Which miracles literally happened?

[wuapinmon]

Smart people don't believe any of this stuff literally happened.

Smart people don't speak in absolutes.

[RobinFinderson]

Smart people don't believe any of this stuff literally happened.

Smart people don't speak in absolutes.

You are both wrong! Smart people do believe this stuff, which is weird, but not really that weird.

Smart people do speak in absolutes, often.

[Indy Coug]

Smart people don't believe any of this stuff literally happened.

Smart people take your opinions as gospel truths.

[mrluchini]

You are both wrong! Smart people do believe this stuff, which is weird, but not really that weird.

Smart people do speak in absolutes, often.

Do smart people speak in absolutes or are the perceived smart people? From my experience, people that often speak in absolutes are either arrogant or ignorant, or possibly both.

[wuapinmon]

You are both wrong! Smart people do believe this stuff, which is weird, but not really that weird.

Smart people do speak in absolutes, often.

Did you miss the purposeful irony of using an absolute to deride an absolute? I was just being funny.

[wuapinmon]

Do smart people speak in absolutes or are the perceived smart people? From my experience, people that often speak in absolutes are either arrogant or ignorant, or possibly both.

Aww crap. I'm all of those.

[RobinFinderson]

Do smart people speak in absolutes or are the perceived smart people? From my experience, people that often speak in absolutes are either arrogant or ignorant, or possibly both.

Mr. Luchini! Welcome to the board. I hope your CUF skiz are as bad-ass as your MW2 skilz.

Anyhow, there are lots of absolutes that are absolutely absolute. There are also absolutes that arrogant and/or ignorant.

[All-American]

It's not the only fair characterization, but yes it is a fair characterization. Should a believer base his decision on literalism case-by-case primarily from analytic, critical, or scientific (historiographic or what have you) considerations? or from some other paradigm?

In my humble opinion, science, for example, is not going to give a definitive answer any way. Any claim to the contrary, I'd suggest is rooted in a deep mis-understanding of the limitations of science.

Science won't yield definitive answers, to be sure, but you're not asking about definitive answers; you're asking whether we believed something happened. Science (in an expanded sense of the word broad enough to include history and historiography) is not a perfect way of evaluating one's system of beliefs, but to consequentially dismiss it may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would certainly balk at telling others how they ought to evaluate their own system of beliefs.

What's wrong with a believer saying that some events are more credible than others?

[Indy Coug]

Do smart people speak in absolutes or are the perceived smart people? From my experience, people that often speak in absolutes are either arrogant or ignorant, or possibly both.

Good inaugural post.

[TripletDaddy]

From my experience, people that often speak in absolutes are either arrogant or ignorant, or possibly both.

absolutely.

[mrluchini]

Mr. Luchini! Welcome to the board. I hope your CUF skiz are as bad-ass as your MW2 skilz.

Anyhow, there are lots of absolutes that are absolutely absolute. There are also absolutes that arrogant and/or ignorant.

I will absolutely try and not disappoint.

I realize that there are many absolutes that are absolute in this world, but those that are always absolute about absolutely everything, are those that annoy and or scare me.

Good inaugural post.

Thank you sir

[Pheidippides]

I think this thread asks all the wrong questions.

As a believer, the question of whether or not something could happen is entirely separate and distinct from whether or not something did happen.

The former question is of a theological nature and relates to the ability and nature of God. I do believe that God could have done any of those things.

The latter is only tangentially related and deals with a belief in literary accuracy. I do not believe in the literal accuracy of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, and thus do not believe they did happen as written. I do not necessarily believe that they did not happen as written. My belief (from a theological perspective) is based in dogma, not narrative.

The Bible is a compilation of books of various origins - and the descriptions of the first events were written millenia after the occurrence of said events. We explicitly believe that there are mistranslations in the Bible, yet somehow we also believe that the stories were passed down with unerring accuracy over thousands of years to be transcribed in Genesis?

As for the Book of Mormon, its very text allows for literary skepticism. Other than the first few chapters, it explicitly purports to be an edited summary of old records - hundreds of years old - by two men doing the editing. Neither Mormon nor Moroni had any personal knowledge of what they wrote other than the last few bits. Mormon himself hints at his own doubts to the exact veracity in 3rd Nephi when he talks about the fact that the records as to the timing of the coming of Christ could be trusted because of the guy who wrote them in the original. And as the Jarom/Omni books show us, the Nephites were always spectacular record-keepers.

If I were to perform the equivalent task - writing a history of the Sengoku Period of Japan based only on journals from the period, for example - you better believe I'm going to at least question the accuracy of what I read, whether because of misremembering, personal viewpoint, or whatever. Put differently, if my wife and I can't agree on our conversation yesterday, how am I supposed to remember it accurately 10 years from now. And how is somebody supposed to know that what I write 10 years from how is what actually happened?

I have never seen any statement by any church authority, modern or recent, that insinuates that I need to believe in the literal accuracy of the historical events of the Bible and Book of Mormon without question. I'm sure SeattleUte can give me something to work with if he wanted.

On a tangential subject, I am getting increasingly tired of the "all or nothing" nonsense that we have in the church. I regularly read, for example, the Articles of Faith and ask myself if I really believe all that (I do). I do the same with fundamental principles of the gospel, both on my own and in temple recommend interviews. I pass the test without reservation every time. However, I probably only have 75% of my beliefs in common with the mainstream church, if that. And I am fine with that. I believe what I believe and do not apologize for that, and you cannot expect me to believe otherwise just because somebody says I should believe in a certain way.

</rant>

[Indy Coug]

As for the Book of Mormon, its very text allows for literary skepticism. Other than the first few chapters, it explicitly purports to be an edited summary of old records - hundreds of years old - by two men doing the editing. Neither Mormon nor Moroni had any personal knowledge of what they wrote other than the last few bits. Mormon himself hints at his own doubts to the exact veracity in 3rd Nephi when he talks about the fact that the records as to the timing of the coming of Christ could be trusted because of the guy who wrote them in the original. And as the Jarom/Omni books show us, the Nephites were always spectacular record-keepers.

If I were to perform the equivalent task - writing a history of the Sengoku Period of Japan based only on journals from the period, for example - you better believe I'm going to at least question the accuracy of what I read, whether because of misremembering, personal viewpoint, or whatever. Put differently, if my wife and I can't agree on our conversation yesterday, how am I supposed to remember it accurately 10 years from now. And how is somebody supposed to know that what I write 10 years from how is what actually happened?

I have never seen any statement by any church authority, modern or recent, that insinuates that I need to believe in the literal accuracy of the historical events of the Bible and Book of Mormon without question. I'm sure SeattleUte can give me something to work with if he wanted.

</rant>

Just a quick point about Book of Mormon literary skepticism, I believe the "provenance" of the records being abridged by Mormon and Moroni was pretty well established. They were handed down by inheritance and/or the Nephite prophetic line.

It wasn't a matter of reading articles by the NY Post, NY Times, CNN, FoxNews, National Enquirer and suicidalcrackpot.blogspot.com and trying to come up with some consistent, cohesive and accurate account of the events they chronicle.

$0.02

[Pheidippides]

Just a quick point about Book of Mormon literary skepticism, I believe the "provenance" of the records being abridged by Mormon and Moroni was pretty well established. They were handed down by inheritance and/or the Nephite prophetic line.

It wasn't a matter of reading articles by the NY Post, NY Times, CNN, FoxNews, National Enquirer and suicidalcrackpot.blogspot.com and trying to come up with some consistent, cohesive and accurate account of the events they chronicle.

$0.02

Very true. And one would certainly at least hope that the the recorders thereof were as truthful on an intentional level as they could be (although charlatans among the Lord's elect do appear). However, that still leaves an awful lot of room for inaccuracy (if unintentional) and Mormon's own statement, to me at least, shows that he trusted some records more than others based on who kept it.

[SeattleUte]

Smart people don't speak in absolutes.

Smart people also get irony. I'm just giving SOP and his ilk a taste of their own medicine. I consider my absolute satement about as smart as the absolute statement that God wants everyone to be devout tithe paying Mormons.

Am I going to have to start using smily faces?