Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_ClarkGoble]

Clark, you're a physicist by training. Was Moroni made of atoms?

Don't know although if he was resurrected that'd seem to imply there were atoms in the body.

If he was made of atoms, how did those atoms come and go? Where are they now?

Again I don't know although I'd assume that, as with our bodies, there's be changeover in matter somehow. But I don't think I need a theory of resurrected bodies to believe in resurrected bodies. They appear to be analogous in some fashion to ours and are material.

My question is really, How far have you thought through what it means for the Mormon story to be factual in the real world? Do you live in one world, with both angels and atoms, or in two worlds that can't meet?

I've thought through it a fair bit although since I don't really have good data for any of the questions my answers would be fairly speculative and not really strongly held.

[_spotlight]

You need to expand your imagination I think.

By taking up dowsing perhaps.

[_Fence Sitter]

It would be interesting to know how many members would continue to pay a full tithing if they all knew that most of the Biblical narrative is myth, that the patriarchs that supposedly visited Joseph Smith to restore God's priesthood were mythical, and so on. I know Clark does not like labels, but there is some serious cafeteria Mormonism going on in his views of what real Mormonism is like.

Inaccuracy in details != myth. So I'd reject your characterization.

I realize you do and I appreciate the time you are taking to respond. I try and not drag you into the same discussions you are having with others.

I think most of my very large TBM family would not agree with your views on what is myth and inaccuracy of details. They are quite convinced of the literalness of all those myths and their foundational support of Mormon claims today. Instead of trying to offer alternate interpretations of problematic plain text or beliefs they just shrug their shoulders and say "God is capable of doing anything, how do you know it didn't happen that way?"

As Physics Guy above has pointed out, at some point I think you (Clark) have to believe in an action by God that is contrary to your understanding of what science says is possible so you spend a lot of time trying to lessen the footprint of those "myths" that seem contrary to what science says. Why? Maybe there was a global flood and God was able to make it happen and erase all evidence it did happen for what ever reason? If God can resurrect dead beings or create an entire universe, why not just accept that he might of done all those other things which you are trying to reinterpret or clairify, wrongly or rightly?

I understand you do not like the fundamentalist view (or even that classification I suppose) but for all you know that is the way God did it and is testing your faith to see if you are willing to accept it contrary to your own beliefs. Maybe physicists aren't high on God's list of chosen professions?

Thanks

[_Physics Guy]

There's probably some middle degree of miraculousness and naturalness where ClarkGoble can stop, and have it all be consistent from his point of view, even if it looks weird to me. And nobody else needs to care what looks weird to me.

But if I think about hypothetical viewpoints other than Clark's, it does seem to me that there's a limit to how completely natural anyone can make the Mormon scriptures. With the Bible, even if you refuse to accept any miracles at all, it really still is an ancient book. With the Book of Mormon, I don't see how you can get rid of the pretty miraculous elements in its 19th century "coming forth". We can't very well demote the angel Moroni to a legend invented by later generations of pious believers, because Joseph Smith himself is on record attesting to Moroni's real existence.

So either there really was an angel who gave and took metal plates, and a miraculous translation—or else Smith lied through his teeth and/or was himself somehow ridiculously deceived. And if he lied so baldly about something so basic, or was so deranged as to hallucinate heavy golded plates, then there's no reason to believe that Nephi and Alma and Zarahemla and all are anything but figments of his or his confederates' imaginations. And then since those imaginations would then have had to be either deranged or dastardly, it's hard to believe that their figments could have been inspired even just as spiritually meaningful parables.

So if the Mormon scriptures are to be accepted even just as ancient writings or inspired fictions, it seems to me that you have to buy the plates and the angel Moroni and the changing words on the seer stone. At which point you've swallowed enough miracles, it seems to me, that it's hard to see why you would balk at taking in a few more.

This won't be a big deal for Mormons who are perfectly happy to believe a whole bunch of miracles. But it's just interesting to me to notice that Mormonism seems internally constrained against ever going very far in the direction of de-mythologizing its scriptures. As far as miracles are concerned, Mormon colors are nailed to the mast.

[_ClarkGoble]

it does seem to me that there's a limit to how completely natural anyone can make the Mormon scriptures. With the Bible, even if you refuse to accept any miracles at all, it really still is an ancient book. With the Book of Mormon, I don't see how you can get rid of the pretty miraculous elements in its 19th century "coming forth".

Exactly although I see that as a key feature not bug. But even a person like myself who adopts a heavy naturalism and fallibilism will also want to accept real angels, real miraculous technology like the liahonah or the very translation of the Book of Mormon and so forth. So I'm definitely not removing that element merely saying it's atypical.

[_ClarkGoble]

As Physics Guy above has pointed out, at some point I think you (Clark) have to believe in an action by God that is contrary to your understanding of what science says is possible...

I honestly can't think of any of the top of my head. There are of course problems like metal and horses in the Book of Mormon. But in terms of something science says is not possible I confess I can't think of any phenomena that would demand that. It seems to me one of the strengths of Mormonism is it's materialism. By and large there are no Humean like miracles but rather things explained by the potential technology and capabilities of an all knowing (in the sense of knowing all science) God.

To say we have no evidence for something like the Mormon conception of angels is not to say the Mormon conception of angels is in contradiction with science. We must keep those two concepts clear.

Maybe there was a global flood and God was able to make it happen and erase all evidence it did happen for what ever reason?

Again I'd go back to the point that what we have to do is compare readings and their explanatory power. While I think, on the basis of the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament is problematic in terms of accuracy that doesn't mean we have to simply discount it. Simply note that the flood account is two different accounts and then add the notion that whomever recorded it originally could at best only describe what they saw and not a God's eye view. (Unless God was speaking of course but the text doesn't purport to be that that I can see) Again this isn't controversial with prominent GAs like Widstoe noting these issues.

If God can resurrect dead beings or create an entire universe, why not just accept that he might of done all those other things which you are trying to reinterpret or clairify, wrongly or rightly?

The question again is how to read the texts. If the text doesn't introduce a miraculous event why assume it was there? We have to ask ourselves who wrote the text, under what circumstances, what's it's providence (i.e. what's the connection of the text to the original events and transmission) and so forth. Reading any text requires grappling with context and of course historical context matters a great deal. There are obvious problems with a global flood of the sort fundamentalists typically invoke and no real necessity in the text to read it that way. The closest is the symbolism of baptism but that can be dealt with fairly easily.

...for all you know that is the way God did it and is testing your faith to see if you are willing to accept it contrary to your own beliefs.

I'd be open to such readings I just need reasons to pick them above the alternatives. Thus far I have no such reasons and many reasons to think them wrong. (Such as Genesis Gen. 7:20 saying the flood was 26 feet high) But again I'm a fallibilist and think continued inquiry is always important.

To me the fact many people hold to a reading is irrelevant for deciding if the reading ought be held.

[_spotlight]

Simply note that the flood account is two different accounts and then add the notion that whomever recorded it originally could at best only describe what they saw and not a God's eye view.

Moses 1:27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

[_Fence Sitter]

As Physics Guy above has pointed out, at some point I think you (Clark) have to believe in an action by God that is contrary to your understanding of what science says is possible...

I honestly can't think of any of the top of my head. There are of course problems like metal and horses in the Book of Mormon. But in terms of something science says is not possible I confess I can't think of any phenomena that would demand that. It seems to me one of the strengths of Mormonism is it's materialism. By and large there are no Humean like miracles but rather things explained by the potential technology and capabilities of an all knowing (in the sense of knowing all science) God.

Is God able to communicate or travel faster than the speed of light? Or can he exert any influence that would require communication or a physical process that would exceed the speed of light?

[_ClarkGoble]

Is God able to communicate or travel faster than the speed of light? Or can he exert any influence that would require communication or a physical process that would exceed the speed of light?

First let me say upfront I don't know. However if one buys the idea of an infinite past then that requires first a multiverse and then communication between branes (or their equivalent). The implication of this combined with GR would imply such things were done simultaneously with a type of foreknowledge. (Here assuming a four dimensional block universe) So no faster than light communication necessary. Rather you'd have something like a ridiculously complex hamiltonian that would encapsulate all information flow between universes that collapses to a four dimensional block universe. Effectively in this model everyone is free (in a certain sense - but not in the sense of libertarian free will) but the choice happens all at once as the universe forms and then we're experiencing those choices.

Now there are reasons to argue against such a model. And clearly we're being pretty speculative here. The main argument against this comes from Blake Ostler who wants there to be a type of punishment in justice due to various readings of key passages on judgment. However if there is foreknowledge or a block universe then the type of free will Blake thinks is logically necessary for that kind of punishment to be just is impossible. Blake somewhat unconvincing to me adopts presentist models of GR and SR. These actually are defensible (to a degree) and there's a fair bit of literature for them although they go against a more natural reading of GR. Typically they adopt a neo-Lorentzian view of SR & GR that I find completely unpersuasive. Personally I'm also skeptical of Blake's view of punishment for various reasons, primarily because I think the Mormon conception of salvation ends up being closer to what determinists in the literature suggest should be the alternative to punishment. (More or less a hospital model) Blake wants to maintain intuitions of just deserts as punishment. I'm fine with there being punishment but I see it more in functional terms rather than reward/punishment as moral deserts terms. That is I see God providing us with options and is trying to maximize our happiness/flourishing in some sense and not everyone would be happiest being like him. (Or put more accurately they can't be like him, don't want to be like him, and he can't force them to be like him)

But there's so little data I'm not sure we can really say. Further I think our knowledge of that sort of cosmological possibility is pretty lacking until we get a fully working theory of quantum gravity. (I'm skeptical of string theory as the solution)

[_ClarkGoble]

Simply note that the flood account is two different accounts and then add the notion that whomever recorded it originally could at best only describe what they saw and not a God's eye view.

Moses 1:27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

Yes and that does not purport to be where Genesis came from in my opinion. Nor does it give a God's eye view. Rather it sounds like he had a vision about earth. Heck, maybe he got a view like we're used to from satellites that freaked him out.

by the way - you missed the verse rather relevant for the Noah story too. 1:29. "And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof." Has implications for the earth being flooded since it treats "earth" as a localized land.