Secular Biblical Scholarship and Mormonism

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, I fail to see any comment from you which encourages a discussion of a topic or issue.

Then you're not reading my posts:

Not only are you really reaching here to find something cynical to say, but it's deviating far from the topic of this thread. I'd like to stick to the scholarship from here on out.

That's another discussion for another time. I'm hoping to focus in this thread on how Mormonism relates to what the scholarship has to say, not on theological speculation.

If there are no specialists, then I'd be happy to move onto another aspect of the corporeality of God from an academic perspective, as our worldview is again compatible. Your questions provide a good springboard.

I'm curious, however, what this has to do with early Jewish and Christian theological evolution.

Yes, they may. I am trying to catalyze just such a discussion. It seems, however, the crowd here would much rather presuppose those critical little inferences and move on to other business.

Again, this is the kind of discussion I'd like to catalyze, but it appears these assumptions will only be referenced in passing.

I'm going to post another topic for discussion, and I'm going to ask that my request to remain on topic be honored.

Please don't post in my thread again unless you stick to the topic.

I've been trying since the first response to get people to respond to the issue I've introduced. When someone said there were no specialists who would be able to respond to my original post I agreed to change the topic to the one introduced by that poster. I provided my perspective and the other poster totally abandoned that discussion.

You say: I'm hoping to use this thread to offer regular updates on some conclusions from secular biblical scholarship that support a Latter-day Saint perspective.

That is not inviting posters to a discussion on a issue. What you appear to me to be doing is asking people to offer you any findings they might know of which shows secular biblical scholarship supporting a Latter-day perspective.

I was very clear, and your reading baffles me. It has nothing to do with what I wrote or meant, which was the following:

I'd like to introduce a topic, explain what the contemporary scholarship has to say about it and how it relates to the Latter-day Saint perspective, and then invite comments.

The question I have to myself, is whether this is a good use of the Celestial forum. For example let's say I accept the Spalding Rigdon theory and I wrote a post asking only responses to my thread from people who have data which supports the theory..it wouldn't be intellectually honest for me to do so. It would be an apologetic thread for the spalding-rigdon theory. Should I be allowed to hinder opposing views or views which question my perspective? by the way...I will move these off topic posts out of here, once we or perhaps I establish what the guidelines are. I don't wish to derail any discussion thread.

The guidelines are very clear. As I explained quite clearly, I would introduce a topic, explain the scholarship, and invite comments. That means other people can explain their perspective, critique my perspective, agree, disagree, or do whatever else they want that satisfies the criteria:

1) Share your thoughts
2) Stay on topic

I don't know how I can possibly be any more clear.

[_moksha]

You'd obviously be aware of President Hinckley's statements regarding "as man is...". "I don't know that we teach that....". GBH "doesn't know"? Yet he was taught this all his life?

"I don't know that we teach that" means, "I wouldn't say that we teach that." He's trying to steer away from speculation that will obviously only cause more problems.

I agree. Why would President Hinckley want to reinforce past speculations? Best to stick to what we truly know.

[_marg]

Maklelan, I've reviewed this thread a number of times and found that you are fairly heavy on your use of ad hominems, which have actually served to prevent further discussion. However it doesn't seem that much of any discussion has gotten off the ground and so for now I won't remove them, and if anyone can follow your terms as to how you wish to discuss they can review how successful others have been and decide whether to or not. marg

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, I've reviewed this thread a number of times and found that you are fairly heavy on your use of ad hominems, which have actually served to prevent further discussion.

I disagree. I've criticized methodologies, I've explained why certain arguments aren't legitimate, and I've pointed out when people are being cynical just for the sake of being cynical, but I don't think you can point to a single instance in which I've actually tried to base my argument on a personal insult, much less show that I am "fairly heavy" on my use of ad hominem. If you disagree, please point out my ad hominem. I only ask that you give me a chance to respond.

However it doesn't seem that much of any discussion has gotten off the ground and so for now I won't remove them, and if anyone can follow your terms as to how you wish to discuss they can review how successful others have been and decide whether to or not. marg

I guess we'll see.

[_marg]

[color=#FF0040]Maklelan, I've reviewed this thread a number of times and found that you are fairly heavy on your use of ad hominems, which have actually served to prevent further discussion.

I disagree. I've criticized methodologies, I've explained why certain arguments aren't legitimate, and I've pointed out when people are being cynical just for the sake of being cynical, but I don't think you can point to a single instance in which I've actually tried to base my argument on a personal insult, much less show that I am "fairly heavy" on my use of ad hominem. If you disagree, please point out my ad hominem. I only ask that you give me a chance to respond.

This post of yours Mak appears to be entirely ad hominal. I reviewed Ray's posts and he did appear to address issues related to your topic. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8214&p=211864#p211864

[_maklelan]

This post of yours Mak appears to be entirely ad hominal. I reviewed Ray's posts and he did appear to address issues related to your topic. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8214&p=211864#p211864

Let's take a look:

A critical look isn't the same as "whining".

I agree, but I am not referencing a critical look, I'm referencing a cynical look. The perspective I'm talking about manifests a marked lack of critical thinking.

Here I am addressing the cynical assertions about Hinckley's ignorance that followed his interview on Larry King. I made it clear I wasn't talking about him.

I've explained quite clearly where I was going with this thread and what I wanted to avoid, and you've clearly disregarded that so you can steer the discussion to a more comfortable context. I was fine with that for a time, but don't pretend you're trying hard to stay on topic.

I stand by this conclusion which is in no way attacking his character rather than his argument. At first he talked about original beliefs in a corporeal deity, and I stated that I was happy to change the subject to the development of an incorporeal deity in Judaism and Christianity. To begin that discussion I explained my perspective. He didn't respond to any of that, but instead continued his meta-debate, appealing to a number of different modern arguments about Joseph Smith, polygamy, and Gordon B. Hinckley to try to hammer home his point about Mormon doctrine changing. That topic has absolutely nothing to do with the development of an incorporeal deity in early Judaism and Christianity. He was quite clearly trying to direct the discussion away from the topic and toward something he felt more equipped to debate. His introduction of Seixas and Kabbalah only addresses his meta-debate about Mormon doctrine and doesn't at all address the topic, as neither Joshua Seixas nor mystical Judaism supported that doctrine or can be shown to have at all influenced that aspect of Smith's theology. A tenuous link could be made if we were talking about pre-existence or something espoused by Kabbalah, but it's simply irrelevant to the corporeality of God.

You've failed to address my responses to your questions and have only occasionally referenced them in passing in your effort to appear on topic.

Absolutely accurate.

You've also displayed a marked lack of critical thinking in the discussion you brought up,

He asked why the doctrines changed, and when I explained my perspective, rather than contemplating it or even commenting on it, he swept it aside and slapped down his own discussion of an entirely different topic.

and it's clear you've not spent a great deal of time formulating your arguments.

His presentation of his quandary about the development of an incorporeal God shows he has never actually studied the topic, as the "why" of that topic has been well known for years and years. Any attempt to research it would turn up the same answers I provided. Rather than engage that discussion, he swept it aside in favor of another.

I'm going to post another topic for discussion, and I'm going to ask that my request to remain on topic be honored.

I've found nothing in my post that qualifies as ad hominem, which is defined as changing the subject by attacking the character or beliefs of an individual rather than the substance of the argument. I said nothing of his character or beliefs. I pointing out flaws in his methodologies and what those flaws manifested about his assertion that he was trying to engage the topic. I was in no way obligated to respond to his the off-topic arguments, as I made clear in my opening post. I responded to absolutely everything he said that was at all on topic, and I never judged his character. There's absolutely nothing "ad hominel" about my post, but I invite you to explain, in detail, why I'm wrong, if your conclusion is still the same.

[_marg]

I've found nothing in my post that qualifies as ad hominem, which is defined as changing the subject by attacking the character or beliefs of an individual rather than the substance of the argument.

What you are referring to maklelan, is ad hominem fallacy. Once a discussion gets underway to resolve an issue, then tactics may be used to shift focus off the issues onto the person, to avoid the issues. That's considered fallacious argumention. So far in this thread, there has been virtually no progression of a discussion towards resolving an issue. It may well be argued in any discussion that some personal attacks/criticisms are not fallacious to the issues and are relevant. However in the Celestial there is be no hint of personal attacks, which means that all personal attacks/criticisms whether fallacious or not are disallowed.

I said nothing of his character or beliefs. I pointing out flaws in his methodologies and what those flaws manifested about his assertion that he was trying to engage the topic. I was in no way obligated to respond to his the off-topic arguments, as I made clear in my opening post. I responded to absolutely everything he said that was at all on topic, and I never judged his character. There's absolutely nothing "ad hominel" about my post, but I invite you to explain, in detail, why I'm wrong, if your conclusion is still the same.

in my opinion it did seem to me that Ray did address aspects which were relevant to your topic. However I personally had some difficulty determining what issues you were wanting to resolve.

If you have the time and are interested would you post what your assumptions are, though people may disagree with those, what your 1st issue is, your 2nd issue and so forth, perhaps even in point form and if possible presented each as a question. However do not feel obligated to do so.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Mak,

Certainly the Bible uses anthropomorphic imagery of God, many Jews and Christians throughout history have understood God to be anthropomorphic, and nearly all Christians have assigned some anthropomorphic characteristics to God (like emotions, desires, personhood, and logical thought processes), though stopping short of assigning him a body. The Gospel of John, however, definitely does not teach a corporeal God. Not only does it say that "God is spirit," but it also speaks of the "fulness" of God. "Fulness" (pleroma in Greek) was in the first century a technical term referring to the realm of divine light that constitutes God's being. And indeed, John liberally uses the terms "light" and "spirit" and "love" to tell us who and what God is. The vast majority of the earliest church fathers understood God to be immaterial, infinite, immutable, etc. Many Jews, like Philo, agreed.

I find it interesting that you view the importation of Hellenistic God-concepts into Christianity as a corruption. My perspective is exactly the opposite. Early Christian theology's adaptation to Platonic philosophy was similar to some modern Christians' adaptation to Darwinism and to a Copernican universe; they encountered reasoning that made a great deal of sense, and incorporated this reasoning into their worldview rather than clinging to older, more primitive beliefs.

My own take on the issue of divine corporeality/personality is not really based on the Bible, which I do not think speaks with a single voice on the subject. Philosophy is a much more helpful guide. When we look around us, we see many different things and many different kinds of things, all of which seem to be made out of the same "stuff" and to obey the same "laws of nature". If all of the things around us had an independent origin and existence, we would have no reason to expect them to exhibit the unity of being and behavior that they actually exhibit. Thus the great philosophers, like Plato, posited that all particular things had a single source and subsistence. The unifying principle that lay behind them must have no particularity of its own, or it would be just another thing; it must transcend personhood, particularity, and individuality, while also being the source of all these things. Mormonism believes in a God who is a fellow-traveler, a fellow-being whose source and subsistence are the same as ours. He is just as subject to the unifying principle as we. Plato and those Christian theologians who followed him believed in a God who is the highest principle, subject to none, and who therefore is not a personal being. The latter model is the one that makes sense to me. It has explanatory power and sidesteps the problem of evil.

Best,

-Chris

[_maklelan]

What you are referring to maklelan, is ad hominem fallacy. Once a discussion gets underway to resolve an issue, then tactics may be used to shift focus off the issues onto the person, to avoid the issues. That's considered fallacious argumention. So far in this thread, there has been virtually no progression of a discussion towards resolving an issue.

And I've made every effort to try to get people back on the topic. I've not been the one avoiding the issues.

It may well be argued in any discussion that some personal attacks/criticisms are not fallacious to the issues and are relevant. However in the Celestial there is be no hint of personal attacks, which means that all personal attacks/criticisms whether fallacious or not are disallowed.

How is one supposed to succeed at debate if they're not allowed to criticize methodologies and find fault with logic and rhetoric? I don't think those are personal attacks.

in my opinion it did seem to me that Ray did address aspects which were relevant to your topic. However I personally had some difficulty determining what issues you were wanting to resolve.

I felt I was pretty clear, but I will be more clear in the future.

If you have the time and are interested would you post what your assumptions are, though people may disagree with those, what your 1st issue is, your 2nd issue and so forth, perhaps even in point form and if possible presented each as a question. However do not feel obligated to do so.

I'd be happy to. Since I'm going back to work today, though, it may be a little slower.

[_maklelan]

Mak,

Certainly the Bible uses anthropomorphic imagery of God, many Jews and Christians throughout history have understood God to be anthropomorphic, and nearly all Christians have assigned some anthropomorphic characteristics to God (like emotions, desires, personhood, and logical thought processes), though stopping short of assigning him a body. The Gospel of John, however, definitely does not teach a corporeal God. Not only does it say that "God is spirit,"

John also teaches that all human beings who are born of the spirit "are spirit." Being spirit does not preclude having a body.

but it also speaks of the "fulness" of God. "Fulness" (pleroma in Greek) was in the first century a technical term referring to the realm of divine light that constitutes God's being.

Only in Gnostic circles. In the New Testament the it was much more general. See Romans 11:12, 25, where pleroma is used to refer to the fullness of the Gentiles. Ephesians 1:10 and Galatians 4:4 refer to "the fullness of times." Several scriptures refer to God's fullness, including that Christ received all of it (and still had a body).

And indeed, John liberally uses the terms "light" and "spirit" and "love" to tell us who and what God is. The vast majority of the earliest church fathers understood God to be immaterial, infinite, immutable, etc. Many Jews, like Philo, agreed.

Philo was already well Hellenized. A lot of people think he didn't even know Hebrew. Origen makes it clear many Christians believed God had a body. It was the Hellenic appropriation of Christianity that did away with that. David Paulsen's 1990 Harvard Theological Review article "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses" is a good start.

I find it interesting that you view the importation of Hellenistic God-concepts into Christianity as a corruption. My perspective is exactly the opposite. Early Christian theology's adaptation to Platonic philosophy was similar to some modern Christians' adaptation to Darwinism and to a Copernican universe; they encountered reasoning that made a great deal of sense, and incorporated this reasoning into their worldview rather than clinging to older, more primitive beliefs.

But completely overhauling a perspective on God's nature is distinct from correcting faulty assumptions about the natural universe.

My own take on the issue of divine corporeality/personality is not really based on the Bible, which I do not think speaks with a single voice on the subject.

Nor do I.

Philosophy is a much more helpful guide. When we look around us, we see many different things and many different kinds of things, all of which seem to be made out of the same "stuff" and to obey the same "laws of nature". If all of the things around us had an independent origin and existence, we would have no reason to expect them to exhibit the unity of being and behavior that they actually exhibit. Thus the great philosophers, like Plato, posited that all particular things had a single source and subsistence. The unifying principle that lay behind them must have no particularity of its own, or it would be just another thing; it must transcend personhood, particularity, and individuality, while also being the source of all these things. Mormonism believes in a God who is a fellow-traveler, a fellow-being whose source and subsistence are the same as ours. He is just as subject to the unifying principle as we. Plato and those Christian theologians who followed him believed in a God who is the highest principle, subject to none, and who therefore is not a personal being. The latter model is the one that makes sense to me. It has explanatory power and sidesteps the problem of evil.

So you accept all of Plato's doctrines?