Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Whiskey]

It's interesting that Nibley as an eccentric weirdo left you with a negative impression whereas you're otherwise all about eccentric weirdos. If it were a smelly old retired diesel mechanic who was a brilliant inventor and obsessed with a flat earth and right-wing politics, you'd think the guy was the greatest thing ever.

I didn't take a Nibley class, but something must have been brewing in the back of my mind, because I didn't take the typical freshman BYU religion classes, and instead opted for world religions. It was me and 6 or 7 returned missionaries, If I recall correctly all from missions in Asian countries. I learned more in that class than in any other BYU, hs seminary, and a lifetime of gospel doctrine religion classes combined.

The Ancient Near East History class crossed over with some of the alternative religion classes. The class had an assortment of strange majors. My favorite class at BYU, by a lot, was Geology. It changed my career path with one single class. Ancient Near East History was a close second. I still don't even know the difference between the near and far but the class was a blast. It was one of those classes that never took attendance, because it wasn't necessary. Everyone showed up for the entertainment.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The Ancient Near East History class crossed over with some of the alternative religion classes. The class had an assortment of strange majors. My favorite class at BYU, by a lot, was Geology. It changed my career path with one single class. Ancient Near East History was a close second. I still don't even know the difference between the near and far but the class was a blast. It was one of those classes that never took attendance, because it wasn't necessary. Everyone showed up for the entertainment.

This is definitely not made up at all. The tale of Hooch attending BYU and taking an actual class called, Ancient Near East History is one hundred percent plausible.

[Whiskey]

The Ancient Near East History class crossed over with some of the alternative religion classes. The class had an assortment of strange majors. My favorite class at BYU, by a lot, was Geology. It changed my career path with one single class. Ancient Near East History was a close second. I still don't even know the difference between the near and far but the class was a blast. It was one of those classes that never took attendance, because it wasn't necessary. Everyone showed up for the entertainment.

This is definitely not made up at all. The tale of Hooch attending BYU and taking an actual class called, Ancient Near East History is one hundred percent plausible.

Wanger. What's up? You have any original thoughts related to the topic?

[Marcus]

I didn't take a Nibley class, but something must have been brewing in the back of my mind, because I didn't take the typical freshman BYU religion classes, and instead opted for world religions. It was me and 6 or 7 returned missionaries, If I recall correctly all from missions in Asian countries. I learned more in that class than in any other BYU, hs seminary, and a lifetime of gospel doctrine religion classes combined.

Marcus,

That was one of my favorite classes. Was your class taught by Spencer Palmer?

I wish I remembered! I still have the book, let me see if I can find a name.

[Limnor]

I had no idea about the depth (or lack thereof) of preparation and study prior to a mission. If most members never really study the Book of Mormon in depth, even at BYU, then is any actual interpretation outside of “spiritual confirmation” non-existent?

Which brings us back to how a person committed to “reasoned faith” could make that claim when approaching a book that, even within its own institution, isn’t treated as something to be analyzed, while external models of faith and reason depend on wrestling with the text itself.

Come to think of it, I’ve never seen arguments on this or other boards in which some difficult passage of the book results in arguments about the meaning. Unless it is from an outsider arguing about “grace after all you can do” or the like.

[Gadianton]

I had no idea about the depth (or lack thereof) of preparation and study prior to a mission. If most members never really study the Book of Mormon in depth, even at BYU, then is any actual interpretation outside of “spiritual confirmation” non-existent?

Which brings us back to how a person committed to “reasoned faith” could make that claim when approaching a book that, even within its own institution, isn’t treated as something to be analyzed, while external models of faith and reason depend on wrestling with the text itself.

Come to think of it, I’ve never seen arguments on this or other boards in which some difficult passage of the book results in arguments about the meaning. Unless it is from an outsider arguing about “grace after all you can do” or the like.

No doctrinal interpretation. What you can do is liken the scriptures unto yourself. Like, if your car broke down, you can read the passages about Nephi breaking his bow and feel heartened. Bruce R's "Mormon Doctrine" was the first and last attempt to do any kind of scriptural exegesis. I think it's out of print now, and the other leaders were never behind it in the first place. We weren't supposed to have it as missionaries. The official CES manuals are bare bones information about scripture passages in walk-through format. No analysis.

Any learning beyond the absolute basics and food for personal interpretation is highly discouraged. My bishop, during my mission interview, basically advised me to stop reading Hugh Nibley. (he was right!)

Now, you know that ward members themselves are the speakers for the Sacrament meeting program, right? The bishop doesn't get up and preach. To give you an idea of how Mormons view "learning" (in a church capacity), a ranking leader once gave I talk I was present for explaining the sure-fire way to give a killer talk. Find a harrowing story from the Reader's Digest and commit to memory. Pick two scripture passages to back it up. Why do you think MG is always so confused about what he believes and begs Shades to let him have AI answer his questions for him? Because he learns the way he was taught to learn. Not his fault.

[Limnor]

That’s actually new information for me. Most of what I know about Mormonism comes from online discussions and forums, not from observing weekly services or personal interaction. I work with several Mormons, but faith and politics are mostly off limits at the office, so I’ve never really asked how things function at the local level. I’m reasonably certain there are very few outsiders who do—we know the “sacred, not secret” elements, broadly, but not what ordinary Sunday worship actually looks like. I’ve read here about fast and testimony and sacrament, but that’s the extent of my experience and knowledge.

What you’ve posted does help me understand why the Book of Mormon is handled the way it is. I’ve been thinking through what a “hermeneutic” might look like for the Book of Mormon. Maybe the lack of one leads to the “all or nothing” approach. Biblical hermeneutics allow for readings that aren’t literal/historical in nature, whereas I don’t think Book of Mormon survives unless it is literally ancient, instead, it’s either literal ancient history, or it’s worthless.

If a hermeneutic were ever to develop, it would have to include open engagement with redaction, authorship, and 19th-century literary and other dependencies, rather than denying them. My thinking is that this kind of interpretive honesty wouldn’t simply be academic—it’s probably what the institution would need in order to weather the information age.

[huckelberry]

That’s actually new information for me. Most of what I know about Mormonism comes from online discussions and forums, not from observing weekly services or personal interaction. I work with several Mormons, but faith and politics are mostly off limits at the office, so I’ve never really asked how things function at the local level. I’m reasonably certain there are very few outsiders who do—we know the “sacred, not secret” elements, broadly, but not what ordinary Sunday worship actually looks like. I’ve read here about fast and testimony and sacrament, but that’s the extent of my experience and knowledge.

What you’ve posted does help me understand why the Book of Mormon is handled the way it is. I’ve been thinking through what a “hermeneutic” might look like for the Book of Mormon. Maybe the lack of one leads to the “all or nothing” approach. Biblical hermeneutics allow for readings that aren’t literal/historical in nature, whereas I don’t think Book of Mormon survives unless it is literally ancient, instead, it’s either literal ancient history, or it’s worthless.

If a hermeneutic were ever to develop, it would have to include open engagement with redaction, authorship, and 19th-century literary and other dependencies, rather than denying them. My thinking is that this kind of interpretive honesty wouldn’t simply be academic—it’s probably what the institution would need in order to weather the information age.

limnor, I share your view that the Book of Mormon needs, by believers, to be seen as historical. It is a great witness to the resurrection of Jesus as well as witness to Joseph's mission. Very strong values needing no deep analysis no lengthy study of textual transmission or cultural background.

Just as well, unlike the Bible there is no multiple textual transmissions in different localities or different languages. There is no libraries of Mayan commentary on the teaching of Jesus and how to approach different understandings like one finds for early biblical Christianity. We do not have extensive records, archeological and written for the culture of the Book of Mormon to better see its history. We do not have outside sources coordinating historical information like the Bible. For some folks that is a big advantage for the Book of Mormon. Much study of the Bible has uncertainty, problems , contradictions. It might harm faith unlike a simple witness, resurrected Jesus came out of the sky with divine power!

I wince a bit over gadiantons descriptions. There may be a bit of exaggeration but his point is quite real I realize.

I think it helps the use of reason to realize the Bible has actual historical foundation. That of course does not guarantee complete accuracy or that every story actually happened. I think in a sense the Torah was created as a spiritual parable(s) . There may be historical material as inspiration but sorting any out is difficult, perhaps not possible.being created as story for spiritual illumination makes it easier to accept its historical uncertainties while seeing it fulfill a purpose.

[Limnor]

Good point Huck—Christianity does ultimately rest on a literal death and resurrection—if that didn’t happen, Paul has no argument. And I think there is enough evidence that an ancient Israel existed.

But I’m not convinced that a second witness of a literal resurrection, especially one that depends entirely on accepting a much later text as literal history, adds much to that initial witness.

In fact, the book focuses less on the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ than it does serving as an “ancient” witness in support of specific theological teachings regarding baptism and other ordinances 19th century theologians were arguing about. And a lot of jockeying for leadership.

Edited to add: I overlooked your point about people responding to a simpler version of the resurrection without the biblical issues (translation and etc). What you are saying is that may be part of the appeal, if am understanding you correctly?

[Limnor]

Reading through the “The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal” thread, I realized even the basic definition of death is unique in Mormon theology. It sounds like death is defined as “mostly dead.”

In historic Christianity, Jesus really died. That’s why resurrection is such a big deal—it’s God reversing something final. Anything less than that, like “he was still conscious somewhere,” is not the same as dead. Seeing this really reinforces the divide between traditional biblical Christianity and Mormonism.

Typically, the Bible refers to death as meaning physical or spiritual—but the understanding is that Jesus literally, physically died. This divide got me thinking about Adam and Eve and other examples.

For example, though Adam and Eve didn’t die physically “on that day,” an animal did, reflecting an initial explanation for a substitutionary sacrificial system, later echoed by the story of Abraham and Isaac, and the temple sacrificial system. Jonah’s prayer from the fish is typically understood as describing utter helplessness in the face of certain death, whether literal or symbolic—I happen to think that Jonah would have had to physically die after three days in the belly of a fish (if it’s a literally story), it just doesn’t seem like anyone could survive that. And a literal reading about Jesus preaching to the dead isn’t necessarily required—that exposition can be read as describing the reach and scope of resurrection, not a timeline of activity while dead.