The Blade of Averroes (and fundamentalism)

[Anonymous]

For those of you like this sort of thing, there’s a new ‘Mormon Apologetic’ who has started blogging. There’s heaps of content:

http://averroes2.blogspot.com

I liked this one,

http://averroes2.blogspot.sg/2013/07/the-prophet-joseph-smithanti.html

Quote:

Religious fundamentalism is a cancer. It can also be very appealing. It is very simple and doesn’t require any rigorous thought or study. Everything is black or white. Everything is certain, nothing is ambiguous. It can be taught by, and to, the illiterate as well as the learned. Fundamentalism, to some extent, frees people from the responsibility of making their own decisions. All one has to do is point to a text and say “That’s the answer.” The original context of the text or the reader’s own situation are unimportant.

The following are three features of fundamentalism, in western religions, that I think are the most dangerous and have no place in an authentic Mormonism:

(1)The scriptures are perfect and infallible.

(2)The scriptures are the only reliable sources of truth.

(3)God views religious outsiders unfavorably.

The Prophet Joseph Smith: Anti-Fundamentalist

(1) The Prophet Joseph Smith did not believe in perfect or infallible scriptures. His translation of the Book of Mormon references it’s own imperfection many times(Mormon 8:17, Mormon 9:31, Ether 12:25-26). Joseph Smith made revisions to his Book of Mormon translation and the Doctrine and Covenants, publishing four editions of the Book of Mormon and three editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Prophet Nephi says that the Bible is missing many “plain and precious things”(1 Nephi 13:29). Joseph also taught that the first verses of the Bible were altered to hide a plurality of gods, “When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods’ “(KFD).

(2)The Prophet Joseph Smith did not believe the scriptures are the only reliable sources of truth. He said: “The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

(3)The Prophet Joseph Smith did not believe God views religious outsiders unfavorably. He said: “The Mussulman condemns the Heathen, the Jew, and the Christian, and the whole world of mankind that reject his Koran as infidels, and consigns the whole of them to perdition, the Jew believes that the whole world that rejects his faith, and are not circumcised, are gentile dogs, and will be damned. The Heathen are equally as tenacious about their principles, and the Christian consigns all to perdition who cannot bow to his creed, and submit to his ipse dixit. But while one portion of the human race are judging and condemning the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care, and paternal regard; he views them as his offspring; and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good; and sends his rain on the just and unjust…he will judge them ‘not according to what they have not, but what they have’.”

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the link.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

JS was that way…but what are we now?

[Anonymous]

Silent Dawning, we are surrounded by many ingrained fundamentalists.

I’m just glad that I don’t have to be one. And I’m glad there are plenty of resources to reassure myself it’s not an expectation.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“I want to discuss my own personal hermeneutic method, which I have taken from Averroes. Averroes(Ibn Rushd) was a Muslim philosopher, physician and astronomer from Cordoba, Spain. He had a theory for interpreting the Quran, which I call “The Blade of Averroes”. I have adopted this “blade” to interpret the scriptures in my own religion. It works for me.

Averroes believed the Quran was the revealed word of God; he was also a scientist or sorts. In his Fasal al-maqal, Averroes says: “If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demonstrative conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically.” That is the blade of Averroes.

Simple enough, the problem many Mormons have had is that when a scientific discipline conflicts with the apparent meaning of scripture they throw away that scientific discipline, in order to retain their belief. Even worse, some have made the disastrous choice of forsaking their faith and the covenants they have made with God. This binary thinking is not necessary.

The big bang, prayer, organic evolution, the gift of the Holy Ghost, quantum physics and the atonement of Jesus Christ have all been revealed by our Heavenly Father. He has told us: “Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—.”

If something is demonstrably true then it is useful for interpreting scripture, discerning facts from allegory, for all truth comes to us from our Heavenly Father.”

This is his July 22 post. I didn’t have the foggiest idea who Averroes was, so in case others are like me….

Thanks for connecting to his site.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Quote:

“I want to discuss my own personal hermeneutic method, which I have taken from Averroes. Averroes(Ibn Rushd) was a Muslim philosopher, physician and astronomer from Cordoba, Spain. He had a theory for interpreting the Quran, which I call “The Blade of Averroes”. I have adopted this “blade” to interpret the scriptures in my own religion. It works for me.

Averroes believed the Quran was the revealed word of God; he was also a scientist or sorts. In his Fasal al-maqal, Averroes says: “If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demonstrative conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically.” That is the blade of Averroes.

Simple enough, the problem many Mormons have had is that when a scientific discipline conflicts with the apparent meaning of scripture they throw away that scientific discipline, in order to retain their belief. Even worse, some have made the disastrous choice of forsaking their faith and the covenants they have made with God. This binary thinking is not necessary.

The big bang, prayer, organic evolution, the gift of the Holy Ghost, quantum physics and the atonement of Jesus Christ have all been revealed by our Heavenly Father. He has told us: “Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—.”

If something is demonstrably true then it is useful for interpreting scripture, discerning facts from allegory, for all truth comes to us from our Heavenly Father.”

This is his July 22 post. I didn’t have the foggiest idea who Averroes was, so in case others are like me….

Thanks for connecting to his site.

I’d never heard of him either and also had to read this to find out.

I’ve not read all of his content yet so it may be a mixed bag. Sometimes apologists do my head in because they contort their minds to levels of ridiculousness.

The fact that this guy kicks off by saying “some things make no sense, maybe they’re just metaphors” makes me willing to read the rest of his stuff (slowly, when I have time!)

[Author]

Posts