Jump to content
bluebell

Do the doctrines of God change?

Recommended Posts

On 4/11/2019 at 12:58 PM, Exiled said:

Personal belief, Pascal's wager, threats of the unknown are always there as a safe space when conjecture and mere speculation run into requests for actual proof.

What would be acceptable as actual proof?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends if the reader is a skeptic, a traditional Christian, an anti, a believer...

A skeptic doubts all revelations so any objection unique to the stone can be set aside as there isn't a valid method they do accept.

The Christian accepts the methods I listed so they would have to explain what makes a stone less valid.

And so on.

Hmmm, I'll just suggest that the boundaries of the categories you mentioned aren't quite as neat and tidy as your statement implies.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would be acceptable as actual proof?

God appearing on TV or some public place. We are always required to "trust" that some questionable person saw God in secret.

Wait a minute ..... I just saw God and he said Mormonism is a waste of time .... do you believe me? I have a good feeling about it.

Maybe if I can get enough people to believe in my "revelation" it will become true for my group, for the world? If anyone disagrees it is religious persecution and my little group can then rally together based on the perceived opposition.

Edited by Exiled

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

God appearing on TV or some public place. We are always required to "trust" that some questionable person saw God in secret.

Wait a minute ..... I just saw God and he said Mormonism is a waste of time .... do you believe me? I have a good feeling about it.

Maybe if I can get enough people to believe in my "revelation" it will become true for my group, for the world? If anyone disagrees it is religious persecution and my little group can then rally together based on the perceived opposition.

So a public appearance by God would be sufficient. Public so there would be other witnesses to verify what happened?

How would you know it was God? Would you question what you witnessed? Would you tell others about your experience? How would they know you are telling the truth?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So a public appearance by God would be sufficient. Public so there would be other witnesses to verify what happened?

How would you know it was God? Would you question what you witnessed? Would you tell others about your experience? How would they know you are telling the truth?

Precisely.  How does one know anything, right?  What do these questions tell you about the strength of you faith?  Are you saying that feelings that are easily manipulated by the group are somehow superior?  You are simply following the group and defining your feelings as an answer to something because that is what the group tells you is an answer.  You read the book of mormon and are directed to believe by the group that the feelings you got after being in the company of nice people were from God.  How do you know you weren't simply being manipulated by a religious system?  How do you know you aren't being manipulated now?

I would take a public visitation over feelings any day.  Also, a real God wouldn't command that his children worship him.  That seems like something an untrustworthy dictator would do.  I don't think he would demand tangible time and money in exchange for nebulous future-world promises.  He would certainly give us a better way to find out the truth other than easily manipulated feelings. He also would probably be fine with whatever order his leaders left the room or how they sat in a meeting, etc.  My guess is that he wouldn't care if his church members stood or not when one of his precious leaders entered the room.  I don't think God would care about such things.  Now, you may ask how do I know these things?  Good question.  How is my knowing any better than yours?  Well, shouldn't we determine the answer to this question prior to trying to convince the world that we have something when we really don't know anything?  Taking the widdow's mite demands more.

Edited by Exiled
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Precisely.  How does one know anything, right?  What do these questions tell you about the strength of you faith?  Are you saying that feelings that are easily manipulated by the group are somehow superior?  You are simply following the group and defining your feelings as an answer to something because that is what the group tells you is an answer.  You read the book of mormon and are directed to believe by the group that the feelings you got after being in the company of nice people were from God.  How do you know you weren't simply being manipulated by a religious system?  How do you know you aren't being manipulated now?

I would take a public visitation over feelings any day.  Also, a real God wouldn't command that his children worship him.  That seems like something an untrustworthy dictator would do.  I don't think he would demand tangible time and money in exchange for nebulous future-world promises.  He would certainly give us a better way to find out the truth other than easily manipulated feelings. He also would probably be fine with whatever order his leaders left the room or how they sat in a meeting, etc.  My guess is that he wouldn't care if his church members stood or not when one of his precious leaders entered the room.  I don't think God would care about such things.  Now, you may ask how do I know these things?  Good question.  How is my knowing any better than yours?  Well, shouldn't we determine the answer to this question prior to trying to convince the world that we have something when we really don't know anything?  Taking the widdow's mite demands more.

Interesting thoughts, but you addressed none of my questions. I know what my answers are. I was asking for you to share yours....

How would you know it was God? Would you question what you witnessed? Would you tell others about your experience? How would they know you are telling the truth?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Exiled said:

While you are waiting, please explain how magic seer stones providing revelation isn't fraud in your opinion. I'd like to know why you persist to believe despite the evidence. Do you relish a good magician's trick?

Lol.

This is actually fairly humorous coming from you.

In your opinion what would constitute proof of Revelation?

How do you determine what God says to you?

it's pretty meaningless to attack one small segment of a process that you do not even believe is valid. It would be like you were going back to a Ptolemaic view of the universe and criticizing a particular epicycle.  It may give you comfort to know that Ptolemy was wrong but what value is all your effort? 

Why waste time even bringing it up?

Clearly such argumentation must be giving you some kind of emotional satisfaction 

But to answer your question historically, reading tea leaves and other techniques, looking at the sea, or fire, seeing shapes in clouds, and in fact using seer stones is a common practice for those who believe in Revelation. All of these are forms of meditation which relax the mind and allow new images or ideas to come in. You ought to try meditation sometime. 

"Fraud" in a legal sense is defined as being knowingly deceptive.

Good luck in prosecuting that case against Joseph.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, ttribe said:

That doesn't help your point as much as you seem to think.

What then is your favorite technique for receiving Revelation? Or are you totally outside the context to even understand it?

Critiquing a technique outside of your expertise seems to me to be rather silly.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What then is your favorite technique for receiving Revelation? Or are you totally outside the context to even understand it?

Critiquing a technique outside of your expertise seems to me to be rather silly.

Hahahaha!  Yeah, ummm, okay, Mark.  You're right.  I'm TOTALLY unacquainted with the all the methods of revelation outlined in the scriptures and as taught by modern day prophets, etc.  I never read a thing in those 40 years of Church membership.  I have no idea how I ever lasted a day as a missionary.  I never gave even one of those methods a try.  Not one.  I just floated along and acted like it was just all an unsolvable mystery that I had no desire to investigate.  [/sarcasm]

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Hahahaha!  Yeah, ummm, okay, Mark.  You're right.  I'm TOTALLY unacquainted with the all the methods of revelation outlined in the scriptures and as taught by modern day prophets, etc.  I never read a thing in those 40 years of Church membership.  I have no idea how I ever lasted a day as a missionary.  I never gave even one of those methods a try.  Not one.  I just floated along and acted like it was just all an unsolvable mystery that I had no desire to investigate.  [/sarcasm]

Ok then why did you criticize receiving revelation through a seer stone?

Your sarcasm even makes your point more obscure, here you apparently assert that you believe in revelation while making fun of it.

Non-sequitur. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok then why did you criticize receiving revelation through a seer stone?

Your sarcasm even makes your point more obscure, here you apparently assert that you believe in revelation while making fun of it.

Non-sequitur. 

I made no assertion about still believing.  Moreover, you can't seem to follow my original criticism and it keeps leading you down the wrong path.  Let me spell it out for you - My initial response was to JLHPROF's attempt to normalize the use of a seer stone as a medium of revelation by referring to other revelatory media in the scriptures which, to many, would appear to be even less believable than revelation from a stone.  Ergo, why criticize the stone at all if God was willing to use a donkey, for example.  In stating that his argument didn't actually help him that much, I was being a little more subtle than I'm about to be.  So, here's what I was saying - To some (like me) who are/were trying to navigate a process of (re-)examining all of the available evidence to reach a conclusion on whether revelation is actually: 1) a real thing from an actual Divine Being; and 2) a reliable method for determining truth, the fact that alleged revelation is so often associated with bizarre tales is actually a strike against affirming positive responses to either 1) or 2).  In short, the greater the number of crazy tales associated with alleged revelation, the less likely it is that revelation is actually anything other than crazy from crazy human brains.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I made no assertion about still believing.  Moreover, you can't seem to follow my original criticism and it keeps leading you down the wrong path.  Let me spell it out for you - My initial response was to JLHPROF's attempt to normalize the use of a seer stone as a medium of revelation by referring to other revelatory media in the scriptures which, to many, would appear to be even less believable than revelation from a stone.  Ergo, why criticize the stone at all if God was willing to use a donkey, for example.  In stating that his argument didn't actually help him that much, I was being a little more subtle than I'm about to be.  So, here's what I was saying - To some (like me) who are/were trying to navigate a process of (re-)examining all of the available evidence to reach a conclusion on whether revelation is actually: 1) a real thing from an actual Divine Being; and 2) a reliable method for determining truth, the fact that alleged revelation is so often associated with bizarre tales is actually a strike against affirming positive responses to either 1) or 2).  In short, the greater the number of crazy tales associated with alleged revelation, the less likely it is that revelation is actually anything other than crazy from crazy human brains.

This would be why most biblical prophets were accompanied by miracles. Whether you believe those biblical accounts or not, their presence in the biblical accounts implies that claims to revelation alone are often not enough to believe on. Jesus was not unaware of this either: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10:38
 

This doesn´t help us who have not witnessed those miracles ourselves - so the claim to revelation and the claim to miracles are just that, claims (with more or less plausibility depending on the situation)... to miracles, because revelation itself would also be a miracle. The recognition that miracles witnessed would help deal with claims to revelation is somewhat reassuring, as far as it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

To some (like me) who are/were trying to navigate a process of (re-)examining all of the available evidence to reach a conclusion on whether revelation is actually: 1) a real thing from an actual Divine Being; and 2) a reliable method for determining truth, the fact that alleged revelation is so often associated with bizarre tales is actually a strike against affirming positive responses to either 1) or 2).  In short, the greater the number of crazy tales associated with alleged revelation, the less likely it is that revelation is actually anything other than crazy from crazy human brains.

That process is doomed to failure.

the only evidence is that which is found in your heart. Either you see it or you don't. There is no objective evidence never will be never was.

All of our theology tells you that. How you miss that as a mystery.

You know kind of like maybe we come to Earth to walk by faith? Have you ever heard that one?

Again you are a perfect example of positivism barking up the wrong tree.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

This would be why most biblical prophets were accompanied by miracles. Whether you believe those biblical accounts or not, their presence in the biblical accounts implies that claims to revelation alone are often not enough to believe on. Jesus was not unaware of this either: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10:38
 

This doesn´t help us who have not witnessed those miracles ourselves - so the claim to revelation and the claim to miracles are just that, claims (with more or less plausibility depending on the situation)... to miracles, because revelation itself would also be a miracle. The recognition that miracles witnessed would help deal with claims to revelation is somewhat reassuring, as far as it goes.

Unless of course you define them automatically as nonsense because you are a positivist, which is itself a position accepted on faith. :)

That that is why it is a dead philosophy. It was pronounced dead by self-contradiction.

But folks who don't understand that still believe it. It becomes their God. But that God is dead. Nietzsche pointed that out pretty well. It was the god of objective evidence that died, not the one of hermeneutics.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That process is doomed to failure.

the only evidence is that which is found in your heart. Either you see it or you don't. There is no objective evidence never will be never was.

All of our theology tells you that. How you miss that as a mystery.

You know kind of like maybe we come to Earth to walk by faith? Have you ever heard that one?

Again you are a perfect example of positivism barking up the wrong tree.

Oh, good grief, Mark.  Why are you being so obtuse?  Did I say I had ever restricted my evidence seeking process to the issues I just pointed out.  No.  As a matter of fact, I previously stated I was well acquainted with the teachings of the scriptures and the Church on the topic of revelation.  I realize any spiritual matters will have a faith ingredient.  The demise of my faith is a complicated and painful process to have lived through.  My original post about JLHPROF's post was but commentary on one little part of the whole.  For some reason you turned it into an accusation that I couldn't possibly know what the hell I'm talking about.

For the record, I really don't care even a little about your philosophical musings, so you can save your lectures on "positivism" or "Nietzsche" or any other of your hobbies for someone else who might be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief, Mark.  Why are you being so obtuse?  Did I say I had ever restricted my evidence seeking process to the issues I just pointed out.  No.  As a matter of fact, I previously stated I was well acquainted with the teachings of the scriptures and the Church on the topic of revelation.  I realize any spiritual matters will have a faith ingredient.  The demise of my faith is a complicated and painful process to have lived through.  My original post about JLHPROF's post was but commentary on one little part of the whole.  For some reason you turned it into an accusation that I couldn't possibly know what the hell I'm talking about.

For the record, I really don't care even a little about your philosophical musings, so you can save your lectures on "positivism" or "Nietzsche" or any other of your hobbies for someone else who might be interested.

These ideas could change your life, but I will leave you alone.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...