Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

425 Excellent


About Spammer

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

766 profile views
  1. I was 13 and a deacon in a ward West of I-15 in the Salt Lake Valley. I was sitting with the other deacons up front. The bishop announced and read OD 2 over the pulpit. I was sitting next to his son, who said "I'm not passing the sacrament with a [n-word]!" I was kind of shocked, but not as much as I should have been. Racist folklore that used to be doctrine (curse of Cain, African people were less valiant in the present-earth life and descended from Cain through Ham) was taught to us at home, in Sunday School and deacon's quorum. Brazil nuts were called '[n-word] toes' and 'ding dong ditch' was called '[n-word] knocking.' That's all I remember about the announcement.
  2. The Crusades

    If you can hardly find a decent one among them, then you must have reviewed the historical details of each of the 266 popes, else how could you possibly draw that conclusion? Have you done this? You keep saying 'They' have done this. It's very vague. How many of the 266 are you talking about and what were their names? Of course, there were some bad popes, but it doesn't sound like you can identify the number or proportion of them, let alone their names. So lets at least start with the data we know you have. How many specific popes are you talking about in your examples of bad behavior? Can you provide a specific number?
  3. The Crusades

    What you're doing here is treating all 266 popes as if they were a single amorphous Pope-being, collecting, combining and ascribing the bad behavior of the worst popes to the Pope-being and assigning the collective evil of this imaginary being to each of the 266 individual popes, who were not imaginary, like the abstract idea of 'Pope' you have in your mind. Each pope is a living, unique human being, an individual. Your approach not only makes for a bad history lesson, it's also unjust. You keep saying 'the Pope did this and the Pope did that', without specifying which of the 266 popes you're talking about. Set aside your abstract and artificial Pope-being construct and please tell us something a bit more concrete and useful: of all 266 popes, what percentage were baddies and what was the name of each?
  4. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Well, clearly, whoever doesn't agree with MY interpretation or the interpretation of MY favorite exegetes is obviously not led by the Holy Spirit.
  5. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Is that you in the photo?? I'll give it a read, as well as the Schmanko article you linked earlier. I scanned that one but need to spend some time with it.
  6. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Oh, I would never actually do that. It's not nice and my wife would be very upset. I would be in BIG trouble. ☠️
  7. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    I'll extend the same offer to you if you're ever on the East Coast, DC metro to be exact. There are some fine Virginia breweries. in the meanwhile, God reveals Himself through scripture to human minds and human minds do the interpreting. For a given passage, how do you determine which of the many interpretations is aligned with God's mind?
  8. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Lol, who knew? Maybe I should bear my testimony of how God led me to the Catholic Tradition and Orthodoxy the next F&T meeting I attend with my wife. It would be very interesting to gauge the range of reactions to that. Will the bishop shut me down?? 😃😇
  9. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Thanks for sharing your experiences. You've been coming to terms with having your mind blown since I was 3! I've known/felt the truth of all of this intuitively, for a long time, I think, but didn't have the means to sort it all out in a more coherent fashion until first encountering the info and links you've provided on this board, perhaps in 2013 or so? There's still lots to digest, but the nature of the problem I've had for years and haven't articulated very well here - why an objective standard of some kind is so dang elusive - is becoming clearer. Speaking of Husserl, it's funny you mention him. Ironically, I'm in the middle of a biography of Edith Stein, a German Jewish philosopher who was an atheist, was Husserl's student and protege, and became a Catholic nun and mystic after reading St. Theresa of Avila's autobiography. She died in Auschwitz in 1942. Edith was enthralled with St. Theresa's description of her mystical experiences and concluded 'This is the truth!' She was baptized, acquired the same experiences, and was transformed. Now Edith is a Catholic saint - St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross. Pragmatism in action. https://www.amazon.com/Edith-Stein-Untold-Philosopher-Auschwitz/dp/0898704103 [Edit: reminds me of another Jewish atheist turned Catholic philosopher - Simone Weil. She had a powerful spiritual experience praying the Lord's Prayer before a cross in a Catholic Church. She was converted instantly, but was never baptized. My favorite of her sayings is 'Beauty is the experimental proof that the Incarnation is possible.' From her published notebooks, titled "Gravity and Grace," on Routledge Press.]
  10. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Amen, brother.
  11. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Hmm...it does sound familiar. Elmer Fudd? Seriously, I think the old Mormon model really did a number on me. I've been looking for that spiritual witness, those confirming feelings, my entire life, even now. Their lack still pushes me toward atheism. It's a persistent lack, beginning 35 years ago when I first got on my knees as a high schooler to ask for the same experience others said they had received, has produced a profound angst I live with daily. I've got to let it go for my own wellbeing. It still seems to be central to Mormonism - I still hear it every time I visit with my wife - so Mormonism still won't work for me. I base my current practice on patristic readings and the fact that I find participation in the Divine Liturgy, and the theology that informs it, to be very satisfying. That'll have to be good enough and for now it is.
  12. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Yes, I asked God whether my conclusions were correct. I also asked God whether the LDS church is true. Many times. There were no recognizable answers, so that left me with the review of the ancient documents to decide what kind of Christian I should be when I decided to give Jesus a try again. I read the NT and the ante-Nicene church fathers. All of them. I didn't see Mormonism; I saw elements of Catholicism everywhere I looked. Nowhere did I see the teaching that the Father is a glorified man in the ante-Nicene literature. Even Arius agreed with the Catholic understanding of the Father's nature. What caused the controversy was his position that the Son was the Father's ex nihilo creation, the same as us. It was varying shades of Catholicism everywhere I looked. There was really only one choice after that effort.
  13. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Nope. I think I'd have to speak from within his own paradigm.
  14. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Lol, well said and I see the 'truth' of it. It brings a whole new perspective to F&T meetings, though. "I'd like to bear my testimony, I 'know' the church is true." Ok. Sounds good. I'm happy for you. Doesn't work for me, though. Makes for an interesting conversation with the missionaries. I wonder how they would respond? I still attend with my wife from time to time, btw, so maybe I'll have an opportunity. Of course, the same applies to 'feeling' God's presence when receiving the Eucharist. If you feel it and believe it, then it's God. This is new for me. I grew up in the LDS church surrounded by testimonies and spirit-feels. I never really felt anything and even if I had, I always wondered whether it was even possible in principle to really know whether God was the source. I always suspected the answer was no. I was well in my way to Pragmatism, without knowing it. I just didn't have the concepts and language to articulate it. I used to get so angry when people would bear their testimonies and tell me the reason I didn't feel the spirit was because I was doing it wrong (I'm insincere, not really willing to do what it takes, offended by someone, etc). It doesn't make me as angry anymore. They say they know, but they don't know the way they think they know. I'm no different. Knowing that does make me uncomfortable. The promise that I can really know for myself that the church is true (or not) was ingrained in me from my earliest memories. Even now, I still look for a feeling from God at the Liturgy that's of such a character that's I cannot deny it's from God. I guess I have to learn to live with the uncertainty. There's no way to know, no matter what paradigm I adopt. In Orthodoxy and Catholic RCIA, people talk about their spiritual experiences. I suppose I'll never be one of them - the spirit feelers, either. It's a bit disheartening.
  15. 1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

    Oh, I see that I'm also arguing against my own paradigm. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it's possible to compare two paradigms without reference to either. I've lived both paradigms (LDS and Catholic/Orthodox). The former did not produce good fruit in my life; the latter does. Therefore, God is not a glorified man. That seems to be the only valid process for discerning truth from the Pragmatic standpoint. If so, then great - sorry, Mark, you're incorrect - God is an Immaterial being. Is that really where we are? It seems so.