Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_Philo Sofee]

Clark Goble

A lot of the criticism of the church here depends upon presuppositions about what God ought do.

Only because the church has taught us what God WILL do. The scriptures are full of God actively participating in the lives of his people. The prophets have said over and over and over again that God loves us and will help us and succor us and work with us, etc. The suppositions are based upon what we were taught, not our mere guessing. That makes it all the more reason I wish I would have started thinking it through before attempting to believe and act on church "doctrine" of what God will do for the last 40 years. God doesn't come through as the church taught he should. That is simply not the kind of evidence one would expect compared to what is taught.

[_Themis]

So what they teach in General Conference ought to be inspired instruction to help members understand the scriptures. But that isn't really what happens, is it?

That seems a big assumption. It seems to me that while God does inspire he's purposely left us to figure most things out for ourselves. A lot of the criticism of the church here depends upon presuppositions about what God ought do. Yet that is itself a hypothesis that ought be open to question. I do think that many who leave the church do because they have trouble reconciling their preconceptions of what god would do with what the church thinks he does. Yet I always go back to questioning ones priors. Not enough people do that.

If you can make the same argument for everything, it becomes good for nothing. I could argue the same thing for all the crazy religions out there like Scientology, etc. If you are going to use some logic and reason and evidence to reject other crazy religious claims you can only be fair to treat Mormonism the same way. That is the difference between us. I can apply the same standards to Joseph Smith and his claims as I do all other religious claims I am aware of. I don't reject religious apologia. I look to see if it fits the evidence, makes real sense, and fits with what people like Joseph claimed. I know enough science to see the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham lack good evidence to support them and have lots against. Some of the evidence for the Book of Abraham rises to a smoking gun. I doubt a good God would punish me for using my analytical skills.

[_I have a question]

Rather than moving to a more defensible view of revelation and God they instead jettison the whole thing due to these false ideas.

What, specifically, would you say was a more defensible view of revelation and God?
*Fair warning, I'll attempt to draw a comparison between your reply to this and belief in the use of a Magic 8 Ball.

[_ClarkGoble]

There is no official doctrine, it just doctrine. Doctrine is what a church teaches and it's policies.

That's fine to do an analysis along those lines. It's a more sociological analysis and can be very helpful. However for Mormons from a more theological or epistemological perspective there's a distinction between what happens to be taught at a particular time and what can be grounded more carefully in trustworthy evidence. (Recognizing of course that evidence itself has to justified and not everyone will agree on those points)

Since it's a pretty straightforward teaching that not everything taught in a manual or a GA is itself well grounded, this leads many to make a distinction between the social analysis of what ends up in church media at a given time from what's more theologically defensible.

Again both types of analysis are fine. It's just that we have to be clear about which we're talking. The implications obviously are different for most people between the two.

What, specifically, would you say was a more defensible view of revelation and God?

That we see through a glass darkly, to use Paul's metaphor. That is not everything has equal strength as evidence and that evidence doesn't interpret itself but we apply theories to it. Effectively a type of fallibilism towards all knowledge. (And recognize that accepting fallibilism does not entail rejecting knowledge)

If you can make the same argument for everything, it becomes good for nothing.

Or, to quote Peirce for a difference to be a difference it must make a difference. But I'm certainly not advocating the same argument for everything. Just that if our argument depends upon presuppositions of what God is like, those premises themselves have to be up for inquiry.

[_tapirrider]

If you can make the same argument for everything, it becomes good for nothing.

Or, to quote Peirce for a difference to be a difference it must make a difference. But I'm certainly not advocating the same argument for everything. Just that if our argument depends upon presuppositions of what God is like, those premises themselves have to be up for inquiry.

ClarkGoble, you sure took my question for bomgeography in a different direction of your own topic. Then you alleged that I left the LDS church over reasons related to my preconceptions of what god would do. Why didn't you just start your own post?

[_ClarkGoble]

ClarkGoble, you sure took my question for bomgeography in a different direction of your own topic. Then you alleged that I left the LDS church over reasons related to my preconceptions of what god would do. Why didn't you just start your own post?

Sorry, didn't mean to do that. Again, still trying to figure out the norms of how people expect comments. I don't want to threadjack.

My point was just that we *all* (myself included) make assumptions and we *all* (myself definitely included) should look to our premises and question them.

[_Themis]

There is no official doctrine, it just doctrine. Doctrine is what a church teaches and it's policies.

That's fine to do an analysis along those lines. It's a more sociological analysis and can be very helpful. However for Mormons from a more theological or epistemological perspective there's a distinction between what happens to be taught at a particular time and what can be grounded more carefully in trustworthy evidence. (Recognizing of course that evidence itself has to justified and not everyone will agree on those points)

Since it's a pretty straightforward teaching that not everything taught in a manual or a GA is itself well grounded, this leads many to make a distinction between the social analysis of what ends up in church media at a given time from what's more theologically defensible.

Again both types of analysis are fine. It's just that we have to be clear about which we're talking. The implications obviously are different for most people between the two.

I am aware of members not believing many things the church teaches. Some are more established doctrine then a global flood. No one is going to take away your temple recommend for not believing the flood was global, but it doesn't change that this is the position of the church. It's the only position they have ever had, and they printed an article for only that purpose. It's just not something that important to require members to believe.

If you can make the same argument for everything, it becomes good for nothing.

Or, to quote Peirce for a difference to be a difference it must make a difference. But I'm certainly not advocating the same argument for everything. Just that if our argument depends upon presuppositions of what God is like, those premises themselves have to be up for inquiry.

You ignored the point. There is no difference between saying we cannot assume what God would do or think in defending Mormonism or Scientology. You reject Scientology and many other religious claims you are aware of based on making these kinds of assumptions, so it is a very poor argument to try and defend Mormonism with something you won't defend other religious claims for. It's a very poor argument to defend some religious claim, but I understand why you do it. You cannot bring forth a good argument to defend things like the Book of Abraham, so you have to make some terrible excuse like dual meaning and then defend it by saying we don't know if God would want it done this way. To be consistent you would have to accept the same arguments for Scientology or other religious claims, but you don't. At least I can be consistent and use logic, reason and evidence to determine if a religious claim is likely true or made up. Joseph doesn't fail here and there. He fails very consistently. His behavior is a perfect fit for a religious fraud, but hey, maybe God works in mysterious ways.

by the way Is it a common trait of the religious fraud to try and get sexual access to many women, and did Joseph have sexual access to many women? LOL I don't expect and answer to this one.

[_ClarkGoble]

You ignored the point. There is no difference between saying we cannot assume what God would do or think in defending Mormonism or Scientology. You reject Scientology and many other religious claims you are aware of based on making these kinds of assumptions, so it is a very poor argument to try and defend Mormonism with something you won't defend other religious claims

Not at all. I said we have to question and inquire about our presuppositions. That is completely engaging the question. With regards to religious belief about God to the degree our reasoning depends upon a theory about God that theory must always continually be brought under question. I try to do that as best I can which is why I am not a Scientologist.

The reason I believe the things about God I believe is because it's the theory I feel best fits the data I have. (Which obviously includes both public and private phenomena and data) Yet simultaneously I put those theories under continual inquiry. Indeed the value I find in discussing such things with people who don't think like me is precisely to raise questions regarding my theories. Others may see things I miss or make me reconsider certain factors. I learn far more from people who disagree with me than people who do agree with me.

You cannot bring forth a good argument to defend things like the Book of Abraham, so you have to make some terrible excuse like dual meaning and then defend it by saying we don't know if God would want it done this way.

Not quite sure what you're referring to here. I don't think I've attempted to defend the Book of Abraham here yet. I have some theories about it but I'd be the first to admit they're pretty tentative and not something I'd put a lot of trust in. The content in places is different. But realize I'm completely a fallibilist. So I don't mind being mistaken so long as I'm continually inquiring and refining my beliefs. I try to be honest about what beliefs I'm confident in and which I admit are weaker inferences.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by dual meaning here, by the way. My earlier point about God is simply that if we have a theory about how God would reveal information and have an argument that depends upon that theory then perhaps the conclusions are right or perhaps the premise is wrong. With regards to the Book of Abraham my reasoning is different than yours simply because I think God primarily works in a mediated fashion through others, that this mediated indirect work involves a necessarily fallible element, and that my conception of the plan of salvation entails a strategy of divine hiddenness where life is to learn and exercise faith. That entails God won't make it obvious that he is there although he will provide processes such that we can know he is there. Yet those processes will require work on our part and are not open to a kind of passive knowledge. (Knowledge that isn't easily produced and obvious so as to entail no work on our part) In turn that means I don't expect prior to the millennium any evidence such that it would be trivial to belief in the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. At best there will be evidence that such things are plausible. Yet the only way to know will always include good reasons to doubt and a demand to have private experiences to know. That is they include an essential element such as they are a catalyst to personal revelation.

I should note that in making such a claim I'm not making a defense of the Book of Abraham. To say a particular argument is bad is not itself an argument for what is argued against. I regularly criticize arguments for things I believe because they are bad arguments. Some people will take such things as me disbelieving the thing argued for. But the fact many people conflate criticizing arguments with criticizing a position just is a commentary on our educational system. It's unfortunate it happens but I don't take such things too seriously.

To your final point, of course Joseph Smith had sexual encounters with women. Polygamy is well known and established. Although which women he had relations with isn't always clear.

[_Physics Guy]

How do you deal with Smith's polygamy, Clark? That's just an absolute deal breaker for me. I can't see Smith as anything but a sexual predator, and I can't accept a sexual predator as a prophet. I'm interested in how Mormons think about all the other Mormon things beyond polygamy, but it's an academic interest. Taking Smith's claims to revelation seriously is just off the table for me, really because of that one giant thing. How on earth do you cope with it?

[_ClarkGoble]

How do you deal with Smith's polygamy, Clark? That's just an absolute deal breaker for me. I can't see Smith as anything but a sexual predator, and I can't accept a sexual predator as a prophet. I'm interested in how Mormons think about all the other Mormon things beyond polygamy, but it's an academic interest. Taking Smith's claims to revelation seriously is just off the table for me, really because of that one giant thing. How on earth do you cope with it?

Well like nearly everyone in the contemporary world I'm uncomfortable with it all. Anyone who says they're not is either very unusual, largely ignorant of the situation, or more likely being a bit disingenuous. So I certainly can't fault people for whom that's the big issue.

I approach the question in a rather odd way I suppose. I take seriously the idea that death is just a separation and a change in material properties in some way. I then ask myself were I to die, would I want my wife to remarry? As soon as I say yes, then pretty well the discussion is over. I've committed myself to some sense of polygamy if I'm still alive yet separated, still love my wife, she still loves me and I still want to be with her. At that point it's just negotiation of implementation. The next question is if I died today, my wife would have say 40 years or more of marriage to whomever she would marry. Could I honestly see breaking up that relationship when we're reunited?

Effectively those saying polygamy is intrinsically wrong are saying that those relationships have to end. To my eyes that's not much different from saying there's no marriage at all. Eternal marriage thus becomes something you do as a checkmark, with everyone reorganized into pairs or else marriage entirely is denied as relationships become moot. As unpalatable as polygamy in this life is those two alternatives sound far, far worse to me.

Of course though what people object to isn't that theoretic questioning I present but to the lived experience of polygamy which frankly is typically pretty horrible for all involved. While some might disagree to my eyes I think most earnestly tried it sincerely and just did an absolutely lousy job of it. Which, given our biological nature is perhaps to be expected. Further ignoring hints of something more expansive in Nauvoo, the way it was presented was intrinsically sexist even if it did allow certain feminist practices to develop (a certain degree of independence that persisted until the transitionary era under Pres. Grant, including practicing gifts of the spirit and the like), women received voting rights earlier than most of the country, women were able to become educated far advance of what was typical, etc. So while it was horrible for most people (especially first wives) in practice it wasn't all bad and I think we have to be careful seeing it just as such.

All that said of course the incentives a basic polygamy structure gives really are quite bad. Heck, men in general are bad during their dating years and the extension of adolescence in our culture the past 25 years has extended that bad behavior in my opinion. Effectively polygamy offered some of those same incentives to married men and in a culture where women just didn't have the independence and rights of today. (And of course we still have a long ways to go culturally in terms of treating women as truly independent individuals) So once you think through the purely economic issues broadly speaking it's hardly surprising that the Church's marriage experiment failed and led to abuse.

But again, when you think through the broader issues I just don't think you can avoid the questions of what relations are like in the hereafter. While I tend to not agree with all the portrayals of Joseph Smith as a sex starved patriarch, I'd also say he clearly didn't implement things terribly well. Hardly surprising again since for all of Joseph's strengths organization really wasn't one of them nor was thinking through practical implications of things. As to why he started it, I think he did so from religious, not sexual commitments. However that doesn't change the economic incentives nor the biological and cultural limitations for any man in that circumstance. I could have wished he did better. I suspect others would have. But that doesn't mean the fundamental theological issues don't remain.

That's probably not at all satisfying of an answer. But that's the best I can give. I think theologically the issue inevitably pops up with anthropomorphic materialism and life after death. Once that happens then given the reality of human nature I think any implementation would lead to abuse. I'm glad it's not required anymore but I'd still want my wife to remarry if I died.