Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_ClarkGoble]

People critique more then just the fundamentalist view, but the fundamentalist view is the one Joseph built it around. The problem is not things like fallibility, but how far off you want to go to make it work so you can still believe it is true.

No he really didn't. His views changed with time and he was very open to reading scripture in new ways. While Joseph definitely was a product of his time and culture and had the quasi-fundamentalists readings as part of that culture I don't think you can say Joseph built the church out of a fundamentalist way of conceiving. Ditto Brigham Young. You can argue that some figures in the 20th century took more fundamentalist ways of reading scripture (say Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie) but even the latter was a bit more sophisticated in how he read even if he did think certain traditional readings (mainly his father in law's) should be seen as correct.

People unsurprisingly take their default reading as correct unless they having good reasons to change. Typically most people don't inquire about such readings so they hold to whatever they thought when young.

Readings in the church change. People assumed (on the basis of almost no evidence but just very superficial readings) that the Book of Mormon took place across all of north and south America. By the 90's people were switching to a local geographical model. Why the change? I'm not naïve enough to think it was people read their scriptures better. It was more that the books in the bookstore tended to change and the loose views in people's environments changed. People by and large to the degree they know the information to even make belief a reasonable question simply believe what their peers do unless they have good reasons to believe otherwise.

[_spotlight]

It implies an inescapable vagueness. Although I'd say this isn't just a feature of revelation but of signs in general. However usually we can get close enough.

LOL. Again the issue is hermeneutics and just being aware of the difficulty of reading any text. None of this is controversial which is why there often are, especially with religious texts, numerous possible readings. I'm simply noting that a completely uncontroversial view in hermeneutics is to pay close attention to the original context of the author.

The problem is that some people (sometimes even prophets) think revelation is completely clear and understandable. I just don't see evidence that's the case. Some is more clear than others, yet we always have to interpret it and we always bring our assumptions to it.

So what's the point if the texts and personal revelations are vague? Why give any credence to them at all? When you say "close enough" are you referring to some sort of conviction of sin and subsequent repentance process? Because anybody can live their life in any manner they choose and receive whatever the results of their actions are in their lives whether or not they are exposed to Mormonism or any other theology. Mormons do not have any sort of monopoly on any particular behaviors.


This and your use of the scripture "we see through a glass darkly" flies in the face of testimony. Testimony of what exactly? How can it be said I know the church is true? If all you mean is I feel better about myself when I live the commandments what of it? Anyone can live the same way and feel better about themselves too without all the baggage of angels, spirits, life after death beliefs, etc. Simply feeling peaceful when entertaining desirable thoughts such as "I will exist forever" means nothing at all in relation to what is real.

I think a safer and more defensible reading is simply saying there are fundamental constituents of reality that are eternal. I think assuming on the basis of "element" (which was a perfectly fine word outside of chemistry) that he's speaking of atoms is illegitimate.

It is the uniting of spirit with these "elements" that allows a fullness of joy per the scripture. Sounds like the chemical elements to me Clark. Just sayin'.

Shifting the burden of proof for what? I'm not attempting to prove Moses 1. You're the one who raised it as an argument against a local flood. Thus logically the burden is on you to defend the reading you are making of Moses 1 as part of your argument against a local flood.

Rather pointless since I don't regard the scriptures as having any connection to physical reality in the least. I simply accept geology.

[_ClarkGoble]

So what's the point if the texts and personal revelations are vague? Why give any credence to them at all?

That's an odd question. Isn't most of our knowledge and beliefs vague? Ask the average person about energy, mass or so forth and they have at best vague ideas about what they mean. That doesn't mean even with vague beliefs those beliefs don't matter.

When you say "close enough" are you referring to some sort of conviction of sin and subsequent repentance process?

Typically when I say "close enough" I simply mean the conception is close enough to the truth for the purpose of a particular discussion. So a high schoolers notion of physics is wrong in many ways but correct enough that I can talk about atoms and electrons and so forth without demanding they understand quantum mechanics.

In the same way I assume most narratives in the Book of Mormon have errors in them but I believe there was a real Nephi who left Jerusalem. i.e. the errors don't affect that belief.

So all I'm really saying relative to most scripture (I treat the Old Testament somewhat differently) is that they are correct enough that the main message can be discerned correctly. So I might have questions about say the killing of baby males around the time of Jesus' birth such that I'm skeptical, but that doesn't really affect much how I read the Gospels in terms of important content.

Mormons do not have any sort of monopoly on any particular behaviors.

I fully agree. Indeed I'd say from a Mormon perspective as important as our religion is to us it clearly isn't important for everyone to learn about it in life. That's because the vast, vast majority of people don't learn about it in this life but in the spirit world. So whatever judgment and the purpose of mortal life is, it doesn't require being Mormon.

This and your use of the scripture "we see through a glass darkly" flies in the face of testimony. Testimony of what exactly? How can it be said I know the church is true?

Again this seems an odd tract to take. Nearly all words with reference we use we have only a vague notion of. I'd be the first to admit I don't fully understand the implications of what it means for the Church to be true. It's vague. Yet I'd also say I don't fully understand evolution. Yet I have no trouble saying evolution is true. Why is vagueness with the one claim more problematic than vagueness with the other?

If all you mean is I feel better about myself when I live the commandments what of it?

That's certainly not what I mean. I'm not making any subjectivist or sollipsistic claims about truth. So (assuming you're familiar with them) I'm not making claims akin to William James or Richard Rorty on truth. If you wish to know my philosophical conception of truth it's roughly that of C. S. Peirce although I'm not sure that's too terribly relevant.

It is the uniting of spirit with these "elements" that allows a fullness of joy per the scripture. Sounds like the chemical elements to me Clark. Just sayin''.

That's certainly one way to read it. My point is just that it's not the only way to read it.

Shifting the burden of proof for what? I'm not attempting to prove Moses 1. You're the one who raised it as an argument against a local flood. Thus logically the burden is on you to defend the reading you are making of Moses 1 as part of your argument against a local flood.

Rather pointless since I don't regard the scriptures as having any connection to physical reality in the least. I simply accept geology.

You were using it as part of an argument for why I should believe the global flood given my commitments to scripture. I'm simply pointing out that the argument doesn't work given the very text you raised.

I'm not taking you to think that scripture is anything but fiction with perhaps some loose connection to the history of the era when it was written.

[_Themis]

People critique more then just the fundamentalist view, but the fundamentalist view is the one Joseph built it around. The problem is not things like fallibility, but how far off you want to go to make it work so you can still believe it is true.

No he really didn't. His views changed with time and he was very open to reading scripture in new ways. While Joseph definitely was a product of his time and culture and had the quasi-fundamentalists readings as part of that culture I don't think you can say Joseph built the church out of a fundamentalist way of conceiving. Ditto Brigham Young. You can argue that some figures in the 20th century took more fundamentalist ways of reading scripture (say Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie) but even the latter was a bit more sophisticated in how he read even if he did think certain traditional readings (mainly his father in law's) should be seen as correct.

While I agree that Joseph made things up as he was going on, the foundation was built around a fundamentalist view. The Book of Mormon is a classic example of that. This is why this supposed ancient document tells us the new land was devoid of humans, and why the text mentions only groups from the old world. Joseph liked to add things later as he learned things he liked.

Readings in the church change. People assumed (on the basis of almost no evidence but just very superficial readings) that the Book of Mormon took place across all of north and south America. By the 90's people were switching to a local geographical model. Why the change? I'm not naïve enough to think it was people read their scriptures better. It was more that the books in the bookstore tended to change and the loose views in people's environments changed. People by and large to the degree they know the information to even make belief a reasonable question simply believe what their peers do unless they have good reasons to believe otherwise.

Some changed their views because of science. It informed them that many details in the Book of Mormon are not possible. It wasn't because they saw something different in the Book of Mormon. They couldn't accept where the evidence was pointing so needed to reinterpret the text. I did it as well.

[_ClarkGoble]

While I agree that Joseph made things up as he was going on, the foundation was built around a fundamentalist view. The Book of Mormon is a classic example of that. This is why this supposed ancient document tells us the new land was devoid of humans, and why the text mentions only groups from the old world. Joseph liked to add things later as he learned things he liked.

Well I think the Book of Mormon has enough non-fundamentalist like aspects I'd dispute that but that's neither here nor there. I'd say Joseph Smith is a product of his culture which is a combination of proto-fundamentalist conceptions of scripture, a magic world view encompasses the remnant of native European paganism and then remnants of renaissance views especially neoplatonic conceptions. (I'd say masonry is also such as remnant of renaissance ideas mixed with very early modernism) As they are mixed the conceptions affect one an other. (So the masonic 'origins' are taken in a fundamentalist way simply because that's what laity in the US typically took it - as opposed to say more Unitarian or deist masons)

While that's the rough starting place for Joseph I think he goes in his own direction. His presumption is scriptures are what they say yet over the decades - especially in Nauvoo - he really rethinks much of this. So Song of Solomon is thrown out. Texts are heavily deconstructed. The traditional cultural assumptions of what scripture means are heavily transformed.

Even if one thinks Joseph is delusional or a fraud, this transformation of the religion seems pretty uncontroversial.

Some changed their views because of science. It informed them that many details in the Book of Mormon are not possible. It wasn't because they saw something different in the Book of Mormon. They couldn't accept where the evidence was pointing so needed to reinterpret the text. I did it as well.

But of course that's what we should do with all purportedly historical texts. If someone finds some texts from the middle ages we interpret them in light of what we understand is accurate. By and large there were two moves in 20th century Mormonism. The first took science and careful reading seriously while the other was more sympathetic to what evolved in conservative protestantism (as opposed to liberal mainline protestantism which moved to a de-mythologized model). For a while this conservative protestant model dominated but the other model never went away. Now we're in a period where the more scientific model of Talmage, Widstoe and Roberts is dominant - and taking seriously contemporary science.

To me that's a good thing.

[_Themis]

Well I think the Book of Mormon has enough non-fundamentalist like aspects I'd dispute that but that's neither here nor there.

And of course we don't have any examples.

I'd say Joseph Smith is a product of his culture which is a combination of proto-fundamentalist conceptions of scripture, a magic world view encompasses the remnant of native European paganism and then remnants of renaissance views especially neoplatonic conceptions. (I'd say masonry is also such as remnant of renaissance ideas mixed with very early modernism) As they are mixed the conceptions affect one an other. (So the masonic 'origins' are taken in a fundamentalist way simply because that's what laity in the US typically took it - as opposed to say more Unitarian or deist masons)

Joseph used what he knew. Big clue where he was getting his religion from, but then I suppose you might like the idea God would let him make up a bunch of stuff not really true. Can't really trust anything at that point.

Even if one thinks Joseph is delusional or a fraud, this transformation of the religion seems pretty uncontroversial.

Another big clue where he was getting his religion.

But of course that's what we should do with all purportedly historical texts. If someone finds some texts from the middle ages we interpret them in light of what we understand is accurate.

When you look at text they first try to date them, and then they look at the text to see how it fits. The Book of Mormon doesn't fit an ancient world, and we don't have any source outside of Joseph Smith.

[Guest]

That's an odd question. Isn't most of our knowledge and beliefs vague?

That is missing the issue completely. The issue is the organization to which you subscribe and the amount of time and resources that they demand from you. If you only have vague reasons to believe then it would be considered odd by most I suspect for someone to commit everything to such an entity, even your life if called upon to do so. I assume in your 40's you have been to the temple by now. Do you go monthly or is that another area of church practice that you consider to be fundamentalist in nature, reserved for the more ignorant fundy members to attend to?

Ask the average person about energy, mass or so forth and they have at best vague ideas about what they mean.

That's because most people don't have an interest in physics. So what? They are free to pursue their interests unimpeded and their lives uninterrupted by a top down authoritarian organization that places demands upon them to give two years when in their prime to knock doors pedaling vague texts and vague revelations that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, so hey, you better be devoting even more time on the side to make your case for your interpretation and be ready to back it up with a proper exegesis by golly, not to mention the demands upon your personal sexual behavior, your paycheck, your time to collect from the paycheck of others (fast offerings) etc.

That doesn't mean even with vague beliefs those beliefs don't matter.

The greater the claim, the greater the need for evidence to back the claim.

"Hey honey, we're selling the house and going to an uninhabited area in southern Mexico to live in an underground bunker with supplies to keep us alive for the next 5 years. I believe that the 2nd coming is imminent and the time is now. Let's go. Evidence? I have some vague feelings to back this but that doesn't mean they are unimportant. Let's go. Chop chop. What's that? You're leaving me?"

[_LittleNipper]

This is one of the big concerns I see happening today both with many religious people, but also political ideologies.

Cults with alternative facts can be religious or political and sometimes both at once.

Cults can presume to be scientific in their attempt to fabricate a purely naturalistic explanation for man's existence ---- without any conclusive evidence or repetitive experimentation to demonstrate/backup their theory. Such religiously condemn or ignore any inclusion of GOD because they imagine themselves so much more educated and practical than everyone else.

[_spotlight]

Cults with alternative facts can be religious or political and sometimes both at once.

Cults can presume to be scientific in their attempt to fabricate a purely naturalistic explanation for man's existence ---- without any conclusive evidence or repetitive experimentation to demonstrate/backup their theory. Such religiously condemn or ignore any inclusion of GOD because they imagine themselves so much more educated and practical than everyone else. [/quote]
If you are referring to the scientific establishment LittleThinker LittleNipper you are mistaken as science and its method was developed mainly by theists throughout history who departed from your way of thinking about a god as a result of the evidence they discovered. It is cults that ignore evidence in preference to dogma obtained from ancient texts.

[_Themis]

The Fundamentals of the Church are pretty simple. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, for we have seen him standing on the right hand of God. Everything else is an appendage there of.

It's a bit more then just that. The church claims to have the only authority to offer eternal salvation with God. That authority is claimed through Joseph Smith. It all hinges on Joseph and whether he was telling the truth. If the church wants to go down the path of being one among many churches that one can belong to and get all the same rewards from God, then they should go down the path of the Community of Christ.