juliann lobs another water balloon at Beastie

[_beastie]

I haven't seen Ben's reply to EA (is it there yet?). I'd like to hear from him whether he has changed his view, or whether this has always been part of his thinking. As startled as I am, I would not accuse Ben of being "inconsistent", and I too can dig up past statements that seem to contradict what he's saying now, but I'd like to keep reading and see what he says rather than throw a bland "you're inconsistent". Do you think he has changed his view?

I can't speak for EA, and I certainly have not had as many conversations as he has had with Ben on the subject. I will say that EA is one of the brightest people I've encountered on the net, with a background in philosophy in particular, so I do tend to trust his judgment.

But what I'm thinking is inconsistent is not his comments changing from thread to thread, but rather an inconsistency within the argument he consistently presents. That is, is it possible for human beings to construct a reliable model of external, objective reality, and does it even matter whether or not any given group's construction of reality correlates with that external reality?

While I may be misunderstanding him, he seems to be saying that communication from God is THE most reliable method of transmitting information, but when it comes to the actual results of revelation, seems to believe that the actual content doesn't matter much, just the fact that it can continue and change.

Well it is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints too. But I am finding the pomo ideas interesting.

What I'm disagreeing most strenuously with Ben on is his insistence that his ideas are reflective of the larger church population.

She may be willing to go as far as Ben on things like polygamy, as one example. When I posted the church media spokesperson's statement that polygamy is like "stoning for adultery" as far as LDS are now concerned, Charity's reply was mainly twofold: 1) She should be sacked. 2) "Stone her." Juliann had no objection, and I think she might welcome even a dumping of polygamy, even "in principle". Just my guess. If they chucked out section 132 I think Charity would have a fit, but not Juliann.

That may be true. It is frustrating to "talk" to her about her pomo enthusiasm, however, because of her tendency to be dismissive and throw quotes out without discussing what they mean to HER. (ironic for a pomo, eh?)

I don't think so. I think he is saying that from the viewpoint of revelation, not external, objective reality. Perhaps he thinks the prophets are getting "line upon line"? Or that they too are progressing in understanding? Something like "we spoke with a limited understanding"? I would ask too, external, objective reality in regard to what? We know the realities that we have empirically observed over long periods of time, but the whole purpose of metaphysics is to speculate "beyond physics" (meta-physics). There are things "out there" that we don't know.

Sure, but many religious claims are actually empirical claims that are entirely within the realm of factual events that either occurred or did not. For example, either Jesus, if he existed, was the biological son of God or he was the biological son of a regular old human being. So that being revealed "line upon line" seems deceptive.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Yeah, I checked too, you weren't listed as banned. I don't post there much anymore either, which is probably why they didn't ban me. But then again, I crossed the queen, so who knows?

The queen I like that one....does she wear a crown and a robe and sit ona throne???

I bet she does....but then we must de throne her....

[_Ray A]

But what I'm thinking is inconsistent is not his comments changing from thread to thread, but rather an inconsistency within the argument he consistently presents. That is, is it possible for human beings to construct a reliable model of external, objective reality, and does it even matter whether or not any given group's construction of reality correlates with that external reality?

While I may be misunderstanding him, he seems to be saying that communication from God is THE most reliable method of transmitting information, but when it comes to the actual results of revelation, seems to believe that the actual content doesn't matter much, just the fact that it can continue and change.

(You just caught me in the middle of The God Delusion as the notification came through.) The thread is long, but I'll try to follow it. I see that the last four posts are from you. I'd like to read what Ben has to say next, because I think you do ask some good questions.

What I'm disagreeing most strenuously with Ben on is his insistence that his ideas are reflective of the larger church population.

So would I.

She may be willing to go as far as Ben on things like polygamy, as one example. When I posted the church media spokesperson's statement that polygamy is like "stoning for adultery" as far as LDS are now concerned, Charity's reply was mainly twofold: 1) She should be sacked. 2) "Stone her." Juliann had no objection, and I think she might welcome even a dumping of polygamy, even "in principle". Just my guess. If they chucked out section 132 I think Charity would have a fit, but not Juliann.

That may be true. It is frustrating to "talk" to her about her pomo enthusiasm, however, because of her tendency to be dismissive and throw quotes out without discussing what they mean to HER. (ironic for a pomo, eh?)

Perhaps she has to tread carefully? What would be the reaction, for example, to Ben's comments on MA&D? For this reason I think ZLMB is the better arena for this discussion. There would be too much interjection from other TBM (non-pomo) posters to have a good flow of discussion, whereas the traffic on Z is much less, and the atmosphere is more conducive to discussions like these.

I don't think so. I think he is saying that from the viewpoint of revelation, not external, objective reality. Perhaps he thinks the prophets are getting "line upon line"? Or that they too are progressing in understanding? Something like "we spoke with a limited understanding"? I would ask too, external, objective reality in regard to what? We know the realities that we have empirically observed over long periods of time, but the whole purpose of metaphysics is to speculate "beyond physics" (meta-physics). There are things "out there" that we don't know.

Sure, but many religious claims are actually empirical claims that are entirely within the realm of factual events that either occurred or did not. For example, either Jesus, if he existed, was the biological son of God or he was the biological son of a regular old human being. So that being revealed "line upon line" seems deceptive.

In this regard I see what you mean now. It might be best to clarify first what exactly is Mormon doctrine (not what some selected prophets have said), then work from there. The best way to do this is to use the standard works. It says that Jesus and the father are separate beings, and the father and son have bodies of flesh and bone, and the son is the "only begotten in the flesh". In this regard, Ben's statement does seem quite radical. Even going back to Joseph Smith, he said, whatever you do, never deny the Son. So for someone to think that the most core doctrine of the church can be subject to further, contrary revelation, this would not be "line upon line", but apostasy. Or if you want to view it in real pomo fashion, progress. I doubt the church will ever go this far. It's not even addressing the Book of Mormon pseudo graphia idea. And if it did address polygamy, it would have to excise section 132 to abandon polygamy even "in principle". What happens now with 132 is that revisionist orthodox interpretations have been placed on the original meaning of the revelation, and this has been going on since 1890. I guess, to be blunt, much of it is denial of the original meaning, which is, by the way, contrary to the Book of Mormon. I don't see "line upon line" here, because this revelation was supposed to have been given to Abraham.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Juliann needs to be criticized some more.