How important is the history of this church?

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I’m a literal person, and if Joseph didn’t literally do the things he claims, then to me, the Church isn’t real/true and it doesn’t work for me. So by saying that how history matters depends on the person, I mean just that. It causes some people like me to lose their testimonies, it causes others to change terms/definitions/frameworks so they can still benefit and believe, and some disregard the history and still believe the literal truth.

I’m gonna put on a hat I haven’t tried on before.

I wrote in a post awhile back about a movie called “Moon”. Not sure if anyone saw it but BIG SPOILER ALERT: I have to mention it to make a point. The character was manning a space station on the moon that was mining some space rock or something. His three years were up and he was to go home. He was going to get back to his wife and little girl who he hadn’t seen for three years and resume the perfect life on earth.

But his body started breaking down. Turns out, he was a clone with a three year life expectancy. The pod he was to get in to go back home, was actually his “coffin”. The memories of his past life and family were implanted. His replacement clone, who was, of course, the same as him, same memories, etc. helped him recognize this. They realize the con and try to derail it. I won’t give away the ending cause that’s not what’s important.

Anyways, my point is that the original clone character actually decided to reject this “new” information about his real life, that of a clone, and instead chose to continue to embrace the “original” life-view; that he was a father and husband who loved and was loved. This was delusional in a way, except that he was dying so he wouldn’t be able to do anything about it anyway.

My point is that the “meaning” of anything, whether real or not, is created by our own minds. If we need to “believe” in only the objective “truth” based on “facts”, we should also be aware that we are creating the meaning for these concepts: belief, truth, facts.

No matter how much we “know”, we also only “know” what we mean by “knowing”.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

My point is that the “meaning” of anything, whether real or not, is created by our own minds. If we need to “believe” in only the objective “truth” based on “facts”, we should also be aware that we are creating the meaning for these concepts: belief, truth, facts.

No matter how much we “know”, we also only “know” what we mean by “knowing”.

Simwordie, are you a philosopher ? I studied a lot of philosophy in college and your statement reminds me of the extreme skeptics in my epistemology class. Are we brains in vats? Is this world really a matrix? I’ve posted elsewhere, where I’ve pointed out that I realize I’m exercising faith in my senses, i.e., I trust them. When we look at the progress we’ve made in this world, we can thank science. Science and the scientific method are also putting faith in the senses.

For me though, trusting my sensory perceptions, and accepting the things I can test, is the best available option. Maybe someday science will be advanced enough to prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or even God. It’s unlikely, and either way, you can’t prove a negative so there will always be skeptics. How do we know Zeus isn’t real? How do we “know” Muhammad didn’t restore God’s religion to the earth? We can’t “know” these things because certain elements are untestable. Muslims accept Muhammad by placing faith in his story, and then they claim to “know” he told the truth. Mormons do the same thing with Joseph, and many people do that with science. The difference is that science has to show what it claims; empirical evidence is the best form of evidence we can ascertain at this time.

Swimwordie, it’s the law of probabilities that I’m relying on. We can come up with neat theories that philosophize about the possibilities of our existence–like Descartes did, or we can accept what is probable. What is most probable is what we can prove, and theories from Descartes or many other philosophers are useless today. Naturalists and religious philosophers don’t exactly get along. For extreme skeptics that doubt sensory perceptions, the burden of proof lies on them. What is more probable, that our sensory perceptions are accurate and real, or that this is all an illusion/dream/matrix/game? I apply the same approach to religion–the burden of proof lies with the Church and its claims. With all of the contradictory stories surrounding Joseph, the burden of proof lies with the Church to come up with valid, reliable, explanations. They do try–FARMS–but ultimately, they point to faith and the negative consequences of too much reason.

People have every right to exercise faith in religious stories, but the burden of proof lies with them if they want to challenge doubters/skeptics/non-believers. Mormonism makes bold claims, but the claims made are undercut by the history around the Church’s founding. That history is important in the sense that it helps draw lines in the sand. It pushes people away that used to believe, it keeps skeptics and non-believers away, and for those that choose to stay, it forces reconciliation, or a discarding of the evidence.

For the super devout/faithful, the history isn’t important in any real sense. It may be important in its simplified form, but real, accurate history isn’t, because it isn’t used. That’s the proof; if it was truly important to the Church, they would use the real history.

My bad jmb275, I’ll work on the spacing.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

Amen! You should get a prize.

I will accept skittles or pez!

Swimordie, “Moon” was great flick. And I like your analogy.

[Anonymous]

Wordsleuth & Swimordie:

I’ve been thinking: perhaps it would be useful to be more accurate about what a metaphor is, and is not.

Metaphors are very useful in helping us communicate, understand and retain what information we’ve learned. But their origin and intention is to communicate something. Perhaps a better distinction would be to the use of the word “metaphysical.” Metaphysical is that which comes after the physical- to discuss the spiritual.

There are plenty of metaphysical traits to our religion (and other religions), it is the plain that we’re all covering as we push along, shoulder to the wheel (metaphorically speaking).

But the Book of Mormon can’t be seen as a metaphor. Joseph Smith went to great lengths to establish it as literal, i.e., the 8 witnesses, the three witnesses. Wordsleuth is right, it is either literal or not.

Try this metaphor that I’ve come up with: People like us can be, and have been accused of wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water. The problem is as I see that leaders of the Church, priesthood holders, members in good standing, etc. not only refuse to clean or dump the bath water, or see what its doing to the baby, but they instead incline to assert that they and that we should walk on that water.

I think that we’re in the water, can’t see how to walk on it, maybe we have to swim or die.

PS: Wordsleuth, I think I understand what you think about matter. As a matter-of-fact… what matters matters.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

…For the super devout/faithful, the history isn’t important in any real sense. It may be important in its simplified form, but real, accurate history isn’t, because it isn’t used. That’s the proof; if it was truly important to the Church, they would use the real history.

What is “real” in the sense that you use it, wordsleuth23? What on earth is “accurate history”?

About 4 years ago, I saw a ‘faith promoting rumor’ make the rounds on the internet. Mostly it was seen in LDS member emails and in the Seminary system. It was a ‘historical’ portrayal of an event that I personally experienced (and the author had gotten it second-hand). As you can imagine, they got it wrong. Most of the essentials were there, but dates, sequence and quotes were a bit ‘off’. They transformed a beautiful experience attesting (in my mind, anyway) to God’s love and concern for his followers (who happened to be Church members, and missionaries to boot) to something contrived and a mere shadow of the reality.

The ‘rumor’ was contemporary, historically speaking. Move 200 years into the future, and what do we have? Something similar, I think, to the controversy (in some people’s minds) of whether the church was founded in Manchester or in Fayette. Obviously it was one or the other. Or is it so obvious? What if someone else in the day wrote that it was in Harmony, but we just haven’t found that journal yet?

History is in the past. Unless God intervenes and reveals to us what happened, were simply not going to know exactly, truly, what happened. And EVEN if we were there, we did not see into the hearts and minds of those around us, unless we were personally close to them, and even then there can be doubt concerning how much we knew, how much we understood, in truth.

Truly, one of the most disconcerting aspects of learning Church history is where we find for the first time evidences of events, of circumstances that we never supposed could be possible. And the greatest danger is ASSUMING that we know what really happened, that we understand what (for ex.) Sidney Ridgon believed or felt or knew at the time.

Add to that the secular historian’s tools for getting at the truth. People like Mike Quinn or Dan Vogel, as professional historians, have to weigh written historical evidences by probabilities, not by ‘truth’. Because no one *knows* the truth. So, they by necessity default to what is most probable. (Sounds like Richard Dawkins, eh? NOT a coincidence!)

But consider this: Ripley’s Believe It or Not. They have had decades of success and big $$ because of the fact that even though something is improbable, it actually did happen. Miracles are not probable. Yet, they happen in my life. Makes sense to me that they would happen in someone’s life 200 years ago. Yet secular historians MUST discount and actively disbelieve the individuals OWN WORDS concerning the miraculous, because they are improbable. Thus, no one CAN know the religious or spiritual truth of an event, as reported by historians.

I think this article by an LDS professional historian is quite useful: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_I_Dont_Have_a_Testimony_of_the_History_of_the_Church.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_I_Dont_Have_a_Testimony_of_the_History_of_the_Church.html

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

imwordie, are you a philosopher ? I studied a lot of philosophy in college and your statement reminds me of the extreme skeptics in my epistemology class. Are we brains in vats? Is this world really a matrix?

I pretend to be a philosopher on the internet 😳 And I play one on TV. 😆 😆

Extreme skeptic. Is that an event at the X-games? I’d do REALLY well, if so. Maybe even go pro.

I guess my argument is, yes. We’re in the matrix, but we create our own matrix. And, we’re not in the matrix, everything’s real. Ultimately, everything has to be “real” for us to determine what to do, what to think, how to react, how to interact.

So, as HiJolly and wordsleuth said, probability is the ultimate determiner of our own individual “real matrix”. Discussing/arguing these points is really fun, but the meaning is always personal to the individual.

Our lives are completely determined/meaningful only in the realms of actual human relationships/interaction. Since everyone has their own “matrix” to navigate, we’re finding commonalities to help us along the process.

So, it’s all really relevant only to the point that commonalities can help both the individual and the “community”. Both for physical survival and emotional satisfaction.

That’s why, for example, this site is helpful to me, personally. I can find commonalities to “stay” in the lds community for emotional satisfaction. But, my personal matrix includes a “history” of emotional abuse inside of this “community” which makes this process much more complex and demanding for me. I have to weigh the probabilities of continued emotional satisfaction and how I can attain such in this “community”.

In this way, I am creating my own “meaning” or matrix in which to navigate. No one, I imagine, would recognize this matrix, just as I would probably not recognize any one else’s.

One last example: I used to trust my physical reactions (goose bumbs) were from an external source (Holy Ghost). I now recognize that these physical reactions are internal, created by my mind, possibly in concert with “something” subconscious inside me, a “light”, a “conscience”, a “soul”.

What are the probabilities that this will be refuted in the future? Neurological research is moving at great strides right now, so maybe this will be answered in my lifetime.

Then, I’ll reconsider and have more to be skeptical about. 😆

[Anonymous]

Quote:

One last example: I used to trust my physical reactions (goose bumbs) were from an external source (Holy Ghost). I now recognize that these physical reactions are internal, created by my mind, possibly in concert with “something” subconscious inside me, a “light”, a “conscience”, a “soul”.

That’s what I experience, too. I often wonder if our spiritual experiences are like an internal computer program that gets activated based on different stimuli.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

swimordie wrote:

My point is that the “meaning” of anything, whether real or not, is created by our own minds. If we need to “believe” in only the objective “truth” based on “facts”, we should also be aware that we are creating the meaning for these concepts: belief, truth, facts.

No matter how much we “know”, we also only “know” what we mean by “knowing”.

Simwordie, are you a philosopher ? I studied a lot of philosophy in college and your statement reminds me of the extreme skeptics in my epistemology class. Are we brains in vats? Is this world really a matrix? I’ve posted elsewhere, where I’ve pointed out that I realize I’m exercising faith in my senses, i.e., I trust them. When we look at the progress we’ve made in this world, we can thank science. Science and the scientific method are also putting faith in the senses. For me though, trusting my sensory perceptions, and accepting the things I can test, is the best available option. Maybe someday science will be advanced enough to prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or even God. It’s unlikely, and either way, you can’t prove a negative so there will always be skeptics. How do we know Zeus isn’t real? How do we “know” Muhammad didn’t restore God’s religion to the earth? We can’t “know” these things because certain elements are untestable. Muslims accept Muhammad by placing faith in his story, and then they claim to “know” he told the truth. Mormons do the same thing with Joseph, and many people do that with science. The difference is that science has to show what it claims; empirical evidence is the best form of evidence we can ascertain at this time. Swimwordie, it’s the law of probabilities that I’m relying on. We can come up with neat theories that philosophize about the possibilities of our existence–like Descartes did, or we can accept what is probable. What is most probable is what we can prove, and theories from Descartes or many other philosophers are useless today. Naturalists and religious philosophers don’t exactly get along. For extreme skeptics that doubt sensory perceptions, the burden of proof lies on them. What is more probable, that our sensory perceptions are accurate and real, or that this is all an illusion/dream/matrix/game? I apply the same approach to religion–the burden of proof lies with the Church and its claims. With all of the contradictory stories surrounding Joseph, the burden of proof lies with the Church to come up with valid, reliable, explanations. They do try–FARMS–but ultimately, they point to faith and the negative consequences of too much reason. People have every right to exercise faith in religious stories, but the burden of proof lies with them if they want to challenge doubters/skeptics/non-believers. Mormonism makes bold claims, but the claims made are undercut by the history around the Church’s founding. That history is important in the sense that it helps draw lines in the sand. It pushes people away that used to believe, it keeps skeptics and non-believers away, and for those that choose to stay, it forces reconciliation, or a discarding of the evidence. For the super devout/faithful, the history isn’t important in any real sense. It may be important in its simplified form, but real, accurate history isn’t, because it isn’t used. That’s the proof; if it was truly important to the Church, they would use the real history.

wordsleuth23, I have a suggestion. Could you put more blank lines between thoughts and whatnot. I really want to read your view but it’s hard to read when it’s all one ginormous paragraph. Just a suggestion.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

One last example: I used to trust my physical reactions (goose bumbs) were from an external source (Holy Ghost). I now recognize that these physical reactions are internal, created by my mind, possibly in concert with “something” subconscious inside me, a “light”, a “conscience”, a “soul”.

That’s what I experience, too. I often wonder if our spiritual experiences are like an internal computer program that gets activated based on different stimuli.

Good analogy.

I’ll give my thoughts on the importance of the history. It’s important to me for one key reason. It allowed me to seriously question what I had “known” to be true. At this point, personally, I find that the evidence suggests that the history of our church isn’t that unlike many other small protestant sects. There were “miracles” in the same way that other small sects claimed to have miracles. Joseph made mistakes as the alpha male as have others in his situation. He sought to validate his authority just as others have. He sought out a ritual to help people remain faithful to his cause just as others have. And many of the “new” ideas were ideas already in existence. The fact that our church’s history has a familiar ring allows me to see natural processes in it rather than miracles. This is where maybe we do a disservice to our fellows.

It’s like the analogy above. swimordie used to “know” that goosebumps meant the Holy Ghost was testifying or whatever. Now he has a more realistic explanation that makes it seem much less fantastic. He sees natural process in it rather than “miracles.” This is just part of growing up, learning, and understanding our world. I would like to see the church be more open, and honest about it. It will happen, it is happening.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

It’s like the analogy above. swimordie used to “know” that goosebumps meant the Holy Ghost was testifying or whatever. Now he has a more realistic explanation that makes it seem much less fantastic. He sees natural process in it rather than “miracles.” This is just part of growing up, learning, and understanding our world. I would like to see the church be more open, and honest about it. It will happen, it is happening.

Yes, I don’t think the church has a choice but to be more forthcoming about its history. The internet is forcing that. The JS Papers, RSR, the book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre by the historians (can’t remember the name), etc., all tell a history that completely contradicts what I learned in seminary in the 70s.

I find an interesting comparison today…the 7th Day Adventists. Their founder had a “dream” that became their version of the BoM. It was scripture. Recently, evidence shows it was plagiarized, but the church continues without losing many members. They have evolved to be more “Christian,” and the culture is like ours…very steeped in tradition. To an extent, I think the LDS church may evolve similarly.

Also, I had a similar re-defining of a “spiritual witness” too. My formative years (the 70s), like so many other people my age, involved listening to Conference and fireside talks by Paul H. Dunn. There was no speaker that could give you the warm fuzzies like he did. I’m sure I wasn’t alone when I said I had my most powerful spiritual experiences when hearing him. Then when we learned that many of the stories were either false or greatly exaggerated, I had to re-evaluate what it was I “felt.” One conclusion I made was that it was highly tenuous to base a “testimony” of anything historical on a feeling. And today, at 51 years old, I have had so many very emotional experiences outside “church” events, that I believe the most I can say definitively is that “it made me feel very good!”

Maybe that’s all there is.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

“it made me feel very good!”

Maybe that’s all there is.

Now THAT’S warm and fuzzy!! And gave me goosebumps

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Rix wrote:

“it made me feel very good!”

Maybe that’s all there is.

and maybe that’s enough.

Thanks, Rix.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Rix wrote:

“it made me feel very good!”

Maybe that’s all there is.

This thought scares me to death, saddens me, and makes me want to argue. Sweetly and while serving cake, of course.

I am not talking about the coming down to earth with regards to understanding spiritual communications or with re defining ones experience. That seems maturity to me. I am referring to the promises of the Lord that miracles have not ceased and that the Holy Ghost does work according to faithfulness/obedience. There must be a way to mature….see things and experience them as they are…but still find the miracles and fantastic elements.

And I was thinking about the whole baby and the bath water thing. I think that may be the heart of the intent of my OP. There is no doubt in my mind our history is important. There is a lot to be learned as we analyze from all the different perspectives. But my heart just keeps coming back to the Atonement. The Atonement is what saves. I would think my most important question would be who or where in the world is the most correct teaching/understanding on the subject. And when I think in those terms Christianity wins, and then within that realm, mormonism wins. I was reading in 2 Nephi 33 yesterday in the very last chapter where Nephi says “…and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ: and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ….” So even if I can’t believe in the BofM and its origins, then it seems that believing in Christ is more important than all the stuff my brain can’t accept. So….in the end the only way I can really walk away from the LDS church is if there is no baby. But since I am finding that the doctrine on the Atonement is sound, then it really is a process of sifting through the bath water.

[Anonymous]

This is from an article in Scientific American, by Michael Shermer. It sums up my view on the Church’s claims, why/whether the history matters, and how they can overcome the issues/problems the history and evidence create:

“Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. The statistical standards of evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial. Ideally, in a controlled experiment, we would like to be 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not caused by chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney. The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it…To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion.”

The claims made by the Church can, and have/are, been tested; so far, the tests don’t confirm anything Joseph claimed. Until evidence starts to show some level of accuracy in the BoM, PofGP, etc, I can’t believe. I know that isn’t how a lot of you feel, and I know that isn’t compatible with faith and religion, but no evidence confirms Church claims, while the current convergence of evidence says the Church isn’t true.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The claims made by the Church can, and have/are, been tested; so far, the tests don’t confirm anything Joseph claimed.

There is WAY too much in that to address properly in this thread. It really should be a thread of its own.

[Author]

Posts