501 replies to this topic

[DBMormon]

Log, on 13 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I would like to interject that while Ben has a well-thought out position, it's incomplete.  This is not going to be a fully coherent post, but, then, when do I ever post coherently?

Everyone has a breaking point.  What they do when they reach that point is a witness of their character.

Abraham was commanded to slay his sole son.  I guarantee you there was nothing else in existence that would have been as great a trial for him.

For others of us, other issues arise which perform the same function.  I have personally defeated a couple.  I have chosen wickedness in the face of others, to my eternal shame.

I feel that, in Ben's response, the power of a demonstrated contradiction is not appreciated.

It does not help to say "others don't have this problem."  The person with the problem has this problem, and that is sufficient for them.

Thank you for saying that.  Writing this topic I had hoped to have help from others who had experienced this, rather 98% of people shrug it off, think that I am not looking at this the right way, and the problem is with me.  Not much help at all.  I am not alone, yet here I have felt I was in seeing these difficulties.  I am trying really hard to take each of these issues and try to find a way to reconcile them.  I am not an anti mormon.  I am an active faithful latter-day saint. who while having had spiritual experiences can not put my heart into something where the facts (as I see them) lead me to think that there are way too many mental hurdles to leap to make it fit.  Yet I want nothing more then for the pegs to all fit in their holes.... at least enough to move forward.  IT is not as simple to me as I have had spiritual experiences withing the realm of mormonism therefore the conclusion is that Mormonism is true   I Know God loves me and that is enough for him to draw me closer to him in any realm or context.

anyway thanks

[DBMormon]

Pa Pa, on 13 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

From the bottom of my heart...this is how serious. We spend to much time reading about the scriptures than reading them. Apologetics and the internet do not bring the Spirit. All of these questions related to the Church in any age. Men embellish, we should have testimony of the gospel and not Church history. We will never know the full truth and from experience those who claim too are fooling themselves. We did not live in those times and will never fully understand them. What impresses me most about the early Saints is what they accomplished "despite their weaknesses". Everyone on the internet has an agenda, and no one should look to "scholars" for inspiration, just information. God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

that framework doesn't work... here is why..... the Catholic Church has some pretty troubling history when they killed any Christian who believed diffrerently over 100's of years.  Many Catholics have spiritual testimonies of their faith.  Are we not to consider History at all in finding these things out for ourselves.... I can not skip history..... To me it is a a definer.  A church led directly by God will have a history that indicates that.  Compared to other faiths they will get it right more often

[Glenn101]

Jaybear, on 13 April 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

You didn't answer the question.
I presume you chose not to, because you know fully well that Smith engaged in the practice of polygamy without seeking approval from the Q12.

Didn't Joseph Smith engage in the practice of polygamy before there was a Quorum of twelve?
However, history tells us that Joseph revealed the principle to select members of the twelve individually. Some, like WIlliam Law, finally rejected it, but others accepted it, finally.

Glenn

[DBMormon]

If anyone would truly like to give a logical answer to my questions rather then talk about the way the brain handles information, or Tell me I don't have a testimony, or that the internet is evil.  Please feel free, otherwise I am getting frustrated.
1.) There are negative things in LDS history the leaders would prefer to discuss as little as possible.  some not at all. it comes off as they have something to hide at times
2.) Leaders have claimed to be inspired and have given bad information.
3.) We can't teach follow the prophet regardless and then tell people they are human and they make mistakes and we can choose not to follow when they are wrong and there is no consequence

[Storm Rider]

reelmormon, on 14 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

If anyone would truly like to give a logical answer to my questions rather then talk about the way the brain handles information, or Tell me I don't have a testimony, or that the internet is evil.  Please feel free, otherwise I am getting frustrated.
1.) There are negative things in LDS history the leaders would prefer to discuss as little as possible.  some not at all. it comes off as they have something to hide at times
2.) Leaders have claimed to be inspired and have given bad information.
3.) We can't teach follow the prophet regardless and then tell people they are human and they make mistakes and we can choose not to follow when they are wrong and there is no consequence

I am a LDS, a scholar, and generally faithful.  I believe in the restoration, its need, its reality, and the many teachings of the Church that provide a purpose to this life.  I believe that leaders of Church are men, first and foremost, who have been called to serve.  They have just as much inspiration in their personal lives as I do.  They struggle to lead the Church and provide direction, inspiration, and guidance; however, they are just men.

The Church necessarily focuses on the fundamental teachings of the Gospel because that is what most people need most, a firm foundation.  They go beyond the fundamentals rarely; this is a different from the early leaders of the Church who were more prone or open to giving opinions, speaking their mind, and sharing their thoughts.  Sometimes our leaders are spot on and do a great job.  At other times, they are really not very good and just regurgitate one of their canned talks and it really is not that spiritually satisfying; this goes as much for local leaders as it does for any other leader in the hierarchy.

We do not enter heaven at the direction of prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers.  We enter heaven through the Grace of Jesus Christ and through Jesus Christ alone.  I promise you that you will have as many trials over Church history as you choose to have.  I also promise you that the moment you let God direct your life all the trials of faith will become as mist that is blown away in the morning's first light.

[Kevin Christensen]

Log, on 13 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Kevin,

Hopefully I haven't contradicted you in my (simplistic) rendering of paradigm choosing.

Not contradicted, but over simplified.  To say that paradigm choice reduces completely to a personal decision regarding which problems are more significant to have solved reduces everything to personal subjectivity.  Kuhn insists on the presence of personal subjectivity but does not reduce everything there.  The most objective constraining factors for personal choice include a paradigm's performance with respect to puzzle generation and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence with respect to other knowledge and experience, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness (what do you discover as a result of simply assuming that the paradigm is correct and exploring), and future promise.  The least objective constraining factors have to do with biographical and personal issues.

Quote

But I have to say again, there are true contradictions - mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive claims about reality, history, events, and such - and, when confronted with them, you have genuine problems the power of which can only be known by them who experience them.  I agree MOST problems in the OP do not fall into this category, but at least one does.

But which of the problems in the OP represent creedal statements to which every aspiring LDS member or leader or scholar must publically and permanently submit to, and for which we can demonstrate a perfect historical consistency and unanimity?

Kuhn:

"There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times." (Kuhn, Structure, 80)

"To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted." (Kuhn, 17-18)

"If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times."(Kuhn, 146)

"Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise." (Kuhn, 186)

Quote

Have you truly not experienced the full power of a fundamental contradiction?

Since my faith has never shattered, I have to say no.  The one serious challenge lasted just a few days and led to my first published essay, "New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament" in Dialogue, Fall 1991.

One of the things I learned is neatly expressed by Ian Barbour:

"a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 99).

The age of the earth, according to the Bible, as interpreted by readers of a fundamentalist mindset, does not represent an existential, objective fact, but is consequence of reading based on a network of interrelated assumptions, most of which do not represent the cultural assumptions of the authors of the texts being interpreted.  Genesis was originally a temple liturgy, based on the ritual erection of the desert tabernacle.  The tabernacle, a portable temple, represented a model of the cosmos.  That temple could be erected via a seven day ritual.  That Heavens and Earth could be created in seven days and leave not a trace for modern geology and cosmology to touch.

And as I keep pointing out, D&C 1:24-28 expressly declares that LDS leaders are neither omniscient nor perfect.  If you read as far as D&C 3, you find that the assumption that God would never allow his prophet to make a mistake is completely unfounded.  Loosing a 116 pages of the translation?  How could God let that happen?  And Why?  (And no quoting Isaiah 55:11 as that immediately calls into question the essential assumption that if there is a God, he will behave as I would if I were God.)

If I'm looking for evidence of Real inspiration from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or President Monsen, I adopt a completely different set of methods and look in different places than if I'm looking for evidence of ANY contradiction.  It is the assumption that ANY contradiction represents an objective ground for existential crisis that provides the interpretive basis that makes the crisis.

Kuhn: the "more precise and far-reaching a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change." Kuhn, 65.

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

[Valentinus]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

What shall one say of Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his only son?

I'm not entirely sure that the lesson that is 'emphasized' in that narrative is one of obedience. I still ponder on it at times but I think there is much more to it than simply doing as God asked or commanded.

[Log]

Kevin Christensen, on 14 April 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement; not all instances of faith shattering can be fairly characterized in this manner; telling people their expectations are rigid and they're insufficiently insightful seems unhelpful to such individuals.  I again point up the case of Abraham - except, of course, he didn't shatter.

I'm no Abraham.

I've sent you a PM to avoid my further derailing the thread.

Edited by Log, 14 April 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[Log]

Valentinus, on 14 April 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure that the lesson that is 'emphasized' in that narrative is one of obedience. I still ponder on it at times but I think there is much more to it than simply doing as God asked or commanded.

There is much more to it, but obedience - faith - is the lesson being emphasized.  It is a test of the quality of your character when you are confronted with the demand of the sacrifice of that which you want most in the world, that which your heart is set upon, that thing you cannot live without.

It hurts.

Edited by Log, 14 April 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[Log]

reelmormon, on 14 April 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Thank you for saying that.  Writing this topic I had hoped to have help from others who had experienced this, rather 98% of people shrug it off, think that I am not looking at this the right way, and the problem is with me.  Not much help at all.  I am not alone, yet here I have felt I was in seeing these difficulties.  I am trying really hard to take each of these issues and try to find a way to reconcile them.  I am not an anti mormon.  I am an active faithful latter-day saint. who while having had spiritual experiences can not put my heart into something where the facts (as I see them) lead me to think that there are way too many mental hurdles to leap to make it fit.  Yet I want nothing more then for the pegs to all fit in their holes.... at least enough to move forward.  IT is not as simple to me as I have had spiritual experiences withing the realm of mormonism therefore the conclusion is that Mormonism is true   I Know God loves me and that is enough for him to draw me closer to him in any realm or context.

You're not the only one who has faced this issue.

The specifics of your particular concerns, however, may not be entirely shared.  Different things have holds upon different hearts, but (I presume) the emotional turmoil is the same.  As I mentioned, I have passed some of these tests, and have failed others.  But will you pass your personal Gom Jabbar?  Will you be faithful even when you stand on the knife's edge over a yawning abyss revealing only the blackness of despair?

Do you want to?

[calmoriah]

Log, on 14 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I again point up the case of Abraham - except, of course, he didn't shatter.

In what way can you tell that Abraham is one of "those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision"?

[Log]

calmoriah, on 14 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

In what way can you tell that Abraham is one of "those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision"?

Have you never made a similar sacrifice, to know how it feels?  Do you believe those who shatter when confronted by that are insufficiently insightful?

[calmoriah]

Log, on 14 April 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

Have you never made a similar sacrifice, to know how it feels?  Do you believe those who shatter when confronted by that are insufficiently insightful?

This is irrelevant to my question.  What evidence do you have that Abraham was one of those who had the most rigid expectations, etc.?

I am assuming you have some scripture verses in mind that you interpret that he was of this personality/attribute type.  I would like to see them and any commentary you believe needed to demonstrate your claim.

Edited by calmoriah, 14 April 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Log]

calmoriah, on 14 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

This is irrelevant to my question.  What evidence do you have that Abraham was one of those who had the most rigid expectations, etc.?

Do you think I agree, or disagree, with Kevin's assessment of people whose faith shatters?  You know I do not.

Nevertheless, you don't suppose Abraham had some expectations, among which that his son would outlive him?

Since you don't see the relevance of my question, and appear poised for conflict, it appears we can't fruitfully discuss this issue.

Edited by Log, 14 April 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 14 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Since you don't see the relevance of my question, and appear poised for conflict, it appears we can't fruitfully discuss this issue.

I am not seeking conflict.  I am not disagreeing with you as there is nothing to disagree with yet. I am simply asking you to support a claim you made to understand it better.  I do not understand why you made that claim, that Abraham perceived life and reacted to it in a certain way and I am wondering how you came to that conclusion.

If your process was simply relating Abraham to what you see around you and not anything scripturally based, all you need to do is say so.  I don't have a problem with that, just curious about how you got to your conclusion is all.

You say that Abraham had an expectation that his son would outlive him, based I assume on the blessing Abraham had received.  I would agree, but I don't see the evidence that this is a rigid expectation or that he was not the type to "stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision."

I am asking you to present this evidence of this rigid attribute of Abraham that I might have missed.

Edited by calmoriah, 14 April 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[mercyngrace]

Log, on 14 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

There is much more to it, but obedience - faith - is the lesson being emphasized.  It is a test of the quality of your character when you are confronted with the demand of the sacrifice of that which you want most in the world, that which your heart is set upon, that thing you cannot live without.

It hurts.

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

[Log]

calmoriah, on 14 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

I am not seeking conflict.  I am not disagreeing with you as there is nothing to disagree with yet. I am simply asking you to support a claim you made to understand it better.  I do not understand why you made that claim, that Abraham perceived life and reacted to it in a certain way and I am wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Any expectation that is contradicted can lead to faith shattering.  Slaying a son which, for the promises of God to be fulfilled, must live, is one such expectation and contradiction that places someone in a state wherein they must either press forward in extreme duress, or fail.

To say that those who fail when confronted with such contradictions are rigid is both unfair, and uninformative (if you shatter you were rigid, and if you are rigid you shatter), as well as unhelpful (stop being so rigid!).

Quote

If your process was simply relating Abraham to what you see around you and not anything scripturally based, all you need to do is say so.  I don't have a problem with that, just curious about how you got to your conclusion is all.

As I said, I don't agree with Kevin's assessment.

Edited by Log, 14 April 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Log]

mercyngrace, on 14 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

Well, say more - what do you think it's about?

[calmoriah]

This was the comment you disagreed with Kevin on (if I'm reading correctly):

Quote

One of the consistencies in LDS debates is that those who shatter are those who have the most rigid expectations, those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision.

Yes, any expectation can lead to faith shattering and again they may not....Kevin is exploring what type of expectations are most likely to lead to faith shattering and he identifies these as the "most rigid expectations" possessed by "those who don't stop to consider, reflect upon and remove the eye motes that determine the quality of their vision."

But you yourself said that Abraham didn't shatter, so first off how is he evidence that Kevin is wrong in the above unless you are simply rebutting his claim with the concept that "expectations don't always lead to faith shattering"? But that does not deal with Kevin's claim as he does not deal with all "expectations" but a limited class, his claim necessitates only "the most rigid expectations", he does not claim that all people with mild or even strong expectations shatter after all.

So logically speaking to use Abraham as a counter example to Kevin's claim, Abraham would be one of those who had "the most rigid expectations" so I am assuming that you believe that Abraham possessed such expectations and therefore  I am asking you for evidence that the quality of Abraham's expectations were "most rigid", not that he had expectations which I take as a given.

If I am wrong in the assumption that you believe Abraham had most rigid expectations and you are more of the opinion that those expectations were very strong but still at some point included flexibility, then this is an interpretation of scripture that is easily demonstrated, imo, but then Abraham has nothing to do with the set of individuals that Kevin is talking about and thus does not substantiate why you might disagree with his claims here.

Edited by calmoriah, 14 April 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[calmoriah]

mercyngrace, on 14 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Adding to the derail... I disagree. The Abraham story isn't about Abraham's faith or obedience. It isn't even about Abraham or Isaac. Just sayin'.

Quote

Jacob 4:  5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.