Daniel dodges a dilemma by substituting his own

[Gadianton]

And who's going to listen to poor little Tim out in Phoenix?

Your point seems to be if Tim out of Phoenix lies and says Peter said it, then people might listen. And so God, if he's a pragmatist, may go with that. But how about this. What if God actually visited Tim out of Phoenix and gave him real plates. Would people believe him more if all that really happened, or if Tim lied about it and said God visited him and gave him plates?

[tagriffy]

And who's going to listen to poor little Tim out in Phoenix?

Your point seems to be if Tim out of Phoenix lies and says Peter said it, then people might listen. And so God, if he's a pragmatist, may go with that. But how about this. What if God actually visited Tim out of Phoenix and gave him real plates. Would people believe him more if all that really happened, or if Tim lied about it and said God visited him and gave him plates?

There would probably be a range of answers if it all really happened. I think it has been pointed out in another thread that even having plates would not necessarily mean they came from God--all Tim out of Phoenix would really have is his say so. But Tim out of Phoenix could be wrong or deceived. Likely, some people would believe he forged them anyway. If he were lying, the rub would be proving it. Either way, if the truths he presented resonated with them, they'd still be inclined to believe the story.

[Gadianton]

I don't necessarily disagree. Might even take it a step further.

Mormon leaders have often protected themselves by saying things like, "pray that you don't see an angel, because everyone who does has left the Church." They say that to protect themselves from making good on God's word when they know they're lying. However, there still might be some truth here.

As you point out, prophets tend to be narcissists, they're the cryptocurrency influencers and MLM double diamonds of the ancient world. I don't think for the average sincere person that it's true that seeing an angel would hinder their faith, I think it's quite the opposite. But the typical sincere individual may not have what it takes to start a religious movement. The narcissist -- the guy who can (and would) sell ice to an Eskimo, may not fancy being told what to do even by God. It may be true for a narcissist that seeing an angel would result in ultimate rebellion. God's best bet may be to play the narcissist in such a way that the narcissist thinks he's in control. The narcissist may be only properly motivated if he's advancing his own agenda -- right down to fake chastisements from God. Would Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump take a sharp rebuke from God? Probably not. However, they may be inclined to correct an error if needed by faking a rebuke from God, as that would still leave them ultimately the architect of the situation.

[huckelberry]

If 99% of religion is based on some kind of fraud, why hold out for the 1%? Don't you think God would see the moral hazard of belief in himself and hope that people find their way forward without belief in him?

I have two very different, possibly incompatible thoughts here.

The first is that God deals with us as we are. In their socio-historical context, would the Priestly or Yahwist really comprehend evolution, let alone how God may have interacted with the process? Probably not. So we get "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen. 1:1; 2:4). Much of the "fraud" is then God communicating to humans "in their weakness, after he manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24).

The other is that prophets have to do the best they can to communicate God's message. They may or may not entirely understand it themselves, but they are given this burden. And who's going to listen to poor little Tim out in Phoenix? But if Peter or Paul said it, people might just listen.

Tagriffy, I really do not know what Gadianton is thinking of with the 99 percent fraud. Perhaps the word fraud expanded to mean anything doubtful or not true. I think holding to a clearer and more narrow meaning for the word would help clarify.

Sticking with normal meaning for fraud I cannot see the Genesis creation story as fraud. I think in terms of the scientific consensus of what events happened when. Genesis is a different kind of discourse if you read it as literal and complete description of events then you have error not fraud.

In your reply to me you pointed out Deuteronomy and Letters claiming Pauline authorship that are not by him. Deuteronomy could be an interesting judgement call. It is, "these are the words" which is a claim to be reporting the words of Moses, not that Moses wrote these. But how accurate and on what basis is the reportage being made. You point out the report appears late and is connected to Josiah reform. I could imagine that some elements in the temple authority felt inspired to provide clarification on what available traditions held. Because the clarification had a serious policy impact I could see political manipulation which might get into the realm of fraud. Or maybe it was honest clarification.

I think the letter Ephesians is a valuable summing up of first century Christian thought. It is completely genuine from that consideration. It might well be by someone after Paul, but fraud? I think to call something fraud the false or error must be intentionally done to manipulate for gain. The New Testament letters would not fit that. Well there is the aspect of a move to decrease women's role and authority in the late letters. It is worth something to see that manipulation. Seeing and understanding may suggest that the results of that manipulation need not be permanent.

[tagriffy]

I have two very different, possibly incompatible thoughts here.

The first is that God deals with us as we are. In their socio-historical context, would the Priestly or Yahwist really comprehend evolution, let alone how God may have interacted with the process? Probably not. So we get "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen. 1:1; 2:4). Much of the "fraud" is then God communicating to humans "in their weakness, after he manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24).

The other is that prophets have to do the best they can to communicate God's message. They may or may not entirely understand it themselves, but they are given this burden. And who's going to listen to poor little Tim out in Phoenix? But if Peter or Paul said it, people might just listen.

Tagriffy, I really do not know what Gadianton is thinking of with the 99 percent fraud.Perhaps the word fraud expanded to mean anything doubtful or not true. I think holding to a clearer and more narrow meaning for the word would help clarify.

Sticking with normal meaning for fraud I cannot see the Genesis creation story as fraud. I think in terms of the scientific consensus of what events happened when. Genesis is a different kind of discourse if you read it as literal and complete description of events then you have error not fraud.

Keep in mind that I'm discussing an idea of how God deals with humans and also note the scare quotes around the term fraud in my original. I certainly do agree with you that Genesis is a different kind of discourse. Under the idea, God is doing things that some people might say is perpretating a fraud.

In your reply to me you pointed out Deuteronomy and Letters claiming Pauline authorship that are not by him. Deuteronomy could be an interesting judgement call. It is, "these are the words" which is a claim to be reporting the words of Moses, not that Moses wrote these. But how accurate and on what basis is the reportage being made. You point out the report appears late and is connected to Josiah reform. I could imagine that some elements in the temple authority felt inspired to provide clarification on what available traditions held. Because the clarification had a serious policy impact I could see political manipulation which might get into the realm of fraud. Or maybe it was honest clarification.

I think the letter Ephesians is a valuable summing up of first century Christian thought. It is completely genuine from that consideration. It might well be by someone after Paul, but fraud? I think to call something fraud the false or error must be intentionally done to manipulate for gain. The New Testament letters would not fit that. Well there is the aspect of a move to decrease women's role and authority in the late letters. It is worth something to see that manipulation. Seeing and understanding may suggest that the results of that manipulation need not be permanent.

I tend to agree, but it is also beside the point. Whoever wrote the core of Deuteronomy (keeping in mind our product is actually the end result of centuries of editing) or the deutero-Paulines were using the names of Moses and Paul to give authority to their own ideas. That is the very definition of pseudepigrapha. They may or may not have been doing it to manipulate for gain, but the fact remains they were fraudulently perpetuating their ideas under the name of someone else.

[Gadianton]

Tagriffy, I really do not know what Gadianton is thinking of with the 99 percent fraud.Perhaps the word fraud expanded to mean anything doubtful or not true. I think holding to a clearer and more narrow meaning for the word would help clarify.

I'm looking at it from faithful perspective, especially from a "follow a prophet" perspective.

Take Joseph Smith as an example. Who other than he had the truth? A friendly reminder:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight

When I say 99 percent of religion is fraud, I'm saying it's fraud from a believer's perspective. It nearly goes without saying that anyone who has ever been revered as a prophet not only teaches that they are right, but that everyone else is wrong, especially anyone else revered as a prophet. Including Jesus Christ. A friendly reminder to liberal believers:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Certainly Moses didn't have much belief in other religions of his time, considering he entered the land of Canaan killing every living thing not under the banner of Jehovah, the "man of war".

My comments here point to prophet-believing religion. Tagriffy quoted me on that, but then didn't really respond to that point. Instead, he offered "looking through a glass darkly" interpretations of prophets. When faults are pointed out with the other guy's prophet, they are true faults. When they're pointed out about our prophet, we step back and look through a glass darkly to try and rescue our guy. This makes it even worse. Because now everyone was wrong but our guy, according to our guy, but our guy can't even totally be trusted.

That's why I say prophets are a moral hazard like Fentanyl. With everyone else being wrong but our guy, and our guy having a fair number of bad days, wouldn't it be better to just not have prophets at all?

[malkie]

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

But then, for Latter-day Saints, no one comes to the Father except through JSJr as well:

[huckelberry]

keep in mind that I'm discussing an idea of how God deals with humans and also note the scare quotes around the term fraud in my original. I certainly do agree with you that Genesis is a different kind of discourse. Under the idea, God is doing things that some people might say is perpretating a fraud.

I think the letter Ephesians is a valuable summing up of first century Christian thought. It is completely genuine from that consideration. It might well be by someone after Paul, but fraud?. I think to call something fraud the false or error must be intentionally done to manipulate for gain. The New Testament letters would not fit that. Well there is the aspect of a move to decrease women's role and authority in the late letters . It is worth something to see that manipulation. Seeing and understanding may suggest that the results of that manipulation need not be permanent.

I tend to agree, but it is also beside the point. Whoever wrote the core of Deuteronomy (keeping in mind our product is actually the end result of centuries of editing) or the deutero-Paulines were using the names of Moses and Paul to give authority to their own ideas. That is the very definition of pseudepigrapha. They may or may not have been doing it to manipulate for gain, but the fact remains they were fraudulently perpetuating their ideas under the name of someone else.

tagriffy, Pseudepigripha, so what? Well I do not mean that entirely flippently I am wondering what to make of it. It might look different depending upon how one is looking at the authority issue. I think it is possible that in the first century using Paul’s name would be rather more a way of identfying party association not grabbing a big authority. After all Paul was not the great PAUL that he grew into over the centuries. I do not suppose that, advertising, totally excuses the device. but as I said about Ephesians it is the message which matters most.

At least to my view there is a crucially important point in this. It is some truth in a prophet's message which has authority not the individual. Israel had lots of forgotten prophets. Prophets who disagreed. It is the ones whose message was most helpful and enlightening which were saved. It was ones who recognized problems. The prophets did not say come join my party but said recognize your failures and do better.

I might expand a touch on this idea of authority. I think all people have some though limited awareness of God’s call and the hope that goodness represents. People sense a way of life and ways that lead away from that. I think God calls some individuals, prophets, to help people clarify the awareness they have. God does not have to send some special system or device that only a singular person knows. God does not send prophets to explain special knowledge like the solar system. Instead people figure it out.

I hold to the idea of Jesus singularity but he did not come and explain all about how we were to create the kingdom of God. Instead we are here to figure it out our self with all the trial and error that human effort involves. There clearly have been errors that we must learn to recognize.

But a prophet can have a role in helping us see our errors. America's prophet Martin Luther King, pointed out the error the country did not wish to see and showed the light of God upon that and the hope of a better future. It does not matter if people wish to crown him with the title prophet we recognize the message and value it. Properly we value it more than we value him. It is ok to avoid the title prophet of him, perhaps safest to do so considering Gadianton’s warning about prophets.

[huckelberry]

Tagriffy, I really do not know what Gadianton is thinking of with the 99 percent fraud.Perhaps the word fraud expanded to mean anything doubtful or not true. I think holding to a clearer and more narrow meaning for the word would help clarify.

I'm looking at it from faithful perspective, especially from a "follow a prophet" perspective.

Take Joseph Smith as an example. Who other than he had the truth? A friendly reminder:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight

When I say 99 percent of religion is fraud, I'm saying it's fraud from a believer's perspective. It nearly goes without saying that anyone who has ever been revered as a prophet not only teaches that they are right, but that everyone else is wrong, especially anyone else revered as a prophet. Including Jesus Christ. A friendly reminder to liberal believers:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Certainly Moses didn't have much belief in other religions of his time, considering he entered the land of Canaan killing every living thing not under the banner of Jehovah, the "man of war".

My comments here point to prophet-believing religion. Tagriffy quoted me on that, but then didn't really respond to that point. Instead, he offered "looking through a glass darkly" interpretations of prophets. When faults are pointed out with the other guy's prophet, they are true faults. When they're pointed out about our prophet, we step back and look through a glass darkly to try and rescue our guy. This makes it even worse. Because now everyone was wrong but our guy, according to our guy, but our guy can't even totally be trusted.

That's why I say prophets are a moral hazard like Fentanyl. With everyone else being wrong but our guy, and our guy having a fair number of bad days, wouldn't it be better to just not have prophets at all?

Gadianton, I find your concluding warning to be inescapably valuable.

I think there is a basic similarity and shared problem for the Mormon follow the prophet version of authority and the fundamentalist insistence on an inerrant Bible read as literally as possible. Either short-circuits peoples sense of right and wrong, curiosity, search and respect for truth. They create a bloated need for authority and as you point out pride in possessing the bloated authority.

add-on explanation:

As a liberal leaning Christian I am aware of the criticism from conservatives that I must be avoiding the exclusive claims Jesus made. I am not I just do not interpret the claim as meaning only people wearing a Jesus pin are of concern of God or include in Jesus's doorway. Jesus claim (I’ll allow John’s interpretation of Jesus to stand, I think John inspired) points to truth but I do not think it requires every body else to be wrong.

I think there are ways of life and ways away for life. Jesus is at the center of the ways of life. That does not mean other people are wrong. There is nothing Jesus taught which is not touched by all humans. There are strong currents away from the path of life. It matters to make distinctions.

[tagriffy]

tagriffy, Pseudepigripha, so what? Well I do not mean that entirely flippently I am wondering what to make of it. It might look different depending upon how one is looking at the authority issue. I think it is possible that in the first century using Paul’s name would be rather more a way of identfying party association not grabbing a big authority. After all Paul was not the great PAUL that he grew into over the centuries. I do not suppose that, advertising, totally excuses the device. but as I said about Ephesians it is the message which matters most.

Please feel free to call me Tim.

We are not in fundamental disagreement. In other circumstances, I'd also say, "Pseudepigrha, so what?" Bear in mind that my focus on some biblical books being pseudipigraphal is in response to a specific question Marcus asked:

Hmmm... Are there actually people out there who 1) want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man, while simultaneously 2) rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true?

What exactly would a person like that be thinking? Smith was so religious that he had to make up claims to get people to join his religion?

Then as one of serveral ideas I threw out, I said:

Joseph as pious fraud. If one accepts modern biblical scholarship, then one has to accept much of the Bible comes to us through "pious frauds." That God has done so in the past means we can't reject this possibility out of hand.

I did specifically have in mind the pseudepigraphal books in the Bible, but inherently I am saying the fact that some of those books are the work of "pious frauds" is not a bad thing in itself. To me, it is simply a fact. Since I regard the Bible--including the pseudepigraphal works--as Scripture, it stands to reason that God is willing to work through pious frauds. Therefore, insofar as Joseph may be regarded as a pious fraud, we cannot reject the possibility God worked through him out of hand.