ClarkGoble wrote:Again I can but repeat that if you make an argument where prophethood entails correctness that entails infallibility. Are you saying no one is making that argument? You may not like the label but you haven't demonstrated in the least it doesn't fit.
If your point is merely that the word isn't used by others here I might agree - at least in my discussions. But this then confuses terms with meanings. It is the meaning to which I refer.
Correctness does not entail infallibility. Correctness is a vague term. I would see if at a minimum as just over 50% correct up to 100%. Infallibility is just a poor apologetic to attack those disagreeing with you.
But you are demanding a high level of correctness. Pretty much any time I bring up any chance of error I get the "but they are a prophet." While correctness is vague the way you are using it isn't.
So let me turn it around. What kind of errors do you find acceptable in texts with your conception of prophethood? And why?
If you don't want me to use infallibility I'll stop (even though I think it describes the argument well). Let me instead ask why in the examples I gave (say Moroni's summarizing unknown documents about the Jaredites) why there can't be any significant error in historical description.
SteelHead wrote:What if Joseph Smith was sterile and Emma's children were from her hookups?
What if Joseph Smith practiced coitus interruptus, or used a condom, or was all about manual, oral or anal?
All kinds of possibilities.
Spin it as you want, the man was a rake, using a position of power to get sex and promising exaltation in exchange. A huge abuse of ecclesiastical authority.
Disagree but since we have no evidentiary way to settle the dispute we're at an impasse.
Tell me again, under what sealing power was the barn meat commerce with Fanny authorized?
So far as I know the sealing power wasn't used with Fanny. However it doesn't follow it's required for polygamy. The polygamists in Israel typically didn't have it for instance.
Themis wrote:LOL Local flood really doesn't fit the biblical story, so why not see it for the myth it is.
Biblical stories were compiled from competing political interests thousands of years later. Why should we assume the Bible, especially Genesis, is accurate in the details? Especially given the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding the Bible in 1 Nephi 13-14? Both the general historical claims (the Bible in its present form was developed after the exile with very different and competing conceptions of Judaism from unknown texts and oral traditions) and modern scripture suggest problems with the Old Testament.
Most scholars note that the flood narrative is actually a mixing of two generally incompatible narratives. (Thus the differing numbers of animals)
ClarkGoble wrote:Revelation comes in different strengths in different circumstances. You suggest there is no middle ground whereas my personal experience and testimony is all about the middle ground.
Could you give an example? I ask from genuine interest, not because I hope to trap you with some detail. I myself try to argue for some "middle ground" kinds of authority. I like to say that science is "neither kind of club", meaning that there are no proofs so rigorous that you can beat people over the head with them, but it's more than just a bunch of social conventions. I just don't see how that kind of thing can work for Mormon-style revelation.
(In general I'm a bit worried that all this ClarkGoble contra mundum will overwhelm Clark. Nobody should have to be the sole defender against all comers. Perhaps we could agree that Clark is allowed to just plead limited time without being accused of running away from unanswerable criticisms. The brief and hollow thrill of victory that might come from that interests me less than having Clark stay around.)
Physics Guy wrote:Could you give an example? I ask from genuine interest, not because I hope to trap you with some detail. I myself try to argue for some "middle ground" kinds of authority.
Well I prefer not to share personal experiences if you don't mind.
But there are plenty of examples of Joseph worried he'd been deceived. (Typically early on) The emphasis rhetorically is of course to successful examples. But why would Joseph be worried if revelation was all black or white? Typically the ones we remember best are clear but often they are simply vague. An example of vague revelation is Joseph praying over the second coming and getting an answer that really wasn't an answer.
Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore alet this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. (D&C 130:15-17)
It seems that sort of revelation is rather common. We're not sure how to interpret it. Clearly God wants some things left unrevealed. I've certainly prayed about many things and gotten an answer that I can't have an answer. So I'm left at best with my best educated guesses.
In general I'm a bit worried that all this ClarkGoble contra mundum will overwhelm Clark.
Well I'll be up front if I get busy I'll stop participating. So it's not me trying to duck questions. But sometimes I'll simply have far more limited time. This is in the big picture a relatively low priority part of my personal study.
These seem to be examples in which the revelation is the same as no revelation. But if fallible revelation is the same as no revelation, then surely we could just say, "There is no revelation" and be done with it. Why mess around?
Are there examples where revelation is worth having even though it's uncertain?
Physics Guy wrote:These seem to be examples in which the revelation is the same as no revelation. But if fallible revelation is the same as no revelation, then surely we could just say, "There is no revelation" and be done with it. Why mess around?
Are there examples where revelation is worth having even though it's uncertain?
They are also examples that would apply just as equally to his treasure hunting activities as they do his prophetic role.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Themis wrote:LOL Local flood really doesn't fit the biblical story, so why not see it for the myth it is.
Biblical stories were compiled from competing political interests thousands of years later. Why should we assume the Bible, especially Genesis, is accurate in the details? Especially given the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding the Bible in 1 Nephi 13-14? Both the general historical claims (the Bible in its present form was developed after the exile with very different and competing conceptions of Judaism from unknown texts and oral traditions) and modern scripture suggest problems with the Old Testament.
Most scholars note that the flood narrative is actually a mixing of two generally incompatible narratives. (Thus the differing numbers of animals)
You can take out the divine from the Bible and still have the Bible, ancient writings. You take out the divine out the the Book of Mormon and you have 19th century fiction. That's really one of the big problems with the Book of Mormon claims of real peoples from the old world.
ClarkGoble wrote:But you are demanding a high level of correctness. Pretty much any time I bring up any chance of error I get the "but they are a prophet." While correctness is vague the way you are using it isn't.
So let me turn it around. What kind of errors do you find acceptable in texts with your conception of prophethood? And why?
If you don't want me to use infallibility I'll stop (even though I think it describes the argument well). Let me instead ask why in the examples I gave (say Moroni's summarizing unknown documents about the Jaredites) why there can't be any significant error in historical description.
I'm suggesting a higher level of accuracy due to claimed divine assistance and commands. You seem to go the opposite for reasons of trying to keep some elements making Joseph still a prophet and the church true. As for the Moroni example we need Moroni to somehow get the wrong idea that the Jaredites were at the tower of babel and then change the story to fit, or suggest two separate events with such unlikely elements of the narrative being the same. That seems like a lot. He says he used the 24 plates as his source, so he either had divine help to translate or he was using a divine translation as his source. It seems one of the major claims of being a prophet in the Book of Mormon or with Joseph is the ability to have divine help in translating or revelations. Joseph claims revelations almost on a daily basis, and many angels appearing. One of the things I see here is a Book of Mormon that fits a young earth and global flood. The book references the flood and there would be no one in the America's when Lehi arrived. They never mention any groups not part of the three migrations,and even say there was no one there, and why there was no one there. The whole narrative is set in a young earth and global flood. It shouldn't be. It should mention other groups like other ancient writings. The Bible is full of bringing up other groups.
Physics Guy wrote:These seem to be examples in which the revelation is the same as no revelation. But if fallible revelation is the same as no revelation, then surely we could just say, "There is no revelation" and be done with it. Why mess around?
Are there examples where revelation is worth having even though it's uncertain?
They are also examples that would apply just as equally to his treasure hunting activities as they do his prophetic role.
Well we know the spirits guarding the treasure keep them from getting it.