tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post102624251444456379..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Hurray for Mary Higby Schweitzer: Working Mom, Christian, and Dangerous ScientistJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80375375147874198622014-08-17T21:52:05.250-05:002014-08-17T21:52:05.250-05:00[Continued] Here’s an analogy that might help. If ...[Continued] Here’s an analogy that might help. If you have a single celled organism it will develop certain defenses and methods of attack. But when you have a multi-celled organism the rules regarding its survival change. Both the individual cells and the organism as a whole begin to function fundamentally differently from a single celled organism. The difference is that now the individual cells in the multi-celled organism don’t behave like solitary cells competing for resources. They have specialization, common defense, coordination and communication. These are all traits seen in social animals.<br /><br />Some biologists have responded that this just adds unnecessary complexity to something that is already explained through kin selection, but as I understand it this theory offers a fundamentally different paradigm to evolutionary biology. Under standard kin selection every action is ultimately selfish (see Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene), even altruistic actions, but under multi-level theory for social animals it is no longer a question of evaluating whether or not an action is better for the individual vs. the group, all selfish actions are bad and all altruistic actions are good. As Dr. Wilson put it, “Individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of virtue.” (p.241)<br /><br />This means that for humans, because we inherently function as social animals we function and survive by having a group identity. We may fall back on basic self preservation but that either causes problems for ourselves or others, or is the result of selfish acts by others. When I was reading the book The Social Conquest of Earth I kept thinking about how a religious institution is perfectly suited for creating, teaching, preserving and perpetuating a group identity. There are other methods of creating group identity (i.e. sports teams, political parties, governments, businesses, brands, clubs, gangs etc.) but by far the most successful and comprehensive structure for creating group identity, and thus preserving the group through group selection, is organized religion. Now the only question is, which of all the religions out there is right?<br /><br />[Jeff, excuse the long comment.]Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34020537330923151202014-08-17T21:51:41.494-05:002014-08-17T21:51:41.494-05:00Hi Tom,
Sorry I took some time responding, but I’...Hi Tom,<br /><br />Sorry I took some time responding, but I’m busy writing my dissertation at the moment. I was wondering if anyone would ask about that. I will try to give a short answer to what is in reality a very complex issue. <br /><br />First we need to understand some of the basics of evolution. Natural selection is the idea that different biological traits become more or less common depending on environmental conditions. Put simply it is the idea that any given genetic material will want to continue and pass on its genetic code, if it is successful then the biological traits continue and become more common, but if not then they become less common. But one of the questions that comes up is the concept of altruistic behavior. Some organisms, including humans, take actions that work against their personal genetic advantage and instead benefit someone else. Biologists have noticed that organisms will tend to help those who are the most genetically similar to themselves (i.e. bees help other bees and not wasps).<br /><br />This is the concept of kin selection. Mathematically it is expressed as rB > C, where C is the personal reproductive cost taking a particular action, B is the reproductive benefit of taking the action and r is the relatedness parameter. The more genetically related two animals are the higher the relatedness parameter and thus the more beneficial it is to perform altruistic actions (i.e. actions with a high C value) as opposed to selfish ones (i.e. actions with a low C value).<br /><br />The standard view of most biologists is that this concept of kin selection holds true for all organisms, including humans. But the alternate theory proposed by Edward Wilson (and a few others) is multi-level selection or group selection. This theory does not entirely replace kin selection but states that for social animals (bees, ants, humans etc.) what drives genetic selection is not the fitness of individuals but of the entire group. Essentially what Dr. Wilson and others are proposing is that when you have social creatures the rules of natural selection change to place greater importance on the preservation of the group as a single unit. [Continued]Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43938273166943794422014-08-11T14:40:59.962-05:002014-08-11T14:40:59.962-05:00Quantumleap42 -
You said: "Evolution as expr...Quantumleap42 -<br /><br />You said: "Evolution as expressed by Edward Wilson in his book The Social Conquest of Earth has in it perhaps the greatest evolutionary argument in favor of organized religion in all of science."<br /><br />You have definitely made me want to read Wilson's book. Would you mind providing a little more explanation about what you mean?Tom Hardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10690631355587579601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31144483663998025042014-08-05T10:39:09.927-05:002014-08-05T10:39:09.927-05:00I don't know why Doctrine and Covenants was le...I don't know why Doctrine and Covenants was left out. The Pearl of Great Price, as such, did not exist when the Articles of Faith were written. Regardless, the Articles of Faith are by no means comprehensive.<br /><br />With regard to the gift of tongues, I don't know about the version of it that, to me, amounts to speaking gibberish. I think there may have been claims to that sort of thing in the early days of the church. But generally we see the gift of tongues in the facility with which our missionaries learn foreign languages. We were, in fact, encouraged to pray for that gift on my mission.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12908753571900961852014-08-05T08:50:18.340-05:002014-08-05T08:50:18.340-05:00If I may offer a couple of questions and observati...If I may offer a couple of questions and observations re the discussion of official doctrine and ongoing revelation... <br /><br />First, can we at least take the Articles of Faith to be official doctrine?<br /><br />If so, then I think Article 8 is highly noteworthy for what it does <i>not</i> say:<br /><br /><i>8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.</i><br /><br />Why are the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Coovenants left out here? Does their omission provide a possible way of avoiding certain problems, e.g., the highly questionable authenticity of the Book of Abraham?<br /><br />Also, Article 9 clearly suggests there are important revelations yet to come:<br /><br /><i>9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.</i><br /><br />Plenty of wiggle room there for the Church to make the sort of adjustments it made in 1890 and 1978. Unlike, say, the Catholic Church, the LDS Church has the potential for radical change built into its doctrinal DNA.<br /><br />Finally, I'm fascinated by the reference in Article 7 to glossolalia, which one doesn't seem to see or hear about nowadays in the Church:<br /><br /><i>7. We believe in the <b>gift of tongues,</b> prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.</i><br /><br />Does anyone know whether speaking in tongues still has a place in LDS worship?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4771225793015220272014-08-05T08:29:12.558-05:002014-08-05T08:29:12.558-05:00When did Pres Hinckley say that?When did Pres Hinckley say that?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81102481894099474512014-08-05T02:58:29.605-05:002014-08-05T02:58:29.605-05:00Official doctrine can change by revelation.
But I ...Official doctrine can change by revelation.<br />But I doubt that we will ever get new revelation because Pres. Hinckley said the church does not need more revelation nor do the lraders seek it. IMHO that is a wrong way of thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2136585313874788642014-08-05T00:03:48.854-05:002014-08-05T00:03:48.854-05:00Pierce,
Success! Now you are starting to see you...Pierce,<br /><br />Success! Now you are starting to see your reflection, grade school.<br /><br />The rest (like most your responses) was just conceding speckled with anger, very grade school. In the end you were unable to demonstrate my statement was bogus, but rather ended up further validating it.<br /> <br />When you are ready for genuine dialogue with substance and quite jumping all over others and twisting just let me know.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37447683534377099702014-08-04T19:30:02.686-05:002014-08-04T19:30:02.686-05:00So according to you, official doctrine does seem t...So according to you, official doctrine does seem to change from time to time. So does unofficial doctrine. Sorry if I don't see the difference. <br /><br />I made no "jab" at people who take Joseph's feelings on creeds seriously. If I did, I would be taking a jab at myself. I didn't say that the statement is a creed; I said I wish it were. The traditional sense of the word creed is the same as the definition, FYI. Mormonism has them despite Joseph's expressed feelings. <br /><br />Usually when I have to point out what I've already written or refer to the dictionary to make a point, that means the conversation has reached the limit of its productivity. Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15061630559339939112014-08-04T18:55:59.002-05:002014-08-04T18:55:59.002-05:00"Official doctrine is doctrine that never cha..."Official doctrine is doctrine that never changes?"<br /><br />Not at all. Official doctrine does seem to change from time to time. Personally, I believe that we started in the developing years of the church with many ideas about doctrine that turned out to be not-doctrine. Bruce Porter described it best when he called the time after Joseph Smith the "research and development" phase--a time when the doctrine was publicly explored and some things were found to not be correct or "useful" as you put it. So over the years we have pared a lot of it down, rather than added to it. I actually appreciate that effort. While there are doctrines that may change, there are many that I don't believe will. And those I consider to be official doctrines.<br /><br />But, for a decent treatment on how to better distinguish it, I would recommend Robert Millet's "What is Doctrine?" essay. <br /><br />As for the creed thing, my statements are a response to your jab at those who take Joseph's feelings on creeds seriously, where you said the statement in and of itself is a creed. I was pointing out that it is not the same thing, and the Articles of Faith (a letter Joseph penned once) hardly qualify. Our church doesn't really have creeds in the traditional sense of the the word--strict definitions aside.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4892598599350157472014-08-04T18:32:41.885-05:002014-08-04T18:32:41.885-05:00Pierce,
My failure to distinguish between the ins...Pierce,<br /><br />My failure to distinguish between the institutional church and people within the church is motivated by my love for the people who are imperfect and make mistakes sometimes but are ultimately a force for good. Again, definitions are useful or non useful. I don't find the distinction between the institutional church and the people within it to be useful. <br /><br />So you have criteria for what constitutes official doctrine? Official doctrine is doctrine that never changes? If that's the only way to determine what's official, then we can never know what's official because we can't know which doctrine will be changed at some future time. The best you can say is that it hasn't changed yet. <br /><br />And you must not have read the definition of "creed." Creed: a formal statement of religious belief. From the Latin "Credo" meaning "I believe." See also "article of faith." Good grief.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59068087941491012422014-08-04T17:35:04.981-05:002014-08-04T17:35:04.981-05:00Mormog,
"You dislike your reflection because...Mormog,<br /><br />"You dislike your reflection because it lacks the same creative that you lack."<br /><br />Mimicking people and saying this kind of thing after it reminds me of grade school. <br /><br />" Wow, now you are calling FAIR obtuse"<br /><br />I've said nothing of FAIR. Just you. Whatever it is you're quoting I'm sure isn't meant to encapsulate everything that can be considered official doctrine. The statement does seem to identify the Savior being the core of all our doctrines, which I agree with.<br /><br />"To suggest that BRM could have used his vast dictatorial powers to remove the predominate..."<br /><br />BRM was on the Scripture Committee and is often credited (such as by Elder Packer) for doing most of the work on it. That being the case, and that it reflects what is said in Mormon Doctrine, makes Jeff's statement at the very least non-deceptive. Maybe Jeff's statement was a bit broad, but that really just shows how casual it really was and you trifle over something in order to support your overly-critical accusations. <br /><br />"Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you conceded..."<br /><br />You chose to ignore the substance of my whole response in favor of trying to score some sort of points. So I budge in order to have a real conversation about my beliefs and this is how you treat it? Jumping all over it and twisting it so that now I'm a critic of my church? I can't imagine what is driving you to come to a blog like this and act this way.<br /><br />"Where do all these conversations in your head come from?"<br /><br />This is by far the weirdest thing you have ever posted on here. Everything that you assiduously copy and pasted is part of a larger conversation that I was having with you on this board. I don't get what the question is. I'm guessing it has something to do with not using flowery speech. But you're not a flowery speech kind of guy. <br /><br />Anyway, I just wanted to point out your bogus statement that deception was employed, and that you are a broken record when it comes to the idea that not every doctrine is part of our beliefs or practices. We get that you don't understand it or accept the idea. That's it.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60766841558124897832014-08-04T14:50:23.878-05:002014-08-04T14:50:23.878-05:00Pierce,
”The humor in Mormanity’s logic is, despi...Pierce,<br /><br />”The humor in Mormanity’s logic is, despite Nephi “delighting in plainness”, the Nephite scriptures are so poorly translated and poorly interpreted that their meaning is render meaningless.” The extent of your response (but not a rejoinder) was there is no limit in the number times a something like “horse is not a horse” and “no death” does not mean “no death” can occur. This is not true. Such things items can should be rare and when used with frequency renders the scripture poorly translated/interpreted and meaningless. Merely wishing that was not true, is not a rejoinder. So yes, it does appear to have been a brain buster for you.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59949868558260081862014-08-04T14:48:40.839-05:002014-08-04T14:48:40.839-05:00Pierce, Just curious, what is the constant mental ...Pierce, Just curious, what is the constant mental mechanizations and conversations you are having in your head with me? For example, in this thread (let alone the others):<br /><br /><i>“This is the distinction that you refuse to accept”</i><br /><i>”you are still stuck in the 1970's paradigm and fuss when you can't also keep others within it with your criticisms.“</i><br /><i> “So while it suits you to figure out who scored points in an "us vs. them" situation”</i><br /><i>“Sorry if that doesn't work for you. “</i><br /><i>”Get a grip”</i><br /><i> “that you refuse to acknowledge that there are core doctrines in the church that are official,“</i><br /><i> “you get caught up in all of the superfluous stuff and have no interest in the actual important message that we focus on IN the church and as individuals” </i><br /><i> “As though "conceding" somehow takes away from my beliefs or discipleship. “</i><br /><br />Where do all these conversations in your head come from?Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32407634829688931052014-08-04T14:43:13.322-05:002014-08-04T14:43:13.322-05:00Oh, I see. You dislike your reflection because it...Oh, I see. You dislike your reflection because it lacks the same creative that you lack. That makes sense, lacking original thought, your reflection just leaves where you started.<br /><br />I never said you said “you cannot define what doctrine is.” I said you provided no definition and again in your retort, you still provide no definition. It is just a matter of fact that you cannot, or if you can, for some bizarre reason you refuse to provide one. <br /><br /><i>“Your obtuse critical statements demonstrate that you refuse to acknowledge that there are core doctrines in the church that are official”</i> Wow, now you are calling FAIR obtuse. Glad I am not the only one you embarrass yourself via simplistic name calling. According to FAIR, there are no core doctrines except, “concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day” So according to you, FAIR would be <i>“obtuse”</i>.<br /><br />To suggest that BRM could have used his vast dictatorial powers to remove the predominate, defacto view of the Fall is strawman argument to the discussion of “McConkie’s view” verses “the view”. Again you provide no rejoinder to “Your rejoinder that McConkie is responsible for the transcription is as silly as saying the typesetter is responsible” Nonetheless Wikipedia contradicts your all-responsibility claims for BRM. Monson was chair and the BYU documentary does not even mention BRM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Dictionary_(LDS_Church) If I am grasping at straws, then you are grasping at thin air. Well at least I have a grip on something, like you requested. Why do you demand other people get a grip, but think you do not have to?<br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you conceded, “ if I were to join the Mormon Church I would be institutionally misled on doctrine as much as any other church.” And “Mormons have no more access to divinity than the rest of humanity." Conceding these things would make you a critic of the Mormon Church. Like I say it is hard to tell. You appear to concede, but pretend you are not a critic.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48486091845858984692014-08-04T12:43:43.819-05:002014-08-04T12:43:43.819-05:00Greg,
"the distinction between the instituti...Greg,<br /><br />"the distinction between the institutional church and the individuals within the church is just as meaningless as the distinction between official and unofficial doctrine"<br /><br />Then the judgmental version of me would say that the person who believes this depends too much on the institutional church. There is a distinction, and there always was. Joseph did not write creeds that defined all of our doctrine and he despised that idea. Though there has existed an emphasis on orthodoxy in the church over the years, ignoring the distinction doesn't mean it isn't there. It's true that this doesn't help in the way of defining "official doctrine," but my statement wasn't meant to.<br /><br />My opinion is that some doctrines are indeed "official." Just because we have have removed this moniker from several doctrines that we now don't consider to be official, doesn't mean there aren't official, or core doctrines that are almost universally accepted. For example, I haven't seen us change our stance that the Savior was literally resurrected and that we will be too. That's pretty official. <br /><br />"Seem a lot like creeds to me."<br /><br />Then you must not have read a lot of the popular Christian creeds. Or read the Catechism of the Catholic church. The articles of faith do not contain all of our doctrines that we would consider "official." For example, it does not mention the 3 degrees of glory. That JS listed a few key beliefs in a letter once should not be even considered in the same league as a "Nicene Creed," which attempts to define the nature of God in an official capacity at a days-long council. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53712328604413812732014-08-04T12:30:36.902-05:002014-08-04T12:30:36.902-05:00"The best part was your inability to provide ..."The best part was your inability to provide a single example of modern revelation. Again, conceding. Mormons have no more access to divinity than the rest of humanity."<br /><br />As though "conceding" somehow takes away from my beliefs or discipleship. I believe that Mormonism has a unique and correct message about our relationship with God and what He wants us to do, and that it is applicable to everyone. That, in no way, limits someone else's access to him.<br /><br />I have come to learn that the gospel that Joseph Smith brought out of obscurity is not diminished by what seems like a lack of church-wide revelations.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49731132201089065282014-08-04T12:28:34.703-05:002014-08-04T12:28:34.703-05:00Momog,
"Success! I have successfully taught ...Momog,<br /><br />"Success! I have successfully taught you to see your own reflection."<br /><br />Mimicking people does not teach anything. It actually shows a lack of creativity and makes me question whether or not you can speak using an original thought.<br /><br />"Get your story straight."<br /><br />I'm sorry, what's my "story?" Have we had a discussion about the credibility of critics? I don't recall. Whether or not they are credible is immaterial. I'm a bit more interested in the actual criticism. And what you are talking about is not a unique position for "critics." Many members in the church have debated for years whether or not there was death before the fall, and what to make of fossils and other evidence--leaders included. Other sects of Christianity are also involved in the discussion. So while it suits you to figure out who scored points in an "us vs. them" situation, it doesn't really matter to me. The answer to your question then: I....guess?<br /><br />"Of course this runs into immediate difficulties because many things ”found in scriptures (several books) and has been and is unanimously taught” are no longer claimed doctrine by apologist."<br /><br />I have never said "you cannot define what doctrine is." Whether or not it suits you to believe this, I believe that there are very, very few doctrines in the church that are "official doctrines," and my consideration might be different from others. But guess what, it was designed to be that way from the beginning with Joseph Smith, who refused to write creeds similar to other Christian denominations. Sorry if that doesn't work for you. <br /><br />"What?? When did I accept or refuse to accept anything?"<br /><br />Your obtuse critical statements demonstrate that you refuse to acknowledge that there are core doctrines in the church that are official, and then there are other doctrines that people teach that are based on assumption about those things. It has been explained to you many times, yet here you are again. If you are going to tell me that you accept this, then we have no argument. If not, let's not pretend.<br /><br />"The argument itself demonstrates that the divinely inspired leadership has been entirely unable to keep incorrect doctrine, speculation, legends, etc. from running rampant in the Mormon Church"<br /><br />So basically, it is the leadership's responsibility to remove the human aspect out of their callings as well as the general membership? The purpose of "leadership" is to provide the gospel of Christ and the ordinances to the world. At no point, in my belief, has that ceased since Joseph Smith. That many have publicly taught ideas outside the scope of that calling, or believed that it was part of the gospel message, does not cancel out the core of what they do provide. The problem with someone as critical as you who is outside of the church is that you get caught up in all of the superfluous stuff and have no interest in the actual important message that we focus on IN the church and as individuals. It is much more personal than "being misled by an institutional church" over doctrines that are often peripheral at best (this topic, for example). <br /><br />"Own up to the fact that Mormanity wrote, and I quote, “McConkie's views in the Bible Dictionary” Blatant deception. It was not “McConkie’s view”, it was THE view."<br /><br />So there was NO other view in the church concerning this issue? James E Talmage believed there was no death before the fall? Mormon students and scientists didn't? Again, trying to shoe-horn everyone in the church into one entity, who then influenced BRM to include it into the BD by popular demand, is of course absurd. Just like his book, he included this particular popular view (among others) into the Bible Dictionary, even though he didn't have to. It was his decision. He could have left it out since it is not in our revelations.<br />But you will grasp onto straws until the end, like always.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31697071277388063302014-08-04T09:25:47.559-05:002014-08-04T09:25:47.559-05:00"If we view the scriptures as nothing more th..."If we view the scriptures as nothing more than inspired fiction then there is very little incentive to understand them outside of our own narrow understanding and cultural biases."<br /><br />People who view the scriptures as historical do that all the time. How many times have Old Testament stories been reduced to lessons about how we should do our home teaching? Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23352690865325587352014-08-04T09:22:52.932-05:002014-08-04T09:22:52.932-05:00"There is merit in viewing the scriptures as ..."There is merit in viewing the scriptures as historical texts because it forces us to learn and view how God has related with all of his children in all ages of the earth and not just during the time when social norms and expectations were in close alignment with ours."<br /><br />I used to view the scriptures as historical, and that led me to see a big disconnect between how God dealt with people in the past vs. how he deals with us now. Now I interpret the scriptures through the lens that things haven't changed that much. People have always had spiritual experiences like the ones I and my associates have had, and people sometimes embellish. Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47488110778662139522014-08-04T09:18:59.548-05:002014-08-04T09:18:59.548-05:00I must say I am very impressed with the thoughtful...I must say I am very impressed with the thoughtfulness and clarity of the two responses above. I still think Greg is right, but I want to thank you both (Quantumleap24 and Greg) for delineating your positions so well. You are a credit to the blogosphere.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61242974640392321632014-08-04T08:21:40.020-05:002014-08-04T08:21:40.020-05:00One of the fundamental assumptions of science is t...One of the fundamental assumptions of science is that under similar conditions, people have similar experiences. This is essentially the criterion of reproducibility in experimentation and the principle of analogy in history. Maybe Balaam did have a talking ass, but which is more likely, that he had a talking ass or that storytellers merely said he did? By historical analogy, a talking ass is unlikely, but people embellishing stories over time is quite likely. If I conclude that the talking ass is historical, I'm not applying the same standards of evaluating probability to the story of Balaam that I do to everything outside the scriptures. In order to believe that the scriptures are mostly historical, you have to suspend the standards of probability that you normally apply to everything else. A lot of smart, educated believers do this because human beings are very good at compartmentalization. I've chosen not to compartmentalize to that degree. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I was able to have a conversation with my Sunday school class about the story of Balaam. We talked about aspects of the story that can be applied to our lives that I won't go into. Whether Balaam actually had a talking ass was immaterial to the discussion. We were interacting with the literary character Balaam. The literary character is all you can interact with whether there ever was a real Balaam or not. <br /><br />Based on empirical evidence, I feel it's safe to predict that God will not tell me not to do something, then tell me I can do it but block my donkey's path with an invisible angel, then allow my donkey to talk to me to tell me about the angel before he allows me to see the angel myself. I can ponder this story in a positive way whether it will ever happen to me or not. Whether it's worth pondering is an individual decision based on cultural relevance. <br /><br />If your next-door neighbor told you that his dog talked to him and told him there was an invisible angel in the room, would you believe him? Why not? Would you pray to God and ask if he was telling the truth? Probably not. Why apply a different standard to a book written by people you've never met than to people you know? Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45632136149582612272014-08-03T22:04:03.702-05:002014-08-03T22:04:03.702-05:00Orbiting Kolob and Greg,
There is a fundamental d...Orbiting Kolob and Greg,<br /><br />There is a fundamental difference between viewing the scriptures as a scientific guide vs. a historical document. It should be fairly obvious that the scriptures were not written as a post-Enlightenment, modern, systematic exposition of scientific facts. But they were written as historical documents that record historical events. Just because they do not adhere to our current concept of historical rigor does not mean that the events reported therein do not have historical basis. Also just because certain parts of the scriptures rely on oral tradition does not mean that the people mentioned there in are not real historical figures.<br /><br />As to the question of viewing scriptures as narrative fiction, if you do then you are missing an extensive realm of understanding regarding the nature of the relationship between God and man. There is merit in viewing the scriptures as historical texts because it forces us to learn and view how God has related with <i>all</i> of his children in <i>all</i> ages of the earth and not just during the time when social norms and expectations were in close alignment with ours.<br /><br />If we view the scriptures as nothing more than inspired fiction then there is very little incentive to understand them outside of our own narrow understanding and cultural biases. There will be things that we will miss that are necessary for our salvation that we will not even be aware that we are missing, things relating to the importance of the temple, the status of the people of God, His relationship to us and how we receive our salvation. All these things require a historical view of the scriptures.<br /><br />I remember once talking to a Philosophy major who insisted that he could understand the ideas behind general relativity without learning any of the math. Having just spent two semesters in graduate level classes on general relativity I could safely say that there is no way he or anyone else could understand general relativity without also understanding the math associated with it. Even if you refuse to learn the math, by the time you know enough about general relativity to really understand it on a useful level you would have no problem understanding the math. I you tried to learn it completely without learning any math you would have to in effect reinvent the same fundamental principles of math to understand general relativity.<br /><br />The same holds true for understanding the scriptures. You can insist that they are not historical, but by the time you understand them in their fullest sense (i.e. in the sense where they are useful for salvation and exaltation) then you will have reconstructed a historical view of the scriptures. So why reinvent the wheel?<br /><br />But rather than wondering about it, try asking God to lead you to understanding. If you are willing He will answer your prayer and show you the wonderful understanding that is possible by knowing that the people mentioned in scripture, Adam to Alma, are real people.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17881137445151034002014-08-03T06:43:13.470-05:002014-08-03T06:43:13.470-05:00Great site you have here.. It's hard to find e...Great site you have here.. It's hard to find excellent writing like yours these days. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!Erland Tamboenhttp://tamboenman.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82103453846522212122014-08-02T09:39:30.386-05:002014-08-02T09:39:30.386-05:00Orbiting Kolob,
For what it's worth, I agree ...Orbiting Kolob,<br /><br />For what it's worth, I agree with the statement that the basic truths of the LDS faith do not depend on the historicity of the Bible and Book of Mormon, but as an active Mormon, I do not feel that I can state this publicly to members of my ward. How wide the divide. I hope that the church could thrive if a significant number of members came to endorse this point of view, but I'm not sure that it could.Gregnoreply@blogger.com