[Euhemerus]

I agree with hawkgrrrl. I think sentimentality has, in many cases, replaced spirituality. And in our hyper-sensitive society, anything that threatens the sentimentality is strongly condemned.

But if I’m being honest, I think the entire idea that somehow intellectuality hinders spirituality represents a misunderstanding. I cannot understand why a God would implant such abilities into the beings it creates, then ask them to sideline those abilities in favor of something they’re not comfortable with. I respect spiritual manifestations as a mechanism for getting to truth (though I admit I find them less reliable due to the tight coupling of emotion) and recognize some people will be better at that than others. Being “intellectual” can stumble in the same way (being tied to emotions) but also has favorable mechanisms for dealing with those stumbling blocks (i.e. peer reviewed journals, a society of colleagues who will critique your work etc.). Such mechanisms don’t exist for religious experience. My spiritual manifestation is supposedly just as valid as anyone else’s is even if they say entirely contradictory things. Furthermore, the society surrounding intellectual ideas is ruthless. If your ideas suck, it will be made known to you disregarding your feelings. In the religious community such a tactic would be completely unacceptable.

As a result, the religion I accept as “true” will need to hold up to both intellectual and spiritual scrutiny. If it does not demonstrate itself on both accounts I don’t think I can concede that God is the author. I don’t think this means I need to be able to understand everything, but it should add up intellectually, as well as spiritually. And I will say that if the attitude of needing to understand something intellectually prevents my salvation then I will accept my hell with open arms. I would rather live a hell than have a heaven that requires me to suspend my reasoning and better judgment (not saying this is the case in Mormonism)!

Perhaps part of the problem is that we continue to subject our religion to intellectual scrutiny. If we saw it more as personal truth rather than absolute truth we would not feel the need to subject it to such rigorous intellectual standards. Maybe it is a major misinterpretation to conclude that Mormonism represents absolute truth. Maybe that’s not what God intended. Maybe Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, etc. are just as valid personal truths as Mormonism and that’s really what’s important.

[Euhemerus]

Ray-

Thanks for you thoughts. I really don’t have anything insightful to add, just wanted to let you know I appreciated the post.

I have never thought much about how my words may or may not be used in the future. Frankly, it has never occurred to me that someone might care at all. However, I do hope that my words are used as a portal to who I am as a person. For Joseph Smith, I think his words are much more interesting when we use them to try and understand who Joseph was as a person, rather than arguing over their accuracy.

[Euhemerus]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

All I’m saying is that sometimes their agendas make me somewhat suspicious about what they say and what evidence they dig up and choose to include in their work while apparently deliberately excluding anything positive towards Mormonism as if they only want to present one side of the story (theirs). If I’m going to take the time to read a book cover-to-cover then I would much rather see both sides of the story similar to what Richard Bushman has done here.

Yes, I think I can fully agree with that. For me, the other side of the coin is that I’ve read several hagiographic biographies of Joseph Smith that did the same thing in the opposite, deliberately excluding anything negative towards Mormonism or Joseph. In fact, this type of thing leads many to disaffection as they are not properly “inoculated” as it were. As you said, I’m more interested in seeing both sides, and I agree that Bushman has done a pretty good job of this.

Ultimately, I think where I have a problem is the stigma that somehow anti-Mormons are the only ones who have this little thing called bias (I know you’re not saying that), and that their agenda somehow is indicative of their research. When I went through my faith crisis I had a close friend tear apart the Wikipedia page on the Book of Mormon citing things like the “tone” of the article, and disparaging the references made therein. As I dug deeper I found the Wikipedia article (like most of them) to be fairly good and balanced. It was my friend who had the bias. I have later found this to be a common apologist technique – apply a liberal ad hominem attack casting doubt on all research because of a personality flaw or tone in the message. Personally, I think this type of attack says more about the apologists that it does about the person or research being discredited.

I think the hallmarks of good research are something everyone should familiarize themselves with over the course of their life. Learning to distinguish truth from error is critical to not being deceived. On the other hand, this is all said from the POV of a truthseeker. As my wife would remind me, there are those less interested in truth, and more interested in just living life! That’s why I’m here discussing this with you all, and she’s playing with my kids. 😆 😆

[Euhemerus]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I actually am of the persuasion that I would rather see the facts and draw my own conclusions, but even the “facts” are very messy and much less cut and dry than we would like.

As a former history teacher, I agree with that statement completely. It’s interesting that there might not have been a single event in the history of the world that was interepreted the same way by everyone who expereinced it to some degree – much less by those who were further and further removed from it. It sounds a bit hyperbolic to say that, but it’s one of the few things I believe is Absolute Truth – that history (even immediate history) is not as easy to understand as most people think.

Ray, incidentally, I’m wondering if you happened to read that “suspensive historiography” post at BCC the other day (I linked to it above)? If so, as a history teacher what did you think of his ideas? I think his ideas give books like Brodie’s a bit more credit, even if she does project onto Joseph what she thinks he was thinking.

[Euhemerus]

DA wrote:

Personally, I don’t really trust the accuracy of most anti-Mormon propaganda or even the opinions of disaffected or excommunicated Church members like Grant Palmer or D. Michael Quinn. If people have an axe to grind then sometimes it’s hard to separate the facts from all the biased opinions and hearsay specifically selected and formulated to support some author’s agenda.

I actually disagree with this. I think good research is good research no matter the source. The Tanner’s have produced some very good research, and yet they are the quintessential anti-Mormons. And while Quinn may be excommunicated, he is nowhere near an anti-Mormon – in fact he’s a believer. Personally, I think Bushman’s work stands up to scrutiny regardless of whether or not he is a Mormon. And so does Quinn’s (most of the time).

Personally, I think a better approach is to look at each author’s research independent of their personal biases. It should be able to stand or fall on its own merits. Additionally, it may very well be a misnomer that “suspensive historiography” is actually history. There is an article at BCC here that makes a good case against it. I actually am of the persuasion that I would rather see the facts and draw my own conclusions, but even the “facts” are very messy and much less cut and dry than we would like.

[Euhemerus]

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

The KJV is translated almost exclusively from Erasmus’ work, which was based almost exclusively on a single 12th century manuscript that is acknowledged by experts to be one of the worst available.

That’s a bit of a biased statement, but anyway.

I admit it is definitely a generalization, but it’s pretty accurate. Not sure what your sources are but Ehrman mentions this several times. The KJV was translated by 47 scholars using the textus receptus (see here). The textus receptus was a series of manuscripts produced by Erasmus. Erasmus only had 6 manuscripts available to him for his translation (though he had studied others). Most of his work relies on one 12th century manuscript called the “Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2.” The other manuscripts were partials. For the parts of the NT wherein he had no manuscripts he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. This is where we get the Johannine Comma from. I think my statement is pretty accurate.

SamBee wrote:

Besides which, many of the contemporary Bible translations use source material which agrees with RC doctrine (since the Catholic church backs some of them) or else tone down the anti-homosexual material (e.g. NIV) because of the personal preferences of some of those involved, such as Virginia Mellenkott and Marten H. Woudstra. Say what you like about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality/phobia, but changing the translation to suit yourself is not right. A translation should keep the sense of the original.

That’s because they all use the same source manuscript, the Textus Receptus which is one of the worst available.

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

I would love to see Ehrman’s analysis of the JST Bible. I suspect he would dismiss it as not that great a translation.

The JST isn’t a translation of the existing manuscripts, it’s either supposedly an explanation of what’s really meant, or a revelation of what the original said, IMHO.

That’s correct. I thought I made that clear. That’s why I think Ehrman would find it unimpressive. Joseph was not being a textual critic but a revelator.

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

g. Alterations minimizing pagans.

Not sure why you include this, or the woman caught in adultery. The story of the woman caught in adultery fits in with many of the other teachings given IMHO.

Not sure what you mean. The point of textual criticism is to discover what was in the original. According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That’s the whole point. The alterations minimizing pagans were one of the sets of intentional modifications that scribes and translators inserted to elevate their own ideas and theologies. Hence it is an embellishment of the original and does not belong.

[Euhemerus]

Old-Timer wrote:

Btw, there is another thread about this book here at: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1213

Ah, oops, my bad! I was lazy and didn’t look to see if there was one already.

[Euhemerus]

cwald wrote:

Unbelievable. Can you believe that? I’m not sure how all you folks over there can do it. I don’t have the patience or the PR skills. There is no way I could sit back and just merrily “converse” with folks who talk like that. Actually, that is a good reminder to me why I can’t go home and visit the fam.

I don’t mean this directed to you personally, but the general “you.” The key is to realize that many people might be thinking the same thing about you! Taking this view makes it much easier to compassionately discuss.

[Euhemerus]

Rix wrote:

Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.

Hmmm, that’s an interesting point Rix, I had not thought of that. If I take the approach that Joseph’s claims were literally true, I have a really hard time figuring out why we don’t use the JST.

However, it seems to me that “evidence” for Joseph’s claims, if nothing else, has ramped up! I remember E Maxwell’s talk not that long ago that mentioned the church would no longer allow critics to “slam dunk” the church. And hence modern apologetics in the church was born. And they seem to still be going strong. But perhaps they don’t want to add one more thing on the apologist table. I dunno.

Incidentally, Bruce McConkie once said that the JST Bible was the best version of the bible on earth. This is why I’m led to the conclusion that it is more tradition than anything. We have a pretty hard time, in our church, breaking with tradition.

[Euhemerus]

All I can say is that it should have happened long long ago, and I think it’s rather unfortunate that the book is as popular as it is. It only serves as fuel to the fundamentalist fire (no offense to Bruce in Montana). It’s like speculation gone wild!

In my current ward, one guy brings it to church frequently and uses it in our EQ discussions. Not a big fan! Besides, don’t we have much of the relevant mormon doctrine according to McConkie in the Bible Dictionary?

Incidentally, I would have no problem with continued printing if the title were changed to something like “The Gospel According to Bruce R. McConkie.” I still probably wouldn’t like it much, but at least I wouldn’t be bothered when people quoted from it as if it were really Mormon Doctrine!

[Euhemerus]

@all

I made a few small edits to the review for accuracy. I had stated that nothing was written for 40 years after Christ’s death. That may not be true, as some apocryphal books may have been written before the canonized books were. However, to the best of our knowledge, the actual canonized books were not written until at least 40 years after Jesus’ death (depending on whose scholarship you buy into).

[Euhemerus]

Oh man, lots of great responses. I’ll just add my “drop in the bucket.”

I’m mostly on-board with Rix (not sure about all the “illusion” stuff, despite general relativity. I think I’m too much of a pragmatist). I despise labels, so I categorically reject questions that ask me to identify with a pre-set statement (sorry Cadence). So my answer to the question is “I don’t know” (I know it’s very unsatisfying). At the end of the day, my biggest mistake in life, pre-disaffection, was my undying certainty in my perception of the church and Gospel. I will not be deceived by such a psychological trick again. As a result, I remain skeptical, uncertain, embracing, wishy-washy, believing, disbelieving, agnostic, atheist, theist, Mormon, Buddhist, etc. all rolled into one.

[Euhemerus]

Cadence wrote:

Brian Johnston wrote:

The other huge problem is what happens when one brick in that wall of truth crumbles? It’s very all-or-nothing. The person did not pray about different ideas in the Church. They sought an all-encompassing package answer. If one thing might not be true, what about everything else? You asked for a package answer, you got a package solution. 😯 There might be 9 good and spiritually valuable things for a person participating in the LDS religion, but if the 10th isn’t true (we find out something that really bothers us), then we are likely to throw it all away in search of the correct package deal. What if one size doesn’t in fact fit all?

Very accurate observation. The problem is the church leaders do not preach this. They are very much in the camp of an all or nothing approach. It is left up to individuals to wade through all the stuff and find what works. Then deal with the initial guilt that they are not 100% onboard.

Yeah, you’re right Cadence. The way I look at this is to ask what I would expect them to do. Would it be reasonable to expect them to preach that sometimes, on some issues they got it wrong and will get it wrong in the future? What is the recipe for identifying the false claim? Is it a false claim for everyone, or just some people?

I recognize, and sympathize with this sentiment, but when I look at the situation, I’m not sure what else I would expect!

[Euhemerus]

HiJolly wrote:

I think that we are required to live in congruence with every ‘commandment’ that deep down within ourselves, we believe is ‘true’. Consciously or not. And I believe that we are tasked with working the list over. There are tools for doing this, but first we must realize the task at hand, and then we must use the tools, again, with integrity.

Actually, this would be my response to my question. Good thoughts HiJolly!

[Euhemerus]

Heber13 wrote:

I would say none are in general necessary. I only know of some that are necessary for Heber13 (the ones that are helpful in becoming more Christ-like), and make no claims on the rest of the world. I fully believe my good buddy of another faith is further along in becoming more God-like than myself…because he’s a better guy than I am. But that’s ok, the race isn’t on speed but on destination.

Wuss! Seriously though, now you’re starting to sound like me. Soon you’ll be a relativist! 😯 😯 (not sayin’ I am one BTW)

[Author]

Posts