Watchmen
The phenomenon of religious argument seems to me to be so very dependent upon prior bias, whim and circumstance. For example, Green Kepi and I come to completely opposite conclusions based on the same principle (i.e. "the ancient gospel") but upon different biases and data sets (which themselves change as we age). Because of this, we interpret and apply the exact same scripture (Galatians) very differently. I have to wonder if it isn’t our differing personal bias' which creates our differing personal reaction to almost all doctrines we’re exposed to and to some extent creates the justifications we all feel in what we believe.
For example, Kepi seems disinterested because the LDS are not in tune with his concept of the ancient Christian salvific doctrines whereas I am becoming extraordinarily interested because I think the salvific doctrines of the LDS are increasingly consistent with my personal concept of the ancient Christian salvific doctrines.
As a specific example that is, hopefully not controversial (at least among historians), am I both amazed and pleased that the LDS are restoring the Christian doctrine of Pre-existence of the spirits of men. This is because the data set I’ve been exposed to indicates it was the authentic ancient Christian Doctrine. However, when I was young, I was exposed to a different data set and would have (and probably did...) dismissed this specific doctrine because it was inconsistent with my early level of knowledge and bias. Whereas Kepi doesn’t need “anything else” to dismiss a claim, the more I “research it” as you suggested, the more I am impressed and require much more data before I could possibly dismiss it.
Both Kepi and I have created, over our life times, certain biases which are probably still quite riddled with many incorrect assumptions (we just don’t know what they are...), yet these opposing biases may represent our very best guesses as to what the early SALVIFIC doctrines actually looked like. If he and I can come to entirely different conclusions (and I make the assumption that both he and I are doing the best we can with the data we have), then it makes sense that all individuals are subject to the similar limitations and make a great many incorrect assumptions. And, importantly,
we simply don’t know where we are incorrect.
If, given my personal bias, Paul’s warning of apostasy applied to the Galatians in their day and age meant that early Christians were
already deserting the original Gospel to a counterfeit Christianity,
and I have in my day and age,
inherited the counterfeit christianity, how will I ever discover my error (since the counterfeits use the same scriptures to support their version of the Christians gospel as other Christians use) unless I am able to look critically at what I believe? (Or at least admit to myself that I could be wrong...) I have wondered what would happen if individuals were to approach religion from the assumption that there are errors in their own beliefs and simply try to find out what THOSE errors were, rather than to desperately create psychological and logistical support for the current bias we all have.
Kepi is drawing away and I am drawing closer to the LDS. Perhaps it is because I am exposed to differing early Judao-Christian texts and thus expect personal revelation to continue and Kepi has been exposed to another type of data set with it’s different conclusions. It cannot be simply “biblical exposure alone” since I cannot assume that his Old and New Testament is greatly different than mine. Our differing conclusions have to rest in other biases and data sets between he and I.
Davy Crocket2003;
I have looked at the video reference more than once. It is one of the most powerful testimonies I’ve heard. I can’t avoid placing his speech into the historical paradigm I have. I do not know how to be more objective than I have been in considering what Holland’s talk could mean. Whereas Kepi finds himself repelled, I find myself drawn to the rare power and spirit of such Testimonies
regardless of who gives them.
I’ve tried to look at what the ancient’s said they believed regarding God’s plan for the world and as I place the LDS model into what I think is the ancient model, I cannot avoid the observation that the LDS salvific doctrines fit too well for me to simply dismiss. I can’t. (I could have when I was young and had a different, a different... a smaller set of data)
For example, in Enoch’s vision Enoch discussed the Heavenly Curtain surrounding the throne of God upon which all human history is shown.., it shows “
each generation and it’s potentiates,”. Enoch says “
I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts; Noah and the generation of the flood, their deeds and their thoughts;....Abraham and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts......the teachers of the children in Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; the teachers of the children of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts;” He seems to have seen the world history spread out before him unto the last days.
Enoch adds that he saw
“...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...And I saw: the Messiah the son of Joseph and his generation, and all that they will do to the gentiles..... (3 enoc 45)
One can deny the ancient doctrine that there would be “prophets” among the gentiles, but since 3 Enoch was redacted by ancient Christians themselves, then one can’t deny that the Christian Redactors themselves believed in this very doctrine they wrote down, that is, that
there would be prophets among the Gentiles.
This ancient doctrine of continuing revelation from God creates expectations and a set of eyes willing to look for and look at any claim that might fit the early doctrine of continuing revelation.
When I was young, I grew up with the bias that God gave the gospel ONLY to Israel, and NO other group in the world had it. I believed this despite it's inherent unfairness. As I research more and more of the ancient teachings, I realize the ancient concepts that I am becoming familiar with, taught
ongoing revelation among various nations (including the gentiles). I cannot help but envision individuals such as a Joseph Smith, or a Mr. Holland as the type who would fit that predicted Mold of a Gentile Prophet. The ancient teaching that revelation was to continue (even among the non-prophet but faithful individual christian "saint") is a powerful principle that sets authentic Christianity apart from many other religions who may pray but do not expect an answer. Not
really.
Clear
eidrsiis