philosophy and religion

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

I’m facing a dilemma in this argument. On the one hand, I’m glad you came to the conclusion that God exists, and that you figure the Bible is generally compatible with that belief. I certainly don’t want to argue against that. On the other hand, it makes me sad that your particular approach to theological questions led you out of Mormonism. I would like you and respect you, regardless, but I have to admit that the feeling is there. But it seems to me that you are smart and fair-minded enough to see that there might be flaws in your arguments for faith (as well as mine), so I don’t really think that anything I say would cause your “skeptical impulse” to “bubble up and dismantle, intellectually, whatever metaphysics [you] build.” So I guess what I want to accomplish by arguing in favor of giving high priority to special revelation (especially your own) is to outline why I think that sort of thing can shore you up against your skeptical impulses. Anyway, I hope you know that nothing I say is meant to tear down your faith.

I actually meant that argument to sidestep those questions. My point was to show that, whether the Greek questions and answers were right or not, the Hebrews did not start with a philosophical argument for the existence of a Necessary Being. They started with special revelation to prophets and personal experiences that led people to believe the witness of the prophets. So it seems to me that God is perfectly comfortable with people starting there, and I see no counterexamples throughout the Bible. (Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough, though.) When Christ established His Church, what did he do? He chose certain men to be witnesses of the foundational events. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner *stone” *(Eph. 2:20) And when these apostles were confronted about their teachings, they didn’t philosophize–they witnessed. “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

I agree. If you are going to allow room for faith, you have to allow that the story might be true, first.

I guess I just don’t buy that the argument from contingency really proves that there must be a single, Necessary Being. I think it’s only really strong enough to prove that one or more things “just are.” After that, I think the reasoning gets stretched a little thin. I mean, if two “infinite Beings” impinge on each other’s infinity, it seems to me that one finite being would impinge on an infinite Being’s infinity just as well. I’m not sure how the word “infinity” is being applied here, but in math class they always said that infinity plus infinity equals infinity. (Hopefully, the last few sentences made some kind of sense.)

Ok, I’m going to give you a personal example to explain why I think the way I do about this issue.

The thing is that I have my own “skeptical impulses” that I’ve had to deal with. I grew up as a Mormon, and so I was always told that I had to gain my own “testimony,” based on personal revelation by the Holy Spirit. And when I quit being an indifferent teenager, I did. I even had a number of very surprising experiences that confirmed to me that it wasn’t just my “feelings,” that were involved. I had to admit, on the other hand, that I sometimes misinterpreted what God was saying, even though I was quite sure that God was speaking, given all the experiences I had had. I figured that was ok, because my experience had been that this was something you have to grow into. But what if I was misinterpreting what God was saying to me about really important stuff?

For example, like most people I have my own perennial problems that I continually have to try to repent about, and seek God’s forgiveness. I would pray for forgiveness, try to repent, and eventually would feel God’s love and forgiveness communicated by the Holy Spirit. One day my “skeptical impulses” kicked into gear. What if this was one of those “miscommunications”? What if I felt forgiven because I subconciously wanted to feel that way? I was really worried about that. I decided to fast and pray about it for a day. I told God that I didn’t want to be some kind of “sign seeker,” but I was really worried about this issue, and I asked for something extra–I didn’t specify what–so I would know whether I should trust my sense of what God was communicating, or not. I didn’t have any “feelings” all day, even though I prayed repeatedly. Finally, I knelt down to pray by my bedside at the end of the day, and started to ask one more time.

Right then, my wife piped up. She had been reading the Book of Mormon, and said, “Hey, this is interesting.” She then read Mosiah 26:30 in the Book of Mormon, which says, “Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.” I was stunned. My wife almost never pipes up like that about such things, and she chose to do so at the exact moment I was praying for an answer just like the one contained in those verses.

Maybe this doesn’t impress you, but for me, it was exactly what I needed. Because of my OWN experiences with God, I feel I can say that God speaks to regular people, and He backs up his words, when needed.

So this is why this issue hits home for me. I actually got a minor in philosophy in college, so I knew about all the different arguments for the existence of God, and criticisms of those arguments. I was pretty well read about arguments for and against my specific faith. None of that could really build much conviction within me, but my personal experiences with God have.

I still entertain doubts, and I recognize that I don’t always have perfectly persuasive arguments to stave off criticisms of my faith. But now it doesn’t seem so urgent to have all the loose ends tied off. Don’t get me wrong–I see the value in having an intellectually consistent faith. It’s just that now the loose ends seem more like puzzles to be solved than crises.

bdawg,

Don’t worry. I don’t primarily believe in God because I can demonstrate it’s a rational thing to do, I believe because I found out that I have faith in God. It’s really something, one day I just realized that I believed in God. Before then I had hoped God was there, I had faith God was there, but I wasn’t at the place I’d say I fully believed in His existence. Then I discovered it, and it was a true ‘wow’ moment. That’s why I had to stop being a Mormon. As soon as I discovered that within myself, moments later I knew that my sojourn with Mormonism was over. So it wasn’t my approach to theological questions that led to my final break with the LDS church, it was the realization that I actually did believe in God, and the entire time I prayed to Him, I prayed to an infinite, eternal, monotheistic God. For me to continue on with Mormonism at that point would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, it wasn’t going to happen without something breaking. I’m sure that my exposure to the four proofs of God’s existence had some influence on even being able to conceive of God as I do, but they didn’t directly lead me there. I think of the four proofs as evidence of God- they show how it is reasonable and rational enough to believe, but they cannot prove conclusively that God exists. Believe me, if it was all up to me, I’d still be an agnostic having my yearly existential crisis. Happily I’ve found that it’s not all up to me.

So, I admit that I misinterpreted your first argument. I suppose in a way my paragraph above addresses that, in a way I too started with personal revelation becasue without it I would not embrace God. He has empowered me to have faith in Him (relational kind involving trust in another person, not the cognitive assent to a truth claim with no evidence kind). I have to add a few qualifiers though. One is that part of my reply to your first argument was that the early Hebrews didn’t have the same type of questions that we typically do because they didn’t have the concepts necessary to formulate those same questions-- and I stick by that. For instance, the whole reason I got interested in religion at all is because as a teenager I had those typical existential questions: why do I exist? Why does something exist instead of nothing? What does it mean for me to be able to be able to wonder about these questions??. Pondering those ideas is how I ran into Mormons in the first place, and joined the church, but I lost sight of those questions as I became a Mormon. I had many powerful experiences as a Mormon, and as a result, tried to ignore those questions since I never found the Mormon answer to those questions at all compelling. Now my questions are answered, and I find that I have a steady kind of belief in God that I have never before experienced… and I believe that is in part because my rational, questioning side is free and openly engaged with my spiritual side. It has allowed me to have solid faith and not simply try to anchor myself mentally to the last ‘Holy Ghost experience’ that I had and wait it out.

You mention that my reasoning may be flawed and so I ought not place too much emphasis on that. Yes, I agree, my reasoning may be flawed, but couldn’t this objection be thrown back at you… how do you know that you can trust your personal revelations? After all, Mormons aren’t the only ones to report having strong spiritual experiences or witnessing miracles, lots of people do, with contradictory beliefs. Why trust subjective experiences above reasoning?

Obviously I can’t judge your experiences at all. You’re a thoughtful person and you know what you are talking about so the best we can hope for at the end of the day is an impasse.

 

[BDawg]

Hi nebula,

Well, Rebecca says I’m “invincibly ignorant,” so I guess an impasse is all YOU can hope for, at least. I don’t think she realized that if that’s so, paragraph 1793 of the Catechism says that I get a FREE PASS!

If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.

Anyway, I’m ok with coming to an impasse on this, but I’ll make one more comment about your last point.

You mention that my reasoning may be flawed and so I ought not place too much emphasis on that. Yes, I agree, my reasoning may be flawed, but couldn’t this objection be thrown back at you… how do you know that you can trust your personal revelations? After all, Mormons aren’t the only ones to report having strong spiritual experiences or witnessing miracles, lots of people do, with contradictory beliefs. Why trust subjective experiences above reasoning?

The reason I trust my personal revelations is that they have proven correct in striking ways many times, led to miracles, etc. I’m a pretty skeptical guy, by nature, and I admit that my communication skills are far from flawless. But it has been more than enough for me to conclude that there is, without doubt, “something there.” What about all those other people who report strong spiritual experiences and miracles, you ask? Mormons don’t have to discount others’ experiences, in general, but in any case, I wasn’t there. My job is to do my own experiments, try to test that via reasoning, check my reason via more experiences, check both of those against the “special revelations” I am led to believe are from God, etc. NONE of these are foolproof, so I have to keep plugging along, trying to make sense of everything.

I think my personal experiences have to be the most fundamental basis for all this, because those are the things I’m most sure of. They happened (assuming I’m not completely nuts.) On the other hand, I have trouble with the idea that some line of reasoning about what God must be like should be the basis, because 1) we both know that the reasoning is not conclusive, and 2) it’s about things that are very far removed from my experience, so just one or two false assumptions about the “nature of reality,” or whatever, and my reasoning is on a completely false track.

I’m reminded of Descartes’ “Method of Doubt”. He went about trying to figure out if there was anything it was impossible to doubt, and all he could come up with was, “I think, therefore I am.” He could doubt that the physical world exists, or that God exists, or whatever, but he couldn’t doubt that he existed, in some form. I don’t agree with all the reasoning he tried to pile onto that basis, but I think he made an important point. If I’m going to make any sense of the world, I have to start with my own experiences.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

Well, Rebecca says I’m “invincibly ignorant,” so I guess an impasse is all YOU can hope for, at least. I don’t think she realized that if that’s so, paragraph 1793 of the Catechism says that I get a FREE PASS!

Anyway, I’m ok with coming to an impasse on this, but I’ll make one more comment about your last point.

The reason I trust my personal revelations is that they have proven correct in striking ways many times, led to miracles, etc. I’m a pretty skeptical guy, by nature, and I admit that my communication skills are far from flawless. But it has been more than enough for me to conclude that there is, without doubt, “something there.” What about all those other people who report strong spiritual experiences and miracles, you ask? Mormons don’t have to discount others’ experiences, in general, but in any case, I wasn’t there. My job is to do my own experiments, try to test that via reasoning, check my reason via more experiences, check both of those against the “special revelations” I am led to believe are from God, etc. NONE of these are foolproof, so I have to keep plugging along, trying to make sense of everything.

I think my personal experiences have to be the most fundamental basis for all this, because those are the things I’m most sure of. They happened (assuming I’m not completely nuts.) On the other hand, I have trouble with the idea that some line of reasoning about what God must be like should be the basis, because 1) we both know that the reasoning is not conclusive, and 2) it’s about things that are very far removed from my experience, so just one or two false assumptions about the “nature of reality,” or whatever, and my reasoning is on a completely false track.

I’m reminded of Descartes’ “Method of Doubt”. He went about trying to figure out if there was anything it was impossible to doubt, and all he could come up with was, “I think, therefore I am.” He could doubt that the physical world exists, or that God exists, or whatever, but he couldn’t doubt that he existed, in some form. I don’t agree with all the reasoning he tried to pile onto that basis, but I think he made an important point. If I’m going to make any sense of the world, I have to start with my own experiences.

Sure, so to come to the conclusion that you ought to trust your experiences of the supernatural you have an argument. What if your reasoning behind why you ought to trust your experiences is flawed? I look at what modern psychology h as showed us about the fallibility of our experiences, how bad eye witnesses actually are at reporting the truth for instance (they intend to tell the truth, they just mess up important details, constantly), or how we tend to fill in our memories with things that didn’t really happen. The only thing Descartes could prove with his cogito is that he existed, not that his experiences of the world were trustworthy.

This may seem like nitpicking, but I’m actually pretty serious. This is a place where I think Mormonism is too trusting. If we can’t be sure that our ordinary experiences are completely trustworthy, how can we be sure that our extraordinary experiences are really that trustworthy? We can’t just be sure. We have to test out our claims, but with what, through what? It seems like you’re arguing for a pragmatic approach, alone, but that is cold comfort if you are like me and pretty interested in coming not just to conclusions which seem to ‘work’ on some level (they make me happy, overall, for instance, well what do I do with all those truly happy atheists who are happy in part because they are atheists?). That’s why I argue for another standard to filter our experiences, because whether we want to or not, we do filter them and it’s best to acknowledge that fact and try to figure out what our standards are, what our filters look like. This is where the argument from contigency comes from- I believe in God because I act as if that proposition is true. It’s rational and fits into my overall schema of knowledge because I can demonstrate that it is rational, based on my personal experinces but also through these philosophical proofs.

Impasse, imshmasse , as long as we are having fun, right?

 

[BDawg]

Hi nebula,

I can’t argue with you about being possibly mistaken, just as you admit that you are putting your eggs in the basket of some metaphysical arguments that you can see are not conclusive. I think God set things up that way because faith is such an important principle to learn.

Instead of arguing so much about unsolvable problems, how about we switch gears and try learn from each other?

So here’s my question to you–actually two. Do you agree that God requires us to live by faith? And if so, why do you think that is? I ask because I think this has a lot to do with how we approach epistemological issues like the ones we’ve been beating around.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

I can’t argue with you about being possibly mistaken, just as you admit that you are putting your eggs in the basket of some metaphysical arguments that you can see are not conclusive. I think God set things up that way because faith is such an important principle to learn.

Instead of arguing so much about unsolvable problems, how about we switch gears and try learn from each other?

So here’s my question to you–actually two. Do you agree that God requires us to live by faith? And if so, why do you think that is? I ask because I think this has a lot to do with how we approach epistemological issues like the ones we’ve been beating around.

Hi Bdwag,

I learn a lot from arguments, that’s why I search after them so much, so thanks for helping me out. I hope you don’t feel like this is a waste of time. If you do, let me know and we can quit, but truly, I enjoy debate.

By the way, I forgot all about the infinities issue. The reason why two infinite beings could not exist is that by definition a being infinitely powerful should be able to do anything logically possible. Well, that means that one ifninite being should be able to constrain the other infinite being, meaning that the second one is not truly infinite. Hence there can only be one truly infinite being.

Okay, back to the topic at hand. I’m glad you asked about faith because this is just the issue. I don’t think faith is simply giving cognitive assent to some truth claim for which we have no evidence. There is nothing meritous about that, that’s pretty much the definition of ‘to be stupid’. Even though that’s the common understanding of the word in our culture when it comes to talking about religion- nevertheless I think it’s wrong. What true faith is is trust in God to fulfill His promises and to be good to us. Abraham trusted God, and it was imputed to him as righteousness. The author of Hebrews exhorts us to trust God to fulfill His promises, and then gives many examples of how He did that through Christ (the shadow=OT, form=Christ examples). James brings up the common definition that I mentioned, faith as cognitive assent to a truth claim with no evidence, and tells us that it’s ridiculous to assume that’s going to do us any good, hence, “faith without works is dead”. That is, true faith, true trust in God as a Person, contains within the idea of works.

What all these authors do, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, is give reasons for why we ought to trust God. “God is trustworthy, let me show you why.” And, God asks us to trust Him, actively, so that our actions will come inline with His will as we grow in our trust, our faith, in Him.

What I want to emphasize, and I"m sure you’ve already figured out, is that I do not think that it is possible to have faith wihtout knowledge and reasoning. God is always mentioning to us things He’s done for us while asking us to commit to Him (like in the Pentateuch, I bought you out of the land of Egypt, just as I delivered you from the Egyptians, just as I delivered so and so into your hands, or for six days I created, on the 7th I rested … etc). God appeals to our reason because God is a rational Being and has imputed that quality to our souls. He wants our hearts in the Hebrew meaning of that term: our wills and our minds, our orientation and loyalty. We can’t give that without reason being a part of the process the entire way through.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[nebula]

Also, I forget, did we go over deutero Isaiah? That is clearly and painfully monotheistic writing and it would be a stretch to say those darned Greeks ruined the author… at least I’d think so, unless we are going to claim he isn’t a true prophet speaking.

 

[mfbukowski]

First of all I hope it is ok to stick my nose into this conversation, which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Second of all, I would like to apologize to nebula for kind of blowing off her comments on another thread. As you all know, this place can get pretty crazy, and with my huge ego I sometimes let my big mouth run ahead of my significantly smaller brain.

Your comments are fascinating because they parallel many of my own experiences with mormonism, having been raised catholic
and then having my own agnostic, no, atheistic phase.

But like you nebula, I could never deny that I knew that God was
watching out for me. I knew that there was a benign intelligence in the universe “who” was directing my life.

I studied a fair amount of Wittgenstein, John Dewey and William James and became convinced that Dewey and James’ approach
giving primacy to experience was “right on the money”. I think it is a bit of that Wittgenstein stuff that caused me to be argumentative with you earlier, nebula.

I studied a bit about mormonism, and became fascinated with eternal progression overlayed with what I had already observed in
nature – that it seemed that the cosmos came from chaos to order-- and saw that there was a relationship between this notion
of eternal progression and the progression to order I had seen in nature. I thought there were interesting parallels with what is taken as the evidence for “evolution”, in the increasing complexity of organisms.

Then I read Moroni 10:4 and had a very powerful “special revelation” experience that seemed to weld all that I already
believed about the primacy of experience in my philosophical base with a scriptural admonition from a prophet.

The result was electrifying, that the God of the Hebrews could actually be reconciled with my “process philosophy” training.

Enough for the background.

What strikes me about this thread is the differences in personality between nebula and BDawg. It seems that nebula just has a need to “prove” things rationally, and that this need, as she says “bubbles up and destroys” other metaphysical views (I
hope I got this sorta right).

On the other hand, I think that BDawg’s view is highly compatible with my own, if I am understanding him correctly.

This brings me to a question, which has been asked on other threads, and which I think nebula raised to me when I was being a smart a…leck.

Is it possible for both a Catholic and a Mormon to have a true special revelation that they are each to be in their own churches? In other words, that the Mormon is to be a Mormon and the Catholic should be a catholic?

I think that it is possible and yet not contradictory. But if my stake president calls me into his office, I may want to re-think it all.

When I look at the personality differences between you two, it just seems clear that nebula needs that rational grounding that she believes she gets in the Catholic church with all that Thomist philosophy and tradition. She is naturally suspicious of experience.

I won’t speak for BDawg, but speaking for me personally, I put the primacy in my experience. I can think up a “rationalization” and can “prove” virtually anything I want. I am suspicious enough of philosophy and have seen enough of argumentation to know, for me, that everyone has an agenda and there is no such thing as “impartial”.

When I look at Thomism, the Wittgenstein comes out, and I know I could demolish it (to my own satisfaction if no one else’s) if I felt like taking the time.

But when the Lord comes and “hits you upside the head with a two by four”, you have no choice but to pay attention.

So unlike nebula, my suspicion is of a false “rational explanation”

I think the approach of the pragmatists to their theory of truth is what can reconcile these seemingly opposing positions.

Their point, to make a sound byte out of a complex theory, is that a theory is “true because it works”.

On this view, both the catholic position and the mormon position could be “true” because both positions fill the needs of the individuals involved. Personally, I have no problem with this view.

So looking at it from another perspective, the traditional mormon perspective, both earnest Catholics and earnest Mormons
will go to heaven and progress from there.

So you guys may carry this dialogue on into the eternities?!

My belief in Mormonism is based on a testimony, but my rational side is always there also. When I am wearing my pragmatist
hat, I see Mormonism as the “unified field theory” of theology, a grand vision that unifies the God of the Hebrews, materialism, the big bang, and “worlds without number” with the best way to raise a family.

It’s true because it “works” better than anything else out there, and this also means it is “truer” than anything else out there.

And on a personal note, I am very glad that I was once a catholic, because I believe that it was from this base that I learned to understand ritual, reverence and the sense of awe for God that I think it sometimes lacking in our church.

 

[BDawg]

Hi mfbukowski,

I think people can have legitimate revelations telling them to join different churches. Here’s why.

I got to know Roger Keller, who is a Religion professor at BYU, and who used to be a Presbyterian minister. He actually joined the LDS Church briefly when he was about 18 or 19, then left it, and ended up getting a doctorate (I think in theology or New Testament studies) at Duke. He was a Presbyterian minister for many years, and he was heavily involved in the Ecumenical movement. I think he was actually involved with getting the NCCJ to officially condemn “The God Makers” as hate propaganda, and he actually ended up writing a book called, “Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians, Let’s Talk.” It’s pretty interesting. Anyway, he ended up joining the LDS Church again, after having what he described as some very powerful spiritual experiences. He quit his job as a minister and drove a Taxi for a while, before he managed to land a job at BYU.

Keller says that he is absolutely positive that God called him to be a Presbyterian minister, although he realizes now that this did not involve priesthood authority. He also says that when he received the Gift of the Holy Ghost at his LDS confirmation, he was already familiar with the Holy Spirit as an old friend. The messages just came through stronger and clearer afterward.

Anyway, I think God can lead people through any number of paths, as long as they eventually get to the same place. It would be exceptionally odd if that were not the case, since people start off in so many different situations.

 

[BDawg]

I learn a lot from arguments, that’s why I search after them so much, so thanks for helping me out. I hope you don’t feel like this is a waste of time. If you do, let me know and we can quit, but truly, I enjoy debate.

Don’t worry. I have a similar temperament, much to the annoyance of my wife.

By the way, I forgot all about the infinities issue. The reason why two infinite beings could not exist is that by definition a being infinitely powerful should be able to do anything logically possible. Well, that means that one ifninite being should be able to constrain the other infinite being, meaning that the second one is not truly infinite. Hence there can only be one truly infinite being.

This is what I’m talking about. Who made up this definition of an “infinite Being”? Why does anything that is “logically possible” have to be, in fact, possible? And isn’t an “infinite Being” by definition “infinitely good”? If so, wouldn’t two “infinite Beings” be one in will and purpose, thus scrapping the argument that one might “constrain” the other?

All of this kind of thing just seems like gross speculation about things that are FAR outside of human experience.

The thing that gets me about the “logically possible” business is the Problem of Evil. If God is, by nature, perfectly good, and has free will, then it must be logically possible to have a being that is, by nature, perfectly good, and that has free will. (Obviously.) So why didn’t God just create humans perfectly good by nature, and having free will? People who believe in God as the Thomistic “Necessary Being” will often argue that God wanted people to have true free will, and that isn’t possible for beings that don’t really have a true choice between good and evil. Nonsense, I say. Anyway, maybe there are better arguments about the Problem of Evil, but for me this is just one more area where my experience of the world really clashes with that kind of idea of the nature of God.

Okay, back to the topic at hand. I’m glad you asked about faith because this is just the issue. I don’t think faith is simply giving cognitive assent to some truth claim for which we have no evidence. There is nothing meritous about that, that’s pretty much the definition of ‘to be stupid’. Even though that’s the common understanding of the word in our culture when it comes to talking about religion- nevertheless I think it’s wrong. What true faith is is trust in God to fulfill His promises and to be good to us. Abraham trusted God, and it was imputed to him as righteousness. The author of Hebrews exhorts us to trust God to fulfill His promises, and then gives many examples of how He did that through Christ (the shadow=OT, form=Christ examples). James brings up the common definition that I mentioned, faith as cognitive assent to a truth claim with no evidence, and tells us that it’s ridiculous to assume that’s going to do us any good, hence, “faith without works is dead”. That is, true faith, true trust in God as a Person, contains within the idea of works.

What all these authors do, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, is give reasons for why we ought to trust God. “God is trustworthy, let me show you why.” And, God asks us to trust Him, actively, so that our actions will come inline with His will as we grow in our trust, our faith, in Him.

What I want to emphasize, and I"m sure you’ve already figured out, is that I do not think that it is possible to have faith wihtout knowledge and reasoning. God is always mentioning to us things He’s done for us while asking us to commit to Him (like in the Pentateuch, I bought you out of the land of Egypt, just as I delivered you from the Egyptians, just as I delivered so and so into your hands, or for six days I created, on the 7th I rested … etc). God appeals to our reason because God is a rational Being and has imputed that quality to our souls. He wants our hearts in the Hebrew meaning of that term: our wills and our minds, our orientation and loyalty. We can’t give that without reason being a part of the process the entire way through.

I hope that answers your question.

Don’t get me wrong–I think God requires us to use our reason, too, but the reasoning must be based on our experience. All the examples you cite are of arguments that one should trust God because of things He had already done in the world–not some obscure reasoning about a Necessary Being.

Other than that, I think you did a better job of explaining what faith is than I could have. I agree entirely. “Blind faith” is just an excuse to be an idiot.

 

[BDawg]

Also, I forget, did we go over deutero Isaiah? That is clearly and painfully monotheistic writing and it would be a stretch to say those darned Greeks ruined the author… at least I’d think so, unless we are going to claim he isn’t a true prophet speaking.

I think deutero-Isaiah was writing from a “monarchial monotheist” position, which is similar to the LDS position without the stuff from the King Follett Discourse (God once a man, has a Father, and so on.) There is considerable evidence for ancient Israel believing in such a view. See “The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God,” by Methodist scholar Margaret Barker, an article by Peter Hayman called “Monotheism–A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” and a couple books by Larry Hurtado.

So I’m fine with these passages. I just interpret some of the words in a different sense than you.

 

[BDawg]

One thing I forgot to add above. I asked about WHY God requires us to develop faith. Why sneak around?

My point in asking is that since Mormons believe that some part of us “just is,” God cannot create us in any way that is “logically possible.” He has to create us in a way that is consistent with the nature of the Universe. That being the case, we MUST grow and develop in particular areas, one of which is learning to live by faith–putting our absolute trust in God so that we can be One with Him.

That’s why I brought up the Problem of Evil. I don’t see the point of creating people and requiring them to learn to live by faith, when you can create them in any “logically possible” way. Why not create people who have already got that principle down?

 

[nebula]

First of all I hope it is ok to stick my nose into this conversation, which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Second of all, I would like to apologize to nebula for kind of blowing off her comments on another thread. As you all know, this place can get pretty crazy, and with my huge ego I sometimes let my big mouth run ahead of my significantly smaller brain.

Your comments are fascinating because they parallel many of my own experiences with mormonism, having been raised catholic
and then having my own agnostic, no, atheistic phase.

But like you nebula, I could never deny that I knew that God was
watching out for me. I knew that there was a benign intelligence in the universe “who” was directing my life.

I studied a fair amount of Wittgenstein, John Dewey and William James and became convinced that Dewey and James’ approach
giving primacy to experience was “right on the money”. I think it is a bit of that Wittgenstein stuff that caused me to be argumentative with you earlier, nebula.

I studied a bit about mormonism, and became fascinated with eternal progression overlayed with what I had already observed in
nature – that it seemed that the cosmos came from chaos to order-- and saw that there was a relationship between this notion
of eternal progression and the progression to order I had seen in nature. I thought there were interesting parallels with what is taken as the evidence for “evolution”, in the increasing complexity of organisms.

Then I read Moroni 10:4 and had a very powerful “special revelation” experience that seemed to weld all that I already
believed about the primacy of experience in my philosophical base with a scriptural admonition from a prophet.

The result was electrifying, that the God of the Hebrews could actually be reconciled with my “process philosophy” training.

Enough for the background.

What strikes me about this thread is the differences in personality between nebula and BDawg. It seems that nebula just has a need to “prove” things rationally, and that this need, as she says “bubbles up and destroys” other metaphysical views (I
hope I got this sorta right).

On the other hand, I think that BDawg’s view is highly compatible with my own, if I am understanding him correctly.

This brings me to a question, which has been asked on other threads, and which I think nebula raised to me when I was being a smart a…leck.

Is it possible for both a Catholic and a Mormon to have a true special revelation that they are each to be in their own churches? In other words, that the Mormon is to be a Mormon and the Catholic should be a catholic?

I think that it is possible and yet not contradictory. But if my stake president calls me into his office, I may want to re-think it all.

When I look at the personality differences between you two, it just seems clear that nebula needs that rational grounding that she believes she gets in the Catholic church with all that Thomist philosophy and tradition. She is naturally suspicious of experience.

I won’t speak for BDawg, but speaking for me personally, I put the primacy in my experience. I can think up a “rationalization” and can “prove” virtually anything I want. I am suspicious enough of philosophy and have seen enough of argumentation to know, for me, that everyone has an agenda and there is no such thing as “impartial”.

When I look at Thomism, the Wittgenstein comes out, and I know I could demolish it (to my own satisfaction if no one else’s) if I felt like taking the time.

But when the Lord comes and “hits you upside the head with a two by four”, you have no choice but to pay attention.

So unlike nebula, my suspicion is of a false “rational explanation”

I think the approach of the pragmatists to their theory of truth is what can reconcile these seemingly opposing positions.

Their point, to make a sound byte out of a complex theory, is that a theory is “true because it works”.

On this view, both the catholic position and the mormon position could be “true” because both positions fill the needs of the individuals involved. Personally, I have no problem with this view.

So looking at it from another perspective, the traditional mormon perspective, both earnest Catholics and earnest Mormons
will go to heaven and progress from there.

So you guys may carry this dialogue on into the eternities?!

My belief in Mormonism is based on a testimony, but my rational side is always there also. When I am wearing my pragmatist
hat, I see Mormonism as the “unified field theory” of theology, a grand vision that unifies the God of the Hebrews, materialism, the big bang, and “worlds without number” with the best way to raise a family.

It’s true because it “works” better than anything else out there, and this also means it is “truer” than anything else out there.

And on a personal note, I am very glad that I was once a catholic, because I believe that it was from this base that I learned to understand ritual, reverence and the sense of awe for God that I think it sometimes lacking in our church.

Hi mb,

I’m glad you added your perspective. As far I’m concerned, the more the merrier.

I should clear up a couple of items: the first is that I’m not a Catholic. Right now I don’t consider myself a member of any organization, but that isn’t because I think it’s a bad idea, just because I haven’t decided what is the right path yet.

The second thing is that while I may have given the impression that I favor rationality to the point of diminishing empiricism to near non existence, that isn’t my intention. I can destory the argument from contigency, and you said you could too and I believe it. It’s not a proof, but it is an important piece of evidence, a clue. I wouldn’t believe in God at all if it weren’t for the fact that He has given me the faith to. I actually believe in God more now than I did as a Mormon, and that isn’t something I can really attribute to rational arguments.

A point I want to make though is that when it comes to debating, which necessarily involves others, it is impossible to avoid rationality. To end up sharing subjective experiences tends to shut down the conversation. The thing is, while I think you do have good insights, and bdawg does as well, I still think I’m right and you guys are wrong. Tolerance is a worn out virtue as it has been used to tyrannize the search for the best option, and I do believe that even if we can’t be absolutely certain in our theology and we can never have it 100% accurate as finite beings, there are better theologies, and worse theologies (and it is a result of the fact that I have a respect for you, that your choice of theologies is really a meaningful one just as mine is). You suggest pragmatism as a means of making those judgements, and I agree that ought to be a part of it, but I don’t think it can be everything for the following reason- for pragmatism to ‘work’ it has to posit that what provides the best utility is true. But what provides the best utility? It’s going to be that which is closest to the truth, closest to how reality is actually ordered, because that vision will allow us to better predict what actions will reap what benefits. So we’re left with a vicious cycle… we need to come to a good vision of the truth to determine what will give us the best utility, and the best utility provides us a vision of the truth.

I’m also suspicious of claims that Mormonism actually works better than other things. I wasn’t raised with any religion, yet my family is together, happy, all of my siblings have become successful, we love and respect our parents, and so on. On the other hand, I’m related to Mormons who have had the most horrible divorces I have ever heard of in circumstances that would shock Dr Phil. These are fully active Mormons, all served missions, trying to do the right things. Even at the height of my activity and loyalty to the church I never thought that Mormonism necessarily had the best way to raise families, especially since it tended to exclude my non member family. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to paint Mormonism as the cause of horrible divorces, or that it gets in the way of family happiness, only that I have healthy doubt that it is really any better than any other religious system promoting ‘family togetherness’. That example can be readily expanded: coffee, tea, and moderate alcohol intake can be quite excellent for the health. How much should Mormonism really rely on claims of its utility for its closeness to the truth? Perhaps partway, but to do so completely would lead to self destruction as it constantly would have to fend itself off from competing claims to better utility (drink coffee to stave off Parkinson’s, become a feminist and shake off the shackles of Mormon patriarchy to have true freedom and happiness, and on and on. The question ought to be, is it true? before, what maximizes my happiness? because you can’t know the real answer to the latter question before you have an answer to the first).

Some of your other claims sound like maybe you’re relying a little on coherence as a determiner of truth when you speak about how Mormonism can include many different pieces of knowledge from different fields. This could be an interesting avenue to explore, because in a way this is partly what I am arguing when I argue for the existence of the monotheistic God… by explaining existence, He explains everything much more thoroughly.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[nebula]

One thing I forgot to add above. I asked about WHY God requires us to develop faith. Why sneak around?

My point in asking is that since Mormons believe that some part of us “just is,” God cannot create us in any way that is “logically possible.” He has to create us in a way that is consistent with the nature of the Universe. That being the case, we MUST grow and develop in particular areas, one of which is learning to live by faith–putting our absolute trust in God so that we can be One with Him.

That’s why I brought up the Problem of Evil. I don’t see the point of creating people and requiring them to learn to live by faith, when you can create them in any “logically possible” way. Why not create people who have already got that principle down?

bdawg,

How do you interpret deutero Isaiah, specifically as a monarchial monotheistic position when it has verses such as “there is no other god” in the writings? I agree that you can see that position reflected in other parts of the OT, but I can’t imagine how you can get away with in deutero Isaiah wihtout special pleading.(?)

As for the two infinities, it is hypothetical… and here you are, getting all Kantian, can’t do this, can’t do that. I can hear it now, das ist Verboten! But I do agree that by getting much in depth about wondering what infinite Beings are like I am getting farther and farther away from making valid statements. Okay, so much I can agree with, but I still claim that positing a necessary ground of Being is a direct derivation from basic observations of the world and is a necessary step in ordering basic experiences of the world (Descartes presents one such line of argument).

As far as the problem of evil goes, I think it is one of the strengths of Mormon theology, not enough used, that it provides an answer. Frankly I don’t have much an answer that would satisfy the demands of true suffering. All that I can really answer is that I can only trust that God is good and pray for the end of suffering in the world. Here is a partial answer though, via Leibniz. Yes, God could have created the world in any possible/logical way, but because God wanted to create beings in His image, that is, beings with free will, this is the best possible world that takes into account our freedom.

 

[BDawg]

How do you interpret deutero Isaiah, specifically as a monarchial monotheistic position when it has verses such as “there is no other god” in the writings? I agree that you can see that position reflected in other parts of the OT, but I can’t imagine how you can get away with in deutero Isaiah wihtout special pleading.(?)

I don’t remember him saying “there is no other god,” except where he says, “beside me there is no other god.” Does that mean there is absolutely no other divine being, or that there is no other divine being on the same level? Could go either way, as far as I’m concerned.

Another interesting answer comes from ancient Jewish angelology. The “principal angels” in these myths all have names like Raphael, Uriel, and so on, that mean things like “the Power of God,” and “the Strength of God,” and so on. They are depicted as separate persons, but the names make many scholars wonder if they are just “personified” or “hypostasized” attributes of God. Were they supposed to represent real angels, or just different attributes? If I remember correctly, sometimes God was depicted as many-eyed. One way or another, I think this supports the idea that God was thought to be somehow “composite.” If so, then monotheistic statements in the Bible should be interpreted in light of something like Trinitarianism or Mormon ideas about the Divine Unity. God is One, but not necessarily in any kind of Monistic sense.

As for the two infinities, it is hypothetical… and here you are, getting all Kantian, can’t do this, can’t do that. I can hear it now, das ist Verboten! But I do agree that by getting much in depth about wondering what infinite Beings are like I am getting farther and farther away from making valid statements. Okay, so much I can agree with, but I still claim that positing a necessary ground of Being is a direct derivation from basic observations of the world and is a necessary step in ordering basic experiences of the world (Descartes presents one such line of argument).

I’m ok with positing a necessary ground of Being as a derivation from basic observations of the world. I’m just arguing that your answers about exactly what that “ground of Being” must be like are on very shaky ground. That being the case, it seems preferable to try and see whether God (if there is one) will up and tell us what He is like, and what he has to do with the “ground of Being,” and so on. It also seems preferable to keep testing ideas about what the “ground of Being” must be like against our experience of the world. The Problem of Evil is a case in point. Even many atheists will agree there is “evil” in the world.

As far as the problem of evil goes, I think it is one of the strengths of Mormon theology, not enough used, that it provides an answer. Frankly I don’t have much an answer that would satisfy the demands of true suffering. All that I can really answer is that I can only trust that God is good and pray for the end of suffering in the world. Here is a partial answer though, via Leibniz. Yes, God could have created the world in any possible/logical way, but because God wanted to create beings in His image, that is, beings with free will, this is the best possible world that takes into account our freedom.

I still think that really takes a chunk out of the idea that God can do anything that is “logically possible,” since God supposedly has free will and is perfectly good. If this is the best possible world that takes into account our freedom, what is the best possible world that takes into account God’s freedom? Apparently it’s one in which He creates conditions that generate evil. He didn’t have to create us, did he? Why would he, if we necessarily come with all that evil baggage?

Once again, if I allow a dialogue between the initial reasoning and my experience of the world, I think I have to come to the conclusion that the initial reasoning was flawed, somewhere.

Das ist verboten!!!

 

[nebula]

I don’t remember him saying “there is no other god,” except where he says, “beside me there is no other god.” Does that mean there is absolutely no other divine being, or that there is no other divine being on the same level? Could go either way, as far as I’m concerned.

Another interesting answer comes from ancient Jewish angelology. The “principal angels” in these myths all have names like Raphael, Uriel, and so on, that mean things like “the Power of God,” and “the Strength of God,” and so on. They are depicted as separate persons, but the names make many scholars wonder if they are just “personified” or “hypostasized” attributes of God. Were they supposed to represent real angels, or just different attributes? If I remember correctly, sometimes God was depicted as many-eyed. One way or another, I think this supports the idea that God was thought to be somehow “composite.” If so, then monotheistic statements in the Bible should be interpreted in light of something like Trinitarianism or Mormon ideas about the Divine Unity. God is One, but not necessarily in any kind of Monistic sense.

I’m ok with positing a necessary ground of Being as a derivation from basic observations of the world. I’m just arguing that your answers about exactly what that “ground of Being” must be like are on very shaky ground. That being the case, it seems preferable to try and see whether God (if there is one) will up and tell us what He is like, and what he has to do with the “ground of Being,” and so on. It also seems preferable to keep testing ideas about what the “ground of Being” must be like against our experience of the world. The Problem of Evil is a case in point. Even many atheists will agree there is “evil” in the world.

I still think that really takes a chunk out of the idea that God can do anything that is “logically possible,” since God supposedly has free will and is perfectly good. If this is the best possible world that takes into account our freedom, what is the best possible world that takes into account God’s freedom? Apparently it’s one in which He creates conditions that generate evil. He didn’t have to create us, did he? Why would he, if we necessarily come with all that evil baggage?

Once again, if I allow a dialogue between the initial reasoning and my experience of the world, I think I have to come to the conclusion that the initial reasoning was flawed, somewhere.

Das ist verboten!!!

So I looked up the Hebrew of Isa 45:5 of besides, zulah, and your argument doesn’t work. It means beside, except, save… there is no other god except me, save me, beside me. It’s pretty cut and dry on its monotheism. Your argument about the ‘el’ suffix also doesn’t work, because it’s used for plenty of names, including humans (Daniel). Also any name with ya/ja/jo is including YHWH into it, and there are plenty of human names like that (Joshua). So just having ‘el’ or ‘ja,jo’ in a name doesn’t mean anything special about the ontology of the name holder.

In order to create beings who truly have free will, it’s a necessary condition that evil is possible, otherwise they are not truly free. We can debate about whether or not that is really a good idea, but God wanted to create beings in His own image to have a real and meaningful relationship (the purpose of faith right there) with. Rather than diminish the immense stature of God because of the existence of evil (the “He is not fully omnipotent argument”) I"ll allow for some mystery in the answer. Besides, there is comfort in knowing that no matter how bad things look, God truly is in control of the very laws of the cosmos and He knows what He is doing, even if I can’t fully know.

Also I’m curious, based on what criterion are we supposed to be testing these claims? You keep talking about testing, I’m guessing the Alma 32 idea, but how do we decide what is ‘sweet’ and what isn’t? Compared to what? Atheists claim that their ideas are the most freeing and the most intellectually honest, hence could make an argument that their ideas work the best- truly the ‘sweetest’. We have to erect some kind of standard that is beyond the mere testing phase to make use of this idea from the start. We can’t just go in completely naked of concepts, we’d fail before we got started with the empirical research.

 

[BDawg]

I thought of one point about the “utility” of the Word of Wisdom. I remember seeing one study showing that Mormons tend to live about 10 years longer, on average, than the general population in the USA. Maybe coffee, tea, and alcohol are good for some ailments, but it seems obvious to me that they hurt more than they help.

“What works” is always going to be subjectively determined, but Jesus says “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27) and “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). Something inside us is drawn to God, and we test it out through experience.

 

[nebula]

I thought of one point about the “utility” of the Word of Wisdom. I remember seeing one study showing that Mormons tend to live about 10 years longer, on average, than the general population in the USA. Maybe coffee, tea, and alcohol are good for some ailments, but it seems obvious to me that they hurt more than they help.

“What works” is always going to be subjectively determined, but Jesus says “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27) and “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). Something inside us is drawn to God, and we test it out through experience.

Sure, but we both know that what seems obvious or common sensical doesn’t always pan out. Coffee drinking is one of those things. It turns out to protect against Parkinson’s, dementia, colon cancer, perks moods, increases short term memory, protects against diabetes and cavities (with a precautionary note to pregnant women and those with high chlosterol- they need to avoid certain preparations). Moderate wine drinking is good for the antioxidants as well as cardiovascular health. Green tea and black tea even have lots of antioxidants.

Your last paragraph seems to be a giving up on the debate and a total retreat into discussion killing subjectivism. Are you done? We could move on to another topic if you’d like.

 

[BDawg]

So I looked up the Hebrew of Isa 45:5 of besides, zulah, and your argument doesn’t work. It means beside, except, save… there is no other god except me, save me, beside me. It’s pretty cut and dry on its monotheism. Your argument about the ‘el’ suffix also doesn’t work, because it’s used for plenty of names, including humans (Daniel). Also any name with ya/ja/jo is including YHWH into it, and there are plenty of human names like that (Joshua). So just having ‘el’ or ‘ja,jo’ in a name doesn’t mean anything special about the ontology of the name holder.

I’ll take your word for it on the first argument, but the second one is still good. The point is not that the names MUST mean what I said, but that the documents lead many scholars to believe that they DID mean that, in this case. Part of the argument is based on the description of these angels in relation to others in the documents. Larry Hurtado’s and Margaret Barker’s books have some info on this.

In order to create beings who truly have free will, it’s a necessary condition that evil is possible, otherwise they are not truly free. We can debate about whether or not that is really a good idea, but God wanted to create beings in His own image to have a real and meaningful relationship (the purpose of faith right there) with. Rather than diminish the immense stature of God because of the existence of evil (the “He is not fully omnipotent argument”) I"ll allow for some mystery in the answer. Besides, there is comfort in knowing that no matter how bad things look, God truly is in control of the very laws of the cosmos and He knows what He is doing, even if I can’t fully know.

So, do the Persons of the Trinity have a “real and meaningful relationship”? And are they truly free? And are they perfectly good? Is it possible for them to do evil?

The reason I’m pointing this out again is that you seem to be arguing for the Book of Mormon teaching that there “must be opposition in all things” to have meaningful existence. Certainly it doesn’t sound like you are arguing based on any classical definition of God. You closet Mormon, you.

Also I’m curious, based on what criterion are we supposed to be testing these claims? You keep talking about testing, I’m guessing the Alma 32 idea, but how do we decide what is ‘sweet’ and what isn’t? Compared to what? Atheists claim that their ideas are the most freeing and the most intellectually honest, hence could make an argument that their ideas work the best- truly the ‘sweetest’. We have to erect some kind of standard that is beyond the mere testing phase to make use of this idea from the start. We can’t just go in completely naked of concepts, we’d fail before we got started with the empirical research.

I agree that experimentation has to be “theory-laden.” And I agree that it’s always going to be a subjective judgment to decide what is “sweet,” etc. That’s fine, because in my view, God requires us to learn to live by faith so that we can demonstrate what kind of people we really are. Placed in this situation, we will gravitate toward the true desires of our hearts, which is why Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice.” So I figure I’ll see what works for me, as far as producing peace, joy, enlightenment, miracles, etc., and go with that. I can truly say “there’s something to it,” and as long as I don’t get too self-satisfied, I’ll keep gravitating toward things that produce more and more of them. Given the inherent limitations of human existence, I figure that’s about the best plan I can come up with.

 

[BDawg]

Your last paragraph seems to be a giving up on the debate and a total retreat into discussion killing subjectivism. Are you done? We could move on to another topic if you’d like.

Me giving up and retreating into subjectivism? It seems to me that both of us were already there. For instance, you admit that the argument from contingency is flawed, but now that you accept it as reasonable, you say that you just believe in God more, now. You say that you think the classical definition of God (the Necessary Being) is compatible with the Bible, but when I point out a number of things about the Biblical presentation of God that are at odds with it, you essentially say, “Well, there are lots of ideas about God presented in the Bible, and maybe the Israelites just couldn’t handle the truth.” When I point out that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if you posit this kind of philosophical definition of God as the “Ground of all being,” you say that’s right, but chalk it up to “the mystery of God.”

I’ve been pushing pragamatism and a sort of “dialogue” between reason and revelation all along, which inherently involves subjective judgments. I have also been trying to point out that all this business about using the “general revelation” to reason your way to the true nature of God, existence, etc., before you start interacting with special revelation, is fantasy. Your reason just can’t get that far on its own, even if you start with “general revelation.”

 

[mfbukowski]

You suggest pragmatism as a means of making those judgements, and I agree that ought to be a part of it, but I don’t think it can be everything for the following reason- for pragmatism to ‘work’ it has to posit that what provides the best utility is true. But what provides the best utility? It’s going to be that which is closest to the truth, closest to how reality is actually ordered, because that vision will allow us to better predict what actions will reap what benefits. So we’re left with a vicious cycle… we need to come to a good vision of the truth to determine what will give us the best utility, and the best utility provides us a vision of the truth.

I’m also suspicious of claims that Mormonism actually works better than other things.

I think you are locking in dualism in the very way you ask the question. You are assuming that there is something “out there” that is “closer to” some metaphysical realm we cannot experience.

Part of the central insight of the pragmatists is that we really cannot know how “reality is ordered” in a metaphysical sense. They would condemn this as the old dualism re-asserting its ugly head. So there really is no vicious cycle as you suggest. They really DO believe that there is no sense talking about anything beyond experience. And experience includes logic as well. The reason logic “works” is that… well it works! It’s the only way we can see and order the world. This is why William James is seen as a psychologist as much as a philosopher. Somehow we are “wired” to look at things logically. That is itself experiential. But “why” are we wired that way?

To them the question itself would be unanswerable, and perhaps not even make sense. We cannot experience the world in any way other than one which makes a priori assertions “true”.

To seek It would be a “category mistake” and any discussion of it would be like arguing if virtue is green or blue. Virtue is neither, and arguing about it would be nonsensical. Because language allows you to ask a question, that doesn’t mean that there is an answer. So asking “why” logic works is as unanswerable as asking what color virtue is. Even asking the question implies that there IS a purpose. So ultimately, there goes the argument from contingency.

Yet such questions are important in our lives, or we wouldn’t be discussing them! So what kinds of questions ARE answerable?

“Why is it important to you that a priori assertions are always true?” is a question that is definitely discussable.

But the answer would be about individual psychology. Is that “bad”? Is discussing it from a psychological point of view somehow less “lofty” than coming up with some quasi-Thomist high-sounding argument that ulitimately doesn’t make sense?

The pragmatist attitude would be “who cares?” “This is the only way this question is discussable.”

But does this lead into a “subjectivist quagmire” that does away with further discussion? Not at all. We all experience the world, and that experience is pretty uniform and consistent. We all drive on freeways and walk down the street and ask for directions (if we’re female) without subjectivisim getting in the way at all. There’s still a lot to argue about!!

The idea that “Mormonism works better than other things” is meant to be a broad theoretical assertion. You surely wouldn’t say that the fact that coffee is good for a few ailments disproves that “God” is composed of three individual persons.

Yes Mormons have all the problems everyone else does. I know that better than most Mormons, experientially.

Yet pulling out Occams razor you have to admit that being able to take into account old testament sacrifice and harmonizing it with why we change our tassles at graduation to the right side and the possibility of life on other planets, and perhaps even string theory, anything that could give that comprehensive a world view is one pretty dang comprehensive theory! Could old Joe have come up with it on his own? I don’t see how.