and so failed this test of Abraham's faith. More to the point, the problem (from this perspective) presented is that, with all of the wonderful examples of obedience we have to choose from, this one should not be our go to case. We shouldn't be teaching the idea of an Abrahamic test that creates such an ethical and moral dilemma.

I've heard of this interpretation of Abraham's test, but I did not, until now, know that this interpretation went as far back as the 11th century. I'm not entirely sure what it all means, but, a lot of time when we talk about our philosophy of suffering is to see these things as a "test" of some kind. Perhaps it just adds a point to emphasize that, if we are going to see these kinds of things as "tests," maybe we ought to think more about what the "tests" are.

[MrShorty]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:23 PM, pogi said:

If our intentions are pure, then I think there is nothing else that we can do but trust our own inner compass/light of Christ/Spirit of the Lord as best we understand it on these matters.

 

On 8/7/2023 at 12:23 PM, pogi said:

I personally think that we need to trust our inner light as best we understand it, even if beams remain. 

 

On 8/7/2023 at 12:23 PM, pogi said:

We need to trust in that process and trust in ourselves,

I appreciate the "individualism" in your response (as highlighted by the quotes), and agree. In the spirit of "finding truth in proving contraries," I would add to this individualistic approach the idea so often mentioned in scripture and Christian practice that God also seems to want us to be "in communion" with a body of believers. In many ways, I agree that our spiritual journeys through life are one by one, completely individual and independent of others. But, somehow (and I'm not entirely sure how), God also expects, I think, our individual spiritual journeys to include membership and participation in a community of other believers. I often feel like my struggles with prophetic fallibility would be much less troubling if I could simply disengage from my faith community, but I also feel God calling me to somehow stay in communion with this community.

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret or understand all of that. Somehow "truth" runs right down the middle between individualism and communitarianism (is that the right word?).

[MrShorty]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:08 PM, smac97 said:

I think Agency as a partial - and for the time being, sufficient - answer to the "Problem of Evil" indicates that the problem is not "intractable."  We have part of the equation, perhaps even the most important part.  The rest will come in time.

I, too, think agency is a partial answer for the problem of evil, but I disagree that it is a temporarily sufficient answer. Certainly agency fits into the issue, but I find myself unsatisfied with it as somehow sufficient for the time being.

Last year, Community of Christ's Project Zion podcast did a series on several different "theodicies" that I listened to. What I found most intriguing about the series was to see how different theologians and theologies approach the problem of evil. I didn't find that any one theodicy satisfactorily answered the problem of evil, but each one contributed something to my understanding.

At present, I'm still inclined to call the problem of evil (and the problem of prophetic fallibility that seems adjacent to or a subset of the problem of evil) "intractable" because I am unsatisfied with the explanations that have been given.

[Calm]

Fallibility of leaders is probably easier to handle if you started out more individual and come to love the community later.  Less reason for conflict.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I, too, think agency is a partial answer for the problem of evil, but I disagree that it is a temporarily sufficient answer. Certainly agency fits into the issue, but I find myself unsatisfied with it as somehow sufficient for the time being.

Last year, Community of Christ's Project Zion podcast did a series on several different "theodicies" that I listened to. What I found most intriguing about the series was to see how different theologians and theologies approach the problem of evil. I didn't find that any one theodicy satisfactorily answered the problem of evil, but each one contributed something to my understanding.

At present, I'm still inclined to call the problem of evil (and the problem of prophetic fallibility that seems adjacent to or a subset of the problem of evil) "intractable" because I am unsatisfied with the explanations that have been given.

Maybe being unsatisfied is a good thing.  Perhaps we might be more complacent about evil in the world if it starts to make sense to us why it is here.  Maybe it is a virtue, a gift to still struggle with the sense of its wrongness.

I am not sure why we need to know the difference between good and evil if the only purpose is to know what good is.  Why is not the difference between okay, better, and best enough to figure out what good is?  To have joy?

Edited August 9, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I think Agency as a partial - and for the time being, sufficient - answer to the "Problem of Evil" indicates that the problem is not "intractable."  We have part of the equation, perhaps even the most important part.  The rest will come in time.

I, too, think agency is a partial answer for the problem of evil, but I disagree that it is a temporarily sufficient answer. Certainly agency fits into the issue, but I find myself unsatisfied with it as somehow sufficient for the time being.

I respect and appreciate you difficulty in sorting this issue out.  My path toward sanguinity on this issue (that is, agency being an incomplete-but-provisionally-sufficient explanation for the Problem of Evil) can perhaps be analogized to how I feel about my car.  I have a basic, even rudimentary, understanding of how an internal combustion engine works, as well as the brakes, the AC, the radio, etc.  However, I am nowhere near being conversant in the particulars as to how these various systems work.  While in recent years I have become more ambitious in my efforts at vehicle maintenance (changing brakes, fuel pump, etc.), I still need a lot of help from professionals who know more about it than I do.  However, none of this ignorance, and lack of proficiency in maintenance in repair, none of this need for help, precludes me from driving the car.  I use the thing for its intended purpose, even if I don't fully understand how it works.  The car fulfills its intended purpose, and I do my best to use it well.  Consequently, my familiarity with my care is - for the time being - "sufficient" for me.

So it is, for me, with Agency and the Problem of Evil.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

At present, I'm still inclined to call the problem of evil (and the problem of prophetic fallibility that seems adjacent to or a subset of the problem of evil) "intractable" because I am unsatisfied with the explanations that have been given.

I respect that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:28 PM, Calm said:

Perhaps we might be more complacent about evil in the world if it starts to make sense to us why it is here.

One of the episodes of the Project Zion podcast series that I mentioned focused on "liberation theodicy." At the risk of oversimplification, my months later in a nutshell summary was that, under this line of thinking, maybe the answer(s) the problem of evil are less about the mystical whys and wherefores, but more about a "call to action" for Christians to get off the couch and practice their allegedly "pure and undefiled" religion. Where we see illness, loneliness, or other personal suffering, God calls us to go out and minister (not just the home teaching replacement) to people. Where we see societal, systemic issues that contribute to injustice and suffering, we can lobby for change. Of course, as a church we place HIGH value on loyalty to the church and its leaders, so we are uncomfortable (to put it mildly) with this kind of advocacy when we start talking about the problem of prophetic fallibility.

I agree that it can be bad to fall into a sense of complacency, but I also think the flip side of that is a sense of powerlessness. As an individual, I can do nothing about Mother Nature except help clean up after her messes. Tackling political and societal systems is difficult and often feels fruitless. As one person, there are only so many people I can serve individually before my own resources get exhausted. Somewhere in this is a need to balance the courage to do what I can without falling prey to hopelessness at the sheer magnitude of the task of alleviating pain, suffering and injustice.

[jonah747]

On 8/5/2023 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The dichotomy is between good and evil, and as Lehi notes, we have to be enticed one way or the other in order to really have agency.

I think you are referring to 2 Nephi 2:15-19.   What is the forbidden fruit mentioned in that section?

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 8/14/2023 at 12:46 PM, jonah747 said:

I think you are referring to 2 Nephi 2:15-19.   What is the forbidden fruit mentioned in that section?

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The enticement? Well we (like Lehi) can read what it says in Genesis 3:6 - "the tree was good for food, ... it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise."

[jonah747]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The enticement? Well we (like Lehi) can read what it says in Genesis 3:6 - "the tree was good for food, ... it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise."

I read this article on DeseretNews

https://www.deseret.com/2010/7/13/20382995/a-literal-and-figurative-understanding-of-adam

How much of the Garden of Eden narrative is literal as opposed to figurative?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, jonah747 said:

How much of the Garden of Eden narrative is literal as opposed to figurative?

In my opinion? None of it is literal.

This sort of distinction though - of figurative versus literal, do you think that it existed conceptually for the original author of the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis?

Finally, who is Jacob Hancock? And, why would I find his opinion to be meaningful?

[jonah747]

On 8/16/2023 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This sort of distinction though - of figurative versus literal, do you think that it existed conceptually for the original author of the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis?

For the original author, do you mean Moses as some believe?  Not sure what you mean by existing conceptually
(the Garden of Eden as a concept).
 

On 8/16/2023 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Finally, who is Jacob Hancock? And, why would I find his opinion to be meaningful?

I don't know who he is.  Just putting it out there for some peoples' view.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, jonah747 said:

For the original author, do you mean Moses as some believe?  Not sure what you mean by existing conceptually (the Garden of Eden as a concept).

It doesn't really matter whether it was Moses or someone a thousand years later. If you were to ask that author this question - "How much of the Garden of Eden narrative is literal as opposed to figurative?" to that writer, would they even understand the question? That is, why should we even care about asking this question unless we have already made a while bunch of assumptions about the text and its authorship.

It is, of course, something of a loaded question. Nephi suggests that one of the best reading strategies is to liken the text unto ourselves - to recontextualize it into our own situation - our knowledge and experience and our understanding. But this makes each reading individual and personal. And if we are doing this, then on some level, all readings can be figurative (and literal) at the same time. There isn't a clear demarcation between the two as there might be in asking if something is strictly metaphorical, or strictly literal. In recontextualizing it - in likening the narrative, I no longer have to worry about whether or not the text was written by someone who actually believed this was a historical event - and they are describing that history accurately. I don't have to worry about whether that author saw it as a foundational myth - useful more to explain why the human condition is what it is, and to more clearly define our relationship with God. Just as importantly, I don't have to worry about whether or not I need to come to the text with a pre-decided interpretation of whether creation took seven 24-hour days, or 7 thousand year periods, or billions of years (all positions taken by various LDS leaders in the past). This kind of information isn't really all that important to me when I read the text. And, it wasn't all that interesting to Lehi when he alludes back to the text. And this is my final point - if the Book of Mormon is likening scripture in this way, we don't have to take the way that it reads Genesis as representing the true way that it should be interpreted - it is just one way to do so (although I will say that the way that it takes that text and engages it theologically instead of historically is, I think, a useful example of how we should read it).

[jonah747]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

if the Book of Mormon is likening scripture in this way, we don't have to take the way that it reads Genesis as representing the true way that it should be interpreted - it is just one way to do so (although I will say that the way that it takes that text and engages it theologically instead of historically is, I think, a useful example of how we should read it).

If Adam being created from the dust of the earth and then being placed in the Garden of Eden
is not a historical event, then what is the theological meaning of it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

42 minutes ago, jonah747 said:

If Adam being created from the dust of the earth and then being placed in the Garden of Eden is not a historical event, then what is the theological meaning of it?

Consider this bit from one of the LDS lesson manuals:

Quote

President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Eve was not literally created from Adam’s rib. He said: “The story of the rib, of course, is figurative”

So, if the story of the rib is figurative, then how can it be historical? When the angel is showing Nephi the vision in 1 Nephi 11, we get a bit of dialogue (vss 8-11, 21-23):

Quote

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all. And he said unto me: What desirest thou? And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof— ... And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

So when we get these sorts of discussions, we aren't ever told that the things presented in the Garden of Eden are some literal history that we should understand as history. They are merely representations. Going back to the same Lesson manual:

Quote

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 86).

We don't really care about the question of history. It is meaningless for us. What we get out of this narrative are things related to the nature of our mortality, related to questions of agency and choice, an understanding of the purpose of death. And all of this reflects an interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative - not as some historical event (a history that we cannot place in any sort of relative context to any other history), but as a type or symbol of all of our existences. And see here how Nephi is given a different (but equivalent) understanding of the tree that we get in Genesis? The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was desirable. It was (Gen 3:6) "good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise." Here, Nephi's understanding of the Tree of Life wasn't just that it was desirable, but that it was the "most desirable." And when Lehi later (2 Nephi 2) discusses the nature of agency and choice in the context of the Garden of Eden, he explains that we couldn't have real choice unless we are (like Adam and Eve) "enticed by the one or the other."

So you ask, what is the theological meaning if there is no historicity to the story? I am merely pointing out that this question comes out of a modern distinction that simply doesn't exist thousands of years ago. Our desire (collectively) to try and define it in this way is linked to all sorts of other issues. We had far less concern about it before we invented young earth creationism at the beginning of the 20th century. And in that context, we had early leaders of the Church who were quite comfortable with the idea that the earth was billions of years old. Brigham Young made claims about Adam and Even that completely contradict the idea that Adam was formed from clay - (October 23, 1853, Salt Lake City Tabernacle, as recorded in JD 2:6):

Quote

You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

I think that we can get a great deal, theologically, from the narrative without the need to worry about it its historicity.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we can get a great deal, theologically, from the narrative without the need to worry about it its historicity.

As we do of course in EVERY parable Jesus taught.

Many of his teachings were completely taught in parables.

[jonah747]

22 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 86).

Not sure why he taught that. The Garden had more than two trees (Genesis 3:2,8)

[MrShorty]

I don't think Elder McConkie meant "there were in the Garden of Eden two [and only two and no more and no less than two] trees." I expect he meant, "there were in the Garden of Eden two [important] trees [among the many trees that were present in the Garden]." I would suggest that Elder McConkie, like most of us, focus on the 2 trees that are important to the story of the fall -- the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All the other trees that would naturally be present in the Garden were not important to the story, so they don't get mentioned as prominently.

[MrShorty]

Having mentioned that there are different theologies/theodicies and ideas for dealing with the broader problem of evil, I've been thinking through the different strategies I encounter for thinking about the problem of prophetic fallibility. Again, just to throw some ideas out into the ether in a kind of brainstorming exercise, here are strategies I encounter for this:

Activism: A strategy of trying to publicly correct the prophet. Note that Elder Corbett and others (and maybe the church in general) don't particularly like this strategy. Often fears how this strategy might lead someone else to rejection disloyalty or other undesirable outcome.

Accommodation: A belief that, for some reason, God chooses to tolerate and/or accommodate errant beliefs and practices rather than correct them. Slavery throughout the ages. Some criticize this as if it is saying that God is "impotent" against popular opinion. Relies on the Atonement to make up for any errors and injustices that are natural outcomes of the accommodation.

Delegation: Prophets are delegated authority by God to lead the church, and then God leaves them to do the job He delegated to them without micromanaging. People are expected to follow the delegated authority in right or wrong until God appoints a replacement. Teryl Givens describes an example of this strategy in "Crucible of Doubt" where he compares prophets to viceroys. Relies on the Atonement to make for errors/injustices perpetrated by the delegated leaders.

Rejection: If a prophet cannot get everything right, then he must be unable to get anything right. Often rooted in a sense of "all or nothing" (an attitude sometimes perpetuated in the church itself. Reference the many "either it's all true or it's all false" kinds of statements over the generations). Since no one prophet is perfect, these often end up compiling truths they like from many different traditions (Christian and non-Christian) in the spirit of gleaning good from wherever it can be found, but showing no fealty to any one leader or faith tradition.

Reduction: Prophetic errors will always be in secondary or unimportant issues, but they will always be correct in the most important issues. When prophets make mistakes, deflect back to the core principles and ignore (or shelve) the errors. Struggles with issues that can migrate from core principles to secondary issues, and sometimes shelves break.

Agency: The concept Reeves focused on in his short chapter on this issue. Agency is in some way so very crucial to this mortal experience that God will not or cannot interfere with its expression. If a prophet wants to believe and teach something, God will not or cannot prevent him from doing so. Again, often relying on the Atonement to make up for the outcomes.

Impenetrabiltiy: Usually rooted in Isaiah 55: 8-9, declares that man just cannot understand why God would allow prophets to make mistakes, or suggests that the alleged mistakes are not mistakes because maybe God really did reveal _______ to the prophet, and we just cannot understand why God would do that, and God has chosen not to explain it to us.

Loyalty: Whatever errors a prophet may make, God wants us to remain loyal to and follow them. Some combine this with a test/trial idea where the purpose of prophetic errors is to see if we will remain loyal in spite of the errors.

Test/Trial: As with all suffering/evil, prophetic errors are tests to "give [us] experience and be for [our] good." It's not always clear what the outcome of the test/trial ought to be, though some in the "loyalty" camp say that loyalty to the church/prophet is the test.

I've highlighted the Atonement in some. Even where I haven't specifically mentioned, I suspect (where a basic Christian belief in atonement and afterlife persist) the Atonement could be central to many of these strategies as the means by which God overcomes the less than perfect outcomes of prophetic errors.

I don't think these are necessary mutually exclusive or that any one strategy represents a complete and satisfying solution or even necessarily commenting on the goodness/badness of any strategy. It has allowed me to put words to some ideas that are rattling around in my head as I encounter these discussions and try to make sense of them. In a spirit of brainstorming, does anyone have any additional strategies or any thoughts on these strategies?

Edited August 26, 2023 by MrShorty

[grapevine]

Are people that sit in judgement of the prophet ever able to admit that maybe they themselves are in the wrong?  Russell M. Nelson before he became an apostle, in heart to heart and ensign article said I never asked when is a prophet speaking as a prophet and when he is not,  like I am to sit in judgement of the lords prophet, but rather how can I follow him.  Paraphrasing.

 

We have been repeatedly told the prophets won’t lead us astray and we won’t go wrong by following them, since God would remove them if they tried to lead us astray.  Do we know more than the people the Lord called to preside over us?  Or do we question them when they say something we don’t want to hear?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, grapevine said:

Russell M. Nelson before he became an apostle, in heart to heart and ensign article said I never asked when is a prophet speaking as a prophet and when he is not,  like I am to sit in judgement of the lords prophet, but rather how can I follow him.  Paraphrasing.

Do you believe he means by this that prophets never make a mistake in their leadership of the Church or that we should never care because no mistake will harm the Church or something else?  Or perhaps we don’t need to pray for confirmation or if we get any answer from what we think is the Spirit that leads us to believe the prophet is wrong in something that we are deceiving ourselves and we need to pray until we receive a confirmation of the prophet’s directions or interpretation of doctrine or something else?

Serious questions as I am trying to figure out what you mean by your posts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, grapevine said:

We have been repeatedly told the prophets won’t lead us astray and we won’t go wrong by following them, since God would remove them if they tried to lead us astray.

Was it a prophet that told you  that? Pretty convenient. 

[grapevine]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you believe he means by this that prophets never make a mistake in their leadership of the Church or that we should never care because no mistake will harm the Church or something else?  Or perhaps we don’t need to pray for confirmation or if we get any answer from what we think is the Spirit that leads us to believe the prophet is wrong in something that we are deceiving ourselves and we need to pray until we receive a confirmation of the prophet’s directions or interpretation of doctrine or something else?

Serious questions as I am trying to figure out what you mean by your posts.

Joseph Smith said it is contrary to the order of heaven for someone to receive revelation for someone higher than themselves.  In teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith

Also said the man that says he is righteous while condemning others is on the road to apostasy.

 

 

The spirit will not tell the prophet to say one thing than tell a member he is wrong.  Not how the spirit works.

 

Since God called the prophet can’t he speak to them?  Does he call people he knows will disobey since he is omnipotent?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, grapevine said:

Joseph Smith said it is contrary to the order of heaven for someone to receive revelation for someone higher than themselves.  In teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith

How is it not receiving revelation for ourselves when the prophets are talking about us?

Quote

Since God called the prophet can’t he speak to them?  Does he call people he knows will disobey since he is omnipotent?

Disobedience isn’t the only reason mistakes can be made.

Do you believe prophets are infallible in conveying revelation from God?

Edited October 8, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, grapevine said:

Are people that sit in judgement of the prophet ever able to admit that maybe they themselves are in the wrong?

I have criticized prophets before. I was also wrong at least once.