One quick point before I head out the door, mik. I want to be sure you understand that the reality of ambiguous or unreliable revelation is not what caused my loss of faith in a godbeing of any sort, except as a minor element
I understand, you moved from the narrow I am starting from the general.
in my opinion, the unreliable nature of revelation is mainly problematic for religious traditions that make aggressive truth claims about what God says or wants human beings to do. The LDS church making the assertion that the LDS church is the "one true church", the "only church with the true priesthood authority of JC to perform saving ordinances" is a very aggressive truth-claim which becomes very problematic when its foundation is the unreliable method of revelation.
I agree. And I admit that the meanings of those quotations becoming the necessary battleground. I also admit that your criticism includes the most probable understood meanings. But, if a believer accepts your criticism of the narrow, he is still left with the general revelatory experience and if that revelatory experience includes affirmations of the Book of Mormon, J.S. church etc... he is warranted and even duty bound to assimilate more nuanced meanings to your criticism. And you would then also have to be concerned with the general. Does that make sense?
regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Hello and thank you for the level headed complimented.
Excellent question:
Do you think "radios" tend to have better reception--less static--when they have experienced high quality nurturing? How much dysfunction can an individual be exposed to in their formative days/years without serious effect upon their ability to correctly interpret the "input"? To feel the positives -- " ...loved ... forgiven ...valued ...OK..."--you suggest, and retain/develop the ability to "Smile for common ground..." (A phrase that really turns me on!!!:-)
Of course more static is present is dysfunctional nurture and nature environments, I would present the Mulekite scenario in the Book of Mormon as scriptural warrant that those with "less static" are held responsible for the "static" of those not so provided. The obvious corrollary is obviously God cannot hold anyone responsible for static, and doesn't. So obviously the journey of dis or non belief can be a genuine one. Genuineness in fact, becomes the standard for judgment.
regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
I agree. And I admit that the meanings of those quotations becoming the necessary battleground. I also admit that your criticism includes the most probable understood meanings. But, if a believer accepts your criticism of the narrow, he is still left with the general revelatory experience and if that revelatory experience includes affirmations of the Book of Mormon, J.S. church etc... he is warranted and even duty bound to assimilate more nuanced meanings to your criticism. And you would then also have to be concerned with the general. Does that make sense?
I’m not sure how feeling duty bound to assimilate more nuanced meanings to my criticism contradicts my point, which is that once we accept the ambiguous nature of revelation, logic necessitates also accepting that one cannot legitimately make aggressive truth-claim statements that were obtained via that ambiguous process. It seems to me that assimilating more nuanced meanings likely veers towards reinterpreting aggressive truth-claim statements in a way that recognizes the ambiguity factor. I think many liberal LDS do just that.
I do intend to respond to some of your previous points, but am preoccupied this week. Hopefully I’ll get to it tomorrow, because you made some good points I don’t want to ignore.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.