Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    30,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. I know. It's hard. But I can quit any time I want
  2. yep, agree. When God gives you a "Stewardship" though I don't know if thank -yous are exactly appropriate. It can feel as if some "stewardships" should be delivered by a dump truck.
  3. OR as some suggest, discover that both Nephite and Lamanite culture existed as cultural differences within a more dominant Mayan culture, perhaps much like the evil Republicans and perfect Democrats co-exist in the USA. The analogy would be better if we had civil war skirmishes happening now, but heck we know who has all the guns. So it still doesn't totally work Same old story- the good guys vs the bad guys. Of course you can switch which is which mentally if you wish Wow. Never realized my talent for rapping before You can switch Which is which Mentally if you wish
  4. Just curious why you believe this. You can organize anything you want. What do you want to hang on to your own junk? Besides the question of what you mean by "heaven". But even that is thinking like an earthling, which we cannot get beyond while we are .... earthlings. Think of caterpillars speculating on how it will be to fly. Would it be reasonable form them to think they know about how to do a left bank and roll in a high wind as well as they will know it when they are butterflies? Maybe it's just a semantics thing as usual. Thinking of the sealing ceremony, I just see it as a description of priesthood keys we and our wives may hold together to serve others. Suppose for example one was given control over the government, as perhaps a perfected European king might have had way back when. Would that be "ownership" of the government or something they "have" to do with whatever they wanted or more like a responsibility for holding keys to serve others? Does God "own" this world and everything in it? I just see it as an odd way to characterize it I guess.
  5. For the bonus round, give the correct pronunciation for that quote in its original language. Did you see this? The actual talk is only about 45 minutes- there is a long warm up and the [email protected] Great stuff! I love this guy! Of course I taught him all I know. Then he said "Yeah- so what's new?" https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FFNDWMbHTSWzklKLpRVkJGzXFtZmCwJD
  6. But that is exactly the point. They had never had the option to choose anything, as the story is told. Here they are, adults apparently in a figurative situation in a figurative garden and are given an ambiguous figurative choice. OR make it all literally historically correct- we will get to that scenario in a minute The purpose of the story is to show that we HAVE a choice and ARE able to choose for ourselves. The entire point of the story is to teach US that: We make a choice and receive the consequences and whether or not we consider them "good" or "bad" at the time of the choice. And then we have the opportunity to make the best of those consequences. I always wonder how the story can be taken literally in respect to Jesus and being saved. Suppose Adam and Eve never sinned. Could they have multiplied and replenished the earth as they also had been commanded to do? Would NOT following that commandment also be a transgression, therefore that becomes the Fall? Would each successive generation then have the opportunity to sin or not sin? Why would ONLY they be the ones to be tested?? Did God really expect them NOT to eat of the tree nor any of their children? And what goes to the core in the first place, WHY did he give them the tree in the first place if he wanted a perfect world forever? But if they could not reproduce was it all for them only? God created them with the plan that he would only have two perfect children who would live forever? Would there be further trials? What would have been Jesus' role if the Fall never happened? Surely Evangelicals are smart folks who have this all figured out, right? I have never heard those explanations- if you could direct me to somewhere I could find the info, I would appreciate it! I am just wondering what it would be like to take the story literally and where it all was intended to lead then It seems Billy Graham had no answers or had not thought it through https://billygraham.org/answer/what-would-the-world-be-like-if-adam-and-eve-had-never-sinned-or-do-you-think-it-would-be-pretty-much-the-same-as-it-is-right-now/ What would be the need for Christ or faith in anything? We would already be perfect and in heaven- what would have been the purpose of the whole Adam and Eve Experiment that apparently went terribly wrong? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me any other way!?
  7. So much for his alleged cradle robbing I suppose- that point right there negates the idea that he was doing it all for his personal gratification. "OOPS- there go my 72 virgins!" I don't think so! Those who believe always see first the best of intentions and apparently those who do not always see the worst of intentions I guess.
  8. If I have it right, it was a practice to ensure that that the woman was "adopted" into the family of the prophet, thereby ensuring that she would presumable have the option to be sealed to a worthy man in the eternities regardless of whether or not the person she chose in life was worthy to be sealed in the eternities. Maybe I am wrong but I think it was seen as an honor and kind of an "insurance policy" that the woman would be enabled to progress in the eternities. In no way was it perceived at the time to be "giving himself brides for his birthday" but rather as a gift of temple work for deceased sisters and an option for them in the resurrection. I think it is a great way to spend birthdays now that I think of it- declare a "day in the temple" and do temple work all day as one's own "birthday present" to oneself. Now of course we would never seal anyone to whom we are not related to them- but that was not, as you point out- the practice at the time. All temple work is done under the condition that the person receiving the ordinances wants them and sees them as a blessing. I have relatives who get angry when temple work is done, under the impression that "He made grandma a Mormon- and she would never have agreed to that!! It's horrible!" This is the same kind of thing. It is not some voodoo curse that enslaves the dead person forever- it is a loving gesture which we believe can give eternal life to those who desire to partake. It is always done as a blessing for the person receiving the ordinance, and if they don't want it- they can reject it. No problem. The person doing the work receives another opportunity to repeat and re-experience the wonderful blessings they received when those ordinances were performed for themselves.
  9. I think your double negatives made this sentence very confusing. Maybe you should clarify it.
  10. I guess you are right. We are are on different wavelengths. I read and study the Book of Mormon because of its spiritual value. Its authorship is totally irrelevant to me. One could argue authorship forever and miss completely the spiritual value of the book. To me that is the same category as geography or historicity. We have the book, period. It is either worth spending time studying or it is not. It's value does not lie in who wrote it, so why pursue what is not valuable, and will remain forever insoluble in the presence of such riches? What value is there in the time spent in that pursuit? I tend to be uninterested in puzzles for their own sake. I wish I could understand how others see it but at my age I think I never will. I know others find this very important but I have never understood why.
  11. Please excuse odd capitalization in this post since I'm dictating it into my telephone I have studied a lot of religions. I also maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has incorporated virtually every religious View in its Doctrine in some respect I believe that is because we are the basic original Doctrine For All Mankind, from which all other human religiosity comes. I truly believe in dispensationalism Ancestor worship for example , has elements in worshipping our heavenly father, and doing work for the Dead. The General idea of reincarnation has aspects of the idea that God was once a man like us who has been born again into exaltation In this thread, We are now discussing the importance of the yin and yang, male and female Good and Evil and opposition in all things. It is as if the unified truth of the ancients was shattered into pieces by apostasies and now each culture has picked up a singular aspect of that truth and bases Worship in it. We have the concept of deification. We have the concept of polytheism mixed with monotheism depending on one's perspective. We truly do consistently unify immanence and Transcendence in our Doctrine. We solved the problem of alleged two Natures of Christ and unify his nature into one nature, which is human nature with a spark of the Divine. Either all religions have in some sense come together in our faith or something like our faith was the mother of all religions of mankind. That's one of the reasons I'm here.
  12. K sorry for being dense. Didn't sound like you anyway
  13. Uh do you know what anointing the Lingam and Yoni is? Not exactly androgynous
  14. Omigosh! Or Worse still what if the Catholics are right? Past due :Time to get our own testimonies. I vote for Yin Yang myself. Proving contraries in the Great Dialectic Can no one think for themselves anymore?
  15. Yes of course, and there is nothing wrong with that. It leads to discussion and things change. It is evolution and progression- those ideas which survive, survive, and others die because they are not strong enough to create a community to defend them and devote themselves to the belief. It is the evolution of memes- in the original sense, in action. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
  16. Well frankly perhaps it is not worth the effort, because I think it is not so simple and can be seen multiple ways I believe that 99% of contradictory remarks are the result of unclear semantics. The remainder results I think from genuine disagreements on assumptions, where one party simply cannot be moved. Yes some might be "wrong" but defining what that means cannot be defined because that means one can also define what "not wrong"- meaning "truth" - can be defined, and in my opinion and several schools of contemporary philosophy, truth is undefinable, and who is "right" is always debatable and therefore who is "wrong" is just as debatable. This is called "analytical philosophy" which was the major trend in philosophy in English in the 20th century. That's why I suggested analyzing arguments instead of trying to worry about what is "true". I know it is unlikely to help but I will give a few references anyway for anyone else who might be interested. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ or here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/#FregSema Rorty had this view, Wittgenstein had this view, Russell had this view. If you are not defining terms and analyzing language in detail, you will not have a strong argument. One man's "modalism" might not be another man's modalism.
  17. I would suggest to do as I suggested- and make quotes with references to each position that YOU think the person you are quoting said, indicating why they are wrong. This does none of that. We have not even gotten into what a modalist is or is not or why certain scriptures are interpreted as "modalist" etc, nor are there any quotes showing Bruening and Paulsen's words for comparison. Again I would simply suggest that to make your argument clear, you should write it in the format I suggested and not simply repeat your same assertions again and again. As I said though I will go through the thread to suggest ways to make your argument stronger. Frankly I have no dogs in this fight- it is pretty clear to me that the early BOM shows Protestant modalist tendencies and as Joseph's grasp of how each position he took implied an entire theological paradigm, he tweaked his positions until he finally ended up at the doctrine in the King Follette discourse. I don't have any problem with this, and others do. It does not cause me to think he was not a prophet any more than following the progression of others in other areas- perhaps Mozart's music and his progression as a composer for example, means that Mozart was not a great composer. It is a wonderful progression and after all aren't we all about progression?? And do we believe that prophets must always be consistent and fixed in their positions attempting to be infallible? Why does the fact that Joseph's grasp of doctrine changed and developed bother anyone? Oh wait- I get it- the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "historical" and it is therefore PERCEIVED that it contains no input from Joseph- but that he is quoting God verbatim and of course God does not progress. There are so many problems with that position I cannot even list them all. But I just really really dislike bad arguments.
  18. Assuming your arguments are really there in this thread, I will go back and try to find the "full context" The reference to "proving contraries" can be found in the link I provided quoting Joseph's homespun version of dialectical reasoning. It means essentially that interpretations that seem incompatible are not necessarily incompatible when analyzed in detail and the alleged incompatibilities are closely examined and fully discussed. I don't understand what your position is I suppose it seems you are attacking incompatibilities in scripture then saying that harmonizing scripture is "fundamentalist" and saying that it leads to "ad hoc doctrine" while Joseph seems to disagree with you, essentially saying that “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Terryl Givens made several good points about that comment of Joseph's, one of which can be found here: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2007/11/reflections-on-people-of-paradox-by-the-author/ But how these remarks of yours square with the idea that you'd "rather acknowledge differences in scripture with eyes wide open" while doing so leads to "ad hoc doctrine" I suppose you mean that you LIKE "ad hoc doctrine" then?? I am puzzled. But thanks for the invitation to go back and examine your contexts, I will happily do so. This whole line of reasoning seems very mysterious to me
  19. To make this a convincing argument it would be good for your case to say something like "This is what Modalist Xyz actually says about the godhead: <quote quote etc> This is how Ari Bruening and David Paulsen incorrectly defined modalism.: <quote quote etc> Clearly we can see that Xyz did not say what Ari Bruening and David Paulsen incorrectly defined modalism, because they said: <quote quote etc> Therefore it is clear that what they presented as Xyz's point was NOT at all what Xyz said...."
  20. So which is it? Does proving contraries lead to wisdom or not? Just trying to decipher what you are saying https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intellectual_History
  21. Which is why you need to follow Moroni's promise, James 1:5 and all the other admonitions from prophets through the ages to get your own answers. Blindly following anyone is idiocy. Follow only what the Lord tells you. And if that includes that the church is not for you, you should not be here. Let me adjust that. I would not be here if I did not have a testimony. I suppose others may just be here for other reasons- but if so I would suggest that it is their decision to be here and no one else's. End of rant.
  22. So if you have cancer don't take any treatments because they are not yet perfected, and what is the purpose of taking a treatment that is a proverbial slippery bar of soap because the truth is a moving target. This is the only church in existence that in a sense mirrors the scientific method with our analogy "on-going revelation". If you personally receive ongoing revelation you will understand that it may give you an overall picture at first and then as the individual steps arise in getting from 1 to 100 at say step 57, you may get a mid-course correction because you messed up a little bit on step 50 back there somewhere. This is PROCESS theology, not written "ONCE FOR ALL". Our theology is about BECOMING- for us individually and for us as a community. There is so much more we need to learn and our prophets put out the ideas for us to test. Sometimes they nail it perfectly and sometimes they don't. We should not be children being led as babies, but be thinking for ourselves and nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
×
×
  • Create New...