Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[I Have Questions]

MG, you've achieved one significant win in this discussion.

I'm not out to "win" anything as much as to simply provide more context and information to sift through. That is often a needed commodity on this board.

Regards,
MG

No. You’re supposed to do the sifting so as to contribute something useful to the discussion. Walls of text (that you haven’t even generated) are not “context” nor are they “something useful” nor do they “contribute” to the discussion. Stop being a vacuous Richard.

[Limnor]

MG, you've achieved one significant win in this discussion. My revised version of the presentation of the F-S chain will incorporate Blake.

Gad I’m curious about your intent—if you don’t mind my asking, do you intend to publish or is this thinking for personal understanding?

[Limnor]

I'm not out to "win" anything as much as to simply provide more context and information to sift through. That is often a needed commodity on this board.

Regards,
MG

No. You’re supposed to do the sifting so as to contribute something useful to the discussion. Walls of text (that you haven’t even generated) are not “context” nor are they “something useful” nor do they “contribute” to the discussion. Stop being a vacuous Richard.

Translated: Any response that complicates the critique by adding more data to sift through is needed to maintain plausibility.

[Gadianton]

I will be posting it on this forum, but there is plenty of time to enjoy working on it, as others might enjoy hitting a golf ball around a field of grass without concern about the time. It's the only Mormon-related theological idea I have and it's come in glimpses and patchwork over the years; I've mentioned this chain several times on the board in jest over the years, in bafflement over what it means.

I've learned a lot in the discussions on these threads. I think it was a good idea in retrospect to post the wall of text and let the chips fall. The next version will be longer, but broken into small sections over time. So someone who normally doesn't want to read a wall of text could give it shot. Clarity will be the goal.

[Marcus]

I will be posting it on this forum, but there is plenty of time to enjoy working on it, as others might enjoy hitting a golf ball around a field of grass without concern about the time. It's the only Mormon-related theological idea I have and it's come in glimpses and patchwork over the years; I've mentioned this chain several times on the board in jest over the years, in bafflement over what it means.

I've learned a lot in the discussions on these threads. I think it was a good idea in retrospect to post the wall of text and let the chips fall. The next version will be longer, but broken into small sections over time. So someone who normally doesn't want to read a wall of text could give it shot. Clarity will be the goal.

Glad to hear it! I don't have much background in this particular area so I haven't commented, but I always read, and there has definitely been a lot to learn. I find it takes me a fair amount of contemplation time before it fully sinks in--in that sense your golf metaphor is very apt.

[Limnor]

I will be posting it on this forum, but there is plenty of time to enjoy working on it, as others might enjoy hitting a golf ball around a field of grass without concern about the time. It's the only Mormon-related theological idea I have and it's come in glimpses and patchwork over the years; I've mentioned this chain several times on the board in jest over the years, in bafflement over what it means.

I've learned a lot in the discussions on these threads. I think it was a good idea in retrospect to post the wall of text and let the chips fall. The next version will be longer, but broken into small sections over time. So someone who normally doesn't want to read a wall of text could give it shot. Clarity will be the goal.

I’m looking forward to it. I’ve been thinking that maybe the chain itself is the grounding for Mormon metaphysics but haven’t figured out how that might work, particularly with the potential for constant change. Which I think surfaces in the inconsistencies we see in prophetic succession.

I think you are on to something, but I’m also thinking through the apparent consequences.

[Gadianton]

Glad to hear it! I don't have much background in this particular area so I haven't commented, but I always read, and there has definitely been a lot to learn. I find it takes me a fair amount of contemplation time before it fully sinks in--in that sense your golf metaphor is very apt.

Thank you, Marcus.

[Gadianton]

I’m looking forward to it. I’ve been thinking that maybe the chain itself is the grounding for Mormon metaphysics but haven’t figured out how that might work, particularly with the potential for constant change. Which I think surfaces in the inconsistencies we see in prophetic succession.

I think your deeper insight has to do with constant change. There is definitely that strain of thinking about science that scientific laws are after the fact and we can never really know anything for sure about the world. The Mormon conception of God seems influenced by science where beings like God appear from an unknowable background and deeper reality is always a mystery. Inconsistency in prophets is just because people are inconsistent and making it up as they go along. When Mormons say they have continuing revelation, that idea is consistent with a deeper insight that representation can never be perfect or even static. However, in practice, what it means is to say they are right after the fact no matter what. to use it as a get out of jail free card, as one particular member of this forum would, to believe anything they want at any time.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mormonism is always in a quantum state and doesn’t take a form until the observer gives it form.

- Doc

[Limnor]

I can see where continuing revelation or doctrine being more clearly defined over time could be acceptable. Or even “mystery.” But it’s not clear to me how one could be comfortable with complete reversals of previous teachings, or complete revisions of previous “revelations”—like the differences between the Book of Commandments and the later Doctrine and Covenants, or flexible doctrine depending on circumstances pass the sniff test for foundational, grounding authority claims. Doc’s analogy works well here.