- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://mormonchallenges.org/how-we-know-things/ Do you think this perspective is necessary to a balanced understanding of these issues?
I personally think this guy’s view is…there’s not a nice word for it. Ridiculous probably doesn’t cover it. I certainly do agree that we don’t know everything about almost everything, including Egyptology. The problem with this guy’s analogy is that we would have to question all of scripture then for the very same reason he states – because we don’t understand everything in context from 5000 years ago and we don’t have original sources to examine. All of our translations could be off base. Things like this are why I gave up on apologists. While the catalyst theory doesn’t really work for me, either, it’s better than this explanation.
The double meaning for football, so one word? I do get their point but to draw a better analogy it would be like finding someone’s diary about football rules and calling it an ancient funerary text. The difference in translations for the Book of Abraham go beyond a few instances where one word can share different possible meanings. From the video:
Quote:We are always finding out that the things that were taught in the past are wrong.
Quote:Presumably that’s why archeologists go out and dig is so you can find out something you didn’t know before … and if you’re going to find out something you didn’t know before then you’re going to have to revise what you thought you knew.
The irony.
🙂 Maybe that’s an aspect of a faith crisis. Sometimes our conclusions keep pace with our evolving understanding, other times our conclusions remain behind as a cherished belief. What happens when our evolving understanding really begins to challenge a cherished belief? Sometimes more understanding is the answer, sometimes more understanding only makes things worse, it can be a delicate tangle of logic and emotion.
—
I fully understand that human knowledge is constantly evolving. It’s the best thing about being human.
I also gave up on apologetics… but I can appreciate their motives. They are defenders of the faith in their own way. For me the issue it that the conclusion is often predetermined, in this case presumably the archeologist goes out and digs so they can find out something that they already know.
😈 
What I think is at issue is that people have received a spiritual witness of the conclusion. When the conclusion is unassailable truth it becomes the constant in the experiment and the available pieces of the puzzle become the variables. That’s not always a bad thing. Science often works backwards from a defined conclusion. It can be a faith building approach for some but it’s not the only faith building approach.
Differences of opinion on spiritual matters are understandable, not everyone works back from the same conclusions. Life is an experiment. Some people might make variables out of what someone else would make a control. Some people might make controls out of what someone else would make a variable. Everyone gets to run their experiment the way they want to. Everyone gets to have a different conclusion. It’s what makes life interesting.
Good point about apologists,Nibbler. I didn’t mean to cast them as evil, I only meant to say that I have a hard time with most of them because they tend to put things in their own context with foregone conclusions that don’t necessarily match mine. A few months ago I was having a discussion with a TBM friend who referred to Givens as an apologist. I took mild offense at the statement and denied they were any such thing. He then explained his view of what an apologist is – a defender of the faith. With that definition, I agree Givens is an apologist – just not the same as some apologists who seem to ask we make leaps of faith or belief that are hard to make. Putting that in context of this discussion, while the linked video/narrative takes the presupposed point of view that the Book of Abraham probably is what it has been claimed to be but we just don’t have all the evidence yet, I take the presupposed point of view that it isn’t what it’s claimed to be. For me, that doesn’t mean the BoA couldn’t be “true” or “inspired,” it just means I don’t assume it is. In the long run, at least while on Earth, it doesn’t matter to me – I’m not asked in a TR interview if I believe the BoA is true and doubter that I am, I doubt I will be asked such a question at the Pearly Gates (I have to work on remembering those tokens, though!
This reminds me of Black Swan Theory that holds essentially that there will always be something outside of our experience that we thought was impossible but is nevertheless true. I was surprised when Elder Cook referenced this in his 2009 conference address.
Quote:In a recent best-selling book, the author uses as his principal analogy the interesting fact that for centuries all Europeans believed that all swans were white. It wasn’t until the discovery of Australia that swans of a different color were discovered. The author uses this analogy to help explain events which have actually occurred but were not expected. As I thought about this analogy, I realized that many people have refused to seriously investigate the Church because they believe there can be no revelation in this dispensation.
It is true that revelation might exist and that the divinity of the LDS church might someday be proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt and that would indeed be a shock to many in the world.
However, I believe the main message behind Black Swan Theory is to only ever be tenative in our conclusions and always willing to revise them with the discovery of new information. We do not know everything and something new may be found that will need to modify our previous understanding.
How ironic that a leader in the LDS church should use this principle to defend the church. How can we say to others that they should be more open minded to the possibility of the miraculoius restoration narrative when we ourselves hold a position of stubborn intransigence that our own cherished assumptions are above question?
Could not any fringe group claim the same? That their particular radical and somewhat kooky group holds the keys to critical truth precisely because of how improbable that seems?
The “common wisdom” is always limited and is a work in progress, but on the main it doesn’t claim to be anything else. It is still learning and discovering and incorporating new information as it becomes available. That is what Black Swan Theory is all about. Be careful about certainty – because you are almost certainly wrong.
Quote:We see through a glass, darkly.
I’m okay with that – and with what we each see through our own glass varying.
Roy wrote:I believe the main message behind Black Swan Theory is to only ever be tentative in our conclusions and always willing to revise them with the discovery of new information. We do not know everything and something new may be found that will need to modify our previous understanding.
I agree with Roy’s comments.
I think only the fool thinks he knows everything for sure, the wise person knows there is more to learn and is open to it.
I would agree that the last 3 years of my life have taught me that certainty is often unattainable. I wonder if that is why I get so upset when I hear in conference, “We will not, we can not lead you astray”. It is that projection of absolute certainly that makes my blood boil.
LookingHard wrote:I would agree that the last 3 years of my life have taught me that certainty is often unattainable.
I wonder if that is why I get so upset when I hear in conference, “We will not, we can not lead you astray”. It is that projection of absolute certainly that makes my blood boil.
Likewise, that is why I have a difficult time in F&TM when people “know without a doubt” the church is true, or the BoM is true, or the myriad of other true things. Here’s what I know: they
dodoubt, they’re just trying to cover it up because they’re afraid of it. Repeating “I do believe in fairies” doesn’t make them real. Some aren’t trying to cover it up – many, in fact. Many are certain. They are being completely sincere, and they are being completely honest. For them, their certainty equals knowledge, as they define it. We don’t have to agree with the way others see anything, but we ought to be able to understand and not disparage their realities – especially if we ask or demand that they understand and not disparage ours.
For many…what they are saying is that they are certain that they believe, certain in the underlying principles…and the details are just details. And as truth becomes more clear, they’ll be certain to accept change. Point taken Ray and Heber. I’m a little on the grumpy side today. In my defense I don’t disparage them publicly – it’s all me and the voice in my head (unless this is considered public). 
Quote:When we know all there is to know about Egyptology along with how other ancient cultures used that language, and we know all there is to know about God’s intentions and methods with the Book of Abraham, there will be no conflict.
Granted that all fields of human understanding are evolving but to say that when these fields are fully evolved and fully known then they will confirm your position seems preety foolish.
What is the point of new information if we only use it to confirm what we already knew?
Roy wrote:Quote:When we know all there is to know about Egyptology along with how other ancient cultures used that language, and we know all there is to know about God’s intentions and methods with the Book of Abraham, there will be no conflict.
Granted that all fields of human understanding are evolving but to say that when these fields are fully evolved and fully known then they will confirm your position seems preety foolish.
What is the point of new information if we only use it to confirm what we already knew?
Not to mention… what do we do with ourselves while we’re waiting for that perfect knowledge to arrive? The BoA is pretty safe to put on the back-burner.
nibbler wrote:Roy wrote:Quote:When we know all there is to know about Egyptology along with how other ancient cultures used that language, and we know all there is to know about God’s intentions and methods with the Book of Abraham, there will be no conflict.
Granted that all fields of human understanding are evolving but to say that when these fields are fully evolved and fully known then they will confirm your position seems preety foolish.
What is the point of new information if we only use it to confirm what we already knew?
Not to mention… what do we do with ourselves while we’re waiting for that perfect knowledge to arrive? The BoA is pretty safe to put on the back-burner.
This is why when I look at any research, including historical research, the very first thing I look for is who funded it. It’s often (but not always) a safe bet the the outcome of the research is going to support the position of the one holding the purse-strings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.