Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. There are podcasts and youtubers and the like that do dramatic readings of horrible books. Some are delightful.
  3. We will agree to disagree. I trust if Jesus did something to hurt me he would own it out loud to me. Irony here is He will never do anything to hurt me. The church isn’t Jesus. The church is flawed.
  4. Well the bad news is that I am definitely NOT a well informed student of physics and quantum theory, but the good news is that I am a student of philosophy for quite a while, at least 44 years, because I do not believe your question is ABOUT physics but more about what physics can teach us, due to their methodology. First off, physics is capable of teaching us about how the human "mind"/brain PERCEIVES "reality" but never gets outside,really, the limitations OF human perception. An analogy for this might be sunglasses. Suppose you were born with sunglasses on, very dark ones, and they were never removed. What would you know about the experiences people WITHOUT such sunglasses have of the color sighted people call "Yellow"?? How do dictionaries define terms like "yellow"? But notice this never DESCRIBES the full human EXPERIENCE of "yellow" so that a person who had never seen yellow would still not know anything about the EXPERIENCE YELLOW itself. They would not know about its brightness that "pops" out at you- or why it is often used on traffic signs, with red, to attract the eye.In fact, in a black and white world, yellow just becomes "white". Those kinds of descriptions require also descriptions of the conditions under which the brightness, say, is observed. The terminology is that the "relations" of the color must be a PART of a true description of yellow. "Under conditions xyz yellow LOOKS LIKE....." The relevance of this is that in experience with the Holy Spirit- we can describe, perhaps the chemical reactions in the brain with such experiences but we cannot EVER describe the "burning in the bosom" of religious experience just as one cannot the subjective experience of "yellow". So billions of people have had some feeling about some "Higher Force" in their lives, but science cannot describe the FEELING of it. So the only thing science is good for, in discussing religion might be to count all who have some "sense" of some experience of something "greater than themselves". So is the spirit scientifically observable? Only if you are looking at EXPERIENCE REPORTS of those who believe they have had some kind of religious experience. We can take this further, into Wiliam James' "Radical Empiricism" if anyone cares, or if you want to study this farther
  5. For nonEvangelical antimormons (and I use that term to differentiate that type of ‘actively trying to persuade others to reject the faith’ critic from the typical nonbeliever who disagrees with our beliefs, even if they see us as a cult), I would agree. added: looking at MRM revenue, my guess now is Dehlin is top earner in all categories…even if the executive compensation went to one person (and it is divided among 3), Dehlin still blows $72,000 out of the water. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953560041 And if McKeever is truly putting in 40 hour weeks and only getting $28,000 and truly working and not just sitting in his office playing solitaire or watching movies to deal with the occasional phone call or email, that is not a great salary (about 13$ per hour)…maybe he gets paid as part of this job for writing his books and then gets royalties on top of his regular salary, but still unlikely to pull him up to Dehlin’s level. He does not appear to have a personal YouTube channel, though his coauthor/VP of MRM does.
  6. I don't know about the rest but my best guess on highest earner would be Dehlin.
  7. Today
  8. I thought this was decent for the Uncertainty Principle…it starts on the Principle around 7:30, but the earlier bits help you understand that. If you don’t get it the first time through, I would suggest watching it again and then if it clicks and you are going that makes sense, taking a day break and then watching it again once or twice so it really sinks in. That way you will remember er it well enough you won’t have to start from scratch next time it comes up even if you are not secure in your understanding enough to teach it to someone else (which is my standard for understanding science). Another way to approach the video if it feels like too much info at once is to take it one concept at a time. Stop and replay a section until you are secure that you get it. Then move on to the next part. But watch it once all the way through at the beginning so you have a general idea where it’s going, what the purpose of those concepts are for. If it’s not making sense, try watching it two or three times if you are getting some of it, but not all. If nothing is clicking and you still want to figure it out what the Principle is, try other videos as they may present it in a way that works for you.
  9. Yesterday
  10. I've been trying to wrap my head around this concept, but I don't know enough Physics to do it any justice. D&C says, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." Additionally, I think we safely can infer that in order to see spiritual matter one has to be translated. So in theory, it might just be impossible for mankind to create a scientific experiment that can test anything spiritual. It's possible that the experiment is started, but once we measure something it becomes less refined and changes state. It makes me think of all the ghost hunters (which are mostly bogus and cons) where they say they had some ghostly manifestation but it can never be captured by their equipment. Maybe some of them are really telling the truth? I am wondering if anyone with a true grasp of quantum theory and physics can opine to how it applies to the gospel concepts of spiritual matter?
  11. I doubt we'll hear from manofthecloth (I think he is fundamentalist now), but as for me, my opinion of the book VOG has remained the same. I regarded it then as a very silly book, and I still do now, only back then I could not have foreseen all of the damage it has caused.
  12. I am always surprised at how often I find a new podcast or YouTube channel dedicated to ex-mormon and anti-mormon topics. Most of them work really hard to mention their donation forms, Patreons, Substack, or other methods by which they hope to make money from their time / effort. It makes me wonder - anyone have an estimate of how many Latter-Day Saint critical 'influencers' are full-time just doing that? Do any of them have staffs? Is there an entire industry around it? Any estimates on how many 'influencers' make enough money that it becomes a lucrative part-time job that they hope to be trying to turn into their full-time gig? Lastly, what's anyone's best guess on the highest earner in this category?
  13. I agree it is hard to make forgiveness work, but I have seen how with Christ as part of the deal, it works. For example, from John 8: Stop talking about stoning that woman! Check your conscience with my sayings in mind. I do not condemn her. Woman, I do not condemn you; go and sin no more. These scribes and Pharisees had enough of a conscience to stop and reflect on an answer they may not have liked! I understand your example above is to show how such a couple would need to put a lot more work into than what seems to be implied, and I think living the Gospel helps couples in this situation (and eventually the four statements are perfectly appropriate in the context where the forgiveness formula is followed with Christ at the center). I cannot find a precedent where Jesus apologized for the bad deeds and mistakes of those who have taken His name upon them, members and leaders alike. His Church would follow suit. As far as I can tell, the Church has done better than the world at large with implementing doctrine and policy that eliminates racist behavior individually and collectively. For example, the Church had the ban for 120 years of its 178 years existence, and has only moved forward in the last 44 years, and without argument or resistance. I compare that with the USA, which had what can be deemed racist policies since its inception (and even 100 years prior during colonial times), let's say for over 250 years, and still challenged with broader acceptance since 1866/70 when the first civil rights act was passed, and even since 1964 when the latest amendment was passed.
  14. That’s not how forgiveness works between humans. Stop talking about my boyfriend! I broke up with him. Let’s talk about our future. Let it go, husband. Never works.
  15. I did, removed your name to avoid confusion.
  16. Hi Calm, just wondering if you accidentally quoted me, with Stargazer's words.
  17. I found I like it so much I occasionally eat it here.
  18. "That you may see the meaning of within...." -Wittgenstein. Uh, not really
  19. I found it a lot better than the critics perspective. Not great, but worth the time to watch But I choose my movies for pure escapism, to lose myself in them and tend to avoid movies that have many socially redeeming moments in them… 😛
  20. The church's own, institutional version of "cafeteria Mormonism?"
  21. Isn't this what you would call an appeal to authority? No. Isn't that what you would call "special pleading?" Or "No True Scotsman?" This is, in my view, the "fallacy of false dilemma." Either the Brethren are inspired and utterly, pristinely correct in everything they do and say, or else they have no value at all in a prophetic capacity. I just can't go along with that. Ancient prophets and apostles messed up, too. Additionally or alternatively, this is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy. That is, falsifying X by comparing it with unrealistic, idealized alternatives of what, in the individual's mind, X should be. Perhaps the initial focus is what you outline, but it does not stop there. I agree. But it does return there. I have previously noted the Hafens' idea of a tripartite, or three-phase, progression of faith, which both begins (Phase 1) and then returns (Phase 3) with an exercise of faith in the truth claims of the Church. The intervening step (Phase 2) is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” Where we juxtapose the "ideal" with the "real." I think many of those who, having been a member of the Church, encounter a faith crisis do so in Phase 2 ("struggl{ing} with conflicts and uncertainty," often derived from things can can, or ought to be, considered in light of Mormon 9:31 and the Nirvana Fallacy). If these folks do not see a way forward to Phase 3, then they often leave. This board has helped me get to, and remain in, Phase 3 ("a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience"). I don't see a conflict between what Pres. Benson said and what I have said. that is a BIG IF. Yes. And one that is not going to be answered via online debates. Not really. Yes, one could. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac
  22. The Church wants to leave parts of the past in the past so it can look forward to the future.
  23. If the Brethren start dissuading us from having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our Savior and Redeemer, and from repenting, and from serving others, and from loving our fellow man, and from obeying the Lord's commandments, and so on, then I will give some consideration to your suggestion that we may "have a problem with a leadership that was in apostasy or really are not prophets, seers and revelators." @smac97 has lowerd the bar. Extremely low. Well, no. The bar hasn't changed. I think the issue here is that some have implicit expectations of perfection in prophets and apostles, and anything less than that is "lowering the bar." I think the Priesthood Ban is likely the low-water mark for the Church. In the absence of revelatory provenance, it was a policy implemented by Brigham Young, originated mostly in racialist sentiments of the 19th century (though couched in "lineage" terms as a doctrinal justification), and became so entrenched by the passage of time (and by ongoing, though gradually diminishing, racialist sentiments amongst the leaders of the Church) that it required a revelation to uproot it and set it aside. The perpetuation of the ban is, like its origins, something of a lacuna for me. Folks in 2024, being comfortably ensconced in the warm embrace of presentism and hindsight, can and will look back at the lives of long-dead historical figures, decontextualize their lives, narrow examination of their lives to their faults only, and then - not surprisingly - end up condemning them. I prefer a more comprehensive assessment, which I previously laid out here: And here (in another discussion with you) : Good for you. Do you extend the same courtesy to other disreputable characters from that human history is littered with? Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit? (This is the part where we trade loaded questions, right?) I've long understood that a big part of the "Mormonism Sucks!" narrative is that the Latter-day Saints are too self-righteous and judgy. But here you seem to be put off because I am not joining you in publicly condemning long-dead historical figures. Oh, well. I made this comment last year: FWIW. But to directly answer your question: In the main, when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion, I tend to deploy, sooner or later, Mormon 9:31. In your view, is Martin Luther King, Jr. a "disreputable character"? Was Winston Churchill? Was Harvey Milk? You are reducing the entirety of a Brigham Young's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and nothing else counts or matters. It is the easiest thing in the world for us in 2024 sit comfortably in an insulated and heated home and peck away on a laptop to retroactively judge and condemn people we've never met, whose lives hewed much closer to misfortune, privation and death than ours, who were in circumstances substantially more difficult than ours, who lacked much of the information and contextualization we now enjoy (and all of our hindsight), who faced choices far more difficult than ours, and so on. I can and do acknowledge Brigham Young's flaws and mistakes, but in the main, I think Mormon 9:31 is the better way to go. The man is dead. He cannot be tried for his mistakes and wrongdoings, not by us, anyway. We ought to neither condemn nor ignore our forebears, and should instead learn from them. We should study those who came before, and emulate their virtues and strengths and successes, and also learn from and avoid their vices and weaknesses and failures. And all the while "give thanks unto God that he had made manifest unto {us} {our ancestors'} imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they were}." I remain persuaded that the "truth claims of the church" center mostly on Joseph Smith's theophanies, ministrations, priesthood restoration, revelations, and the bringing forth of The Book of Mormon. If the ban was not revelatory, that is truly a great error and tragedy, and its negative repercussions continue to this day. But such errors do not retroactively negate what happened to, and what came through, Joseph Smith. That is not "lowering the bar." That is, instead, declining to follow you down the path of faultfinding, presentism, and so on. I have repeatedly called the ban "a great error and tragedy." This neither "marginalize{s}" nor "diminish{es}" it. Thanks, -Smac
  24. Isn't this what you would call an appeal to authority? But regardless, I do not find your use of other failures of mythical prophets compelling at all. It just shows that like those who claim to be modern day prophets, seers and revelators, they really have no special guidance and anyone can determine the proper moral path without them Perhaps the initial focus is what you outline, but it does not stop there. ETB's 14 Fundamentals of a Prophet establishes a much higher level of trust in the LDS leadership than your opinions do. Was he wrong as well? Who should I believe? You or the at the time President of the Qo12? that is a BIG IF. But if your IF is correct, one could argue the Mormonism you follow is in grave apostasy.
  25. I would like a statement from God declaring Joseph Smith wrong in ordaining blacks to the priesthood. Next, a statement from God declaring that blacks are no longer allowed to hold the priesthood. Finally, a statement from God on why He changed His mind in 1978. I'm just asking for simple clarification without need for speculation, odd reasoning, plausible deniability, mental gymnastics, or poorly stated rationalizations by finite mortals on the behalf of a 100% consistent yesterday, today and forever God. This is a perfectly simple request.
  26. None of the early Catholic leaders did these things, but isn’t the LDS position that they were in apostasy? That would, I think, depend on the individual. The "LDS position" on the Great Apostasy originated with the loss of priesthood authority. One can lack authority to hold and exercise the priesthood, to officiate in sacred ordinances, etc., but still do the things noted above. Thanks, -Smac
  27. I like audience reviews more than the critics because I've had the same experience. But I really liked the human story portion of the movie "Civil War" if that helps. It's a wake up call for sure though. There were parts that were amazingly real and I thought it was good acting too. At first I wanted to leave the theater because I couldn't handle the reality of what could happen with all the guns out there. I might hear from the gun owners but I do have issues with the massive amount of assault weapons there are.
  28. Well, I'm in Texas so that would be one heck of a commute. Probably best that I just continue to skip breakfast in general - except on special occasions.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...