cinepro
-
Posts
10,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cinepro
-
-
3 hours ago, cdowis said:
Why would I presume to do such a thing. I can only speak for myself.
"I prayed to God and he told me it was false. What do you say to that?"
"I would say that I got a very different answer."
"I have found Jesus in my own religion and I am very blessed."
"I am sincerely happy for you."
That's why Alma 32 is a great methodology for confirming something, but it isn't "rational" because it can be just as useful for confirming something that isn't true as for something that is. There is no control for false positives and false negatives.
0 -
4 hours ago, cdowis said:
The question you raise is based on a false, indeed a superficial understanding o what he is saying. That is, what is meant by "improvement" and "good feelings".
It is a common misconception that the answer God gives us is simply "a good feeling". Of course, Satanism itself can give someone a good feeling, a pedophile, etc. God gives us a spiritual manifestation which has a dramatic affect our life, as we attend the temple, listen to General Conference, as we travel hundreds of miles to help those affected by a hurricane, as we personally give father's blessing and baptize our children.
These are not "just a good feeling". As you indicated, only those who actually experience that spiritual manifestation can understand what it means -- you go beyond faith or belief and come to a certain knowledge and understanding.
Fair enough. Please explain your answer in the context of Scientology and auditing. If someone applied Alma 32 to their claims, what would be the expected outcome?
0 -
8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:
If someone sees and hears the Lord, then how is it rational to not believe in Him?
Considering the nature of communication from deity, this might be a little more clear:
"If someone claims to see and hear the Lord, then how is it rational to not believe in Him?"
0 -
19 hours ago, MDalby said:
I wonder if Bennett for one period of time really was a good man or if his intentions were always fraudulent and the Saints were just took in by his personality. I think Church leaders make mistakes just as in the case with local saints.
Hate to crash the party, but there is this in D&C 124:
Quote16 Again, let my servant John C. Bennett help you in your labor in sending my word to the kings and people of the earth, and stand by you, even you my servant Joseph Smith, in the hour of affliction; and his reward shall not fail if he receive counsel.
17 And for his love he shall be great, for he shall be mine if he do this, saith the Lord. I have seen the work which he hath done, which I accept if he continue, and will crown him with blessings and great glory.
This was given in January 1841. If he was "always fraudulent," then apparently he was slick enough to fool God Himself!
3 -
TLDR: In Nauvoo, Joseph "hired" two jobless immigrant men to dig a ditch near his store. After finishing, Joseph complimented their work and compensated them with two large pieces of meat and two sacks of flour, a far more generous payment than they felt they deserved. They had a strong testimony that Joseph was a Prophet.
0 -
The most amazing thing about all these discoveries isn't that it pre-dates the Book of Mormon migrations. It's that these time frames pre-date Adam and Eve!
If the Church acknowledged there were people (actual humans) roaming the Earth in these time frames, that would be huge.
0 -
22 hours ago, pogi said:
In the Pope thread, the discussion has raised questions about the difference between Mormon revelation and Catholic revelation. With one claimed difference being that Mormonism believes that God can reveal new truths which have never before been revealed on Earth, while the Catholic version of revelation is not to reveal "new truths" but to clarify and expound upon previous truths which have already been revealed (if I understand correctly).
That got me thinking about examples of "new truths" that have been revealed in the last days... It was difficult for me to come up with any examples. Mormonism, it seems, is mostly a restoration gospel with restored truths from all previous dispensations being brought to light in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times.
I ask that you leave out revelations that include doctrinal clarifications, policy changes, organizational changes, and general direction of the church (mission callings etc.), as the Catholic Church also believes that they receive revelation for the same purposes.
The church teaches that the temple ordinances are ancient and have been around since the time of Adam: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2016/05/25/case-ancient-temple-ordinancesThe plan of salvation with different kingdoms is not new. The pre-earth life and condition as intelligences, was revealed to Abraham. Even the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is not really "new"- sealing and plural marriage is ancient and was restored. Baptism for the dead - not new. etc. etc. etc. We believe that new scriptures are yet to be revealed, but while it may be "new" to us, it will only be a restoration of ancient knowledge. So, can anyone give me an example of a truth that has been revealed in our dispensation that is not simply a restored truth, or an expounding of ancient knowledge? I would be curious to see what everyone comes up with. Thanks!
Don't feel bad about not being able to see any obvious "new truths." Even the people who were tasked with writing the Sunday School lesson on "Continuing Revelation" couldn't find anything even remotely impressive. The best they could come up with as examples were...
1. Church Correlation
2. Revelation on the Priesthood
3. Publication of the LDS Editions of the Scriptures
4. New Quorums of the 70
Some dispensations get Prophets that use their power to call down fire upon the pagan priests. Others get Prophets that reveal reorganized leadership Quorums and better footnotes for the scriptures. I guess you get what you get.
2 -
-
-
21 hours ago, CV75 said:
for example by replacing the warnings, rationale and fear of the health reform movement with invitation, promise and religious principle.
...which subsequent Church leaders handily replaced with warnings, rationale, and fear.
0 -
16 hours ago, cdowis said:
Alma 32
[26] Now, as I said concerning faith -- that it was not a perfect knowledge -- even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
[27] But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
[33] And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
[34] And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because ye know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
Mormonism is obviously a charged topic, and difficult to get some distance on for more reasonable discussion, so let's shift the discussion a bit.
You've presented the Alma 32 methodology for determining the validity of a religious claim. Let's see how it works by applying it to a different religious theory. Say, Scientology.
If you were to visit any Scientology org or stroll along Hollywood Blvd, you would be invited by a Scientologist to engage in some sessions of "auditing." These auditing sessions are like counseling, and are based on the theory that our bodies are "infested" with invisible spirits called "thetans." As we become clear of these thetans, we become more pure and powerful.
If someone were to apply the methodology of Alma 32 to Scientology and engage in some auditing sessions and start to notice improvement and good feelings, would they then be justified in believing the claims of Scientology? After feeling these positive feelings and noticing improvement in their personal life, would it be rational to subscribe to the theory that involves "thetans" as the cause of our lack of perfection?
Additionally, the auditing sessions use a device called an "e-meter." While this device has no known scientific basis, if the use of the e-meter in auditing gave someone perceived improvement, would they be justified in believing in the efficacy of the e-meter?
1 -
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:
Well, I've never tried to deny that the Spirit works with non-LDS folks, too. If it didn't, then how would non-members ever become members?
As for rationality... hmmm. I think it would be irrational of me to discard the Spirit's very definite intervention in my recent personal life.
"Faith" is, by definition, irrational. If it weren't, you wouldn't need to have faith. It would just be a normal belief.
So that's great for people who think their religious beliefs are 100% rational (who doesn't?), but as long as "faith" is the First Principle of the Gospel, there have to be a lot of other people who have taken that leap.
As for non-LDS folk, it's impossible for two people to have contradictory beliefs that are both "rational." At some point, someone has made a mistake. If the evidence can be interpreted in a way that supports all of them, then it is irrational to strongly believe in any one of them.
0 -
14 hours ago, cdowis said:
Calling me irrational for my belief in God is simply a fig leaf to hide the fact that they are unable to prove the contrary.
An inability to provide contradictory evidence for a claim would be a good indicator that the claim is either rock solidly true (and thus no contradictory evidence exists), or that the claim is irrational (and that the irrational nature of the claim makes it impervious to counter-evidence).
Sadly, there is no way to tell the difference between the two.
0 -
13 hours ago, Stargazer said:
So, I take it that you've convinced yourself that when you feel the Spirit testify to you about truth, or when the Spirit guides you towards an outcome, that it's really just random fluctuations in the quantum foam?
Not at all. But I don't suggest that any beliefs I've formed about "the Spirit" are rational either.
As for revelations of unknown knowledge, even in those cases it doesn't directly (or to be fair, uniquely) support the LDS theories of God.
0 -
23 hours ago, bluebell said:
The same way that I would try to convince someone that exercising builds muscle. I'd give them the tools to experiment on what i said and then ask them to do so.
If you tell someone that they can build muscle by regularly lifting weights to overload the muscle, and then they follow your advice and their muscles grow bigger, it may be rational to begin to believe that exercise builds muscle (but even in that case, just one personal experiment wouldn't be enough to validate the claim.)
But if you told someone that muscles grow bigger due to the influence of invisible beams of energy called "Para-beams" that originate on the planet Jupiter, and that by lifting weights they can increase the presence of Para-beams in the muscle, then it would still be irrational to believe in Para-beams, even after lifting weights and seeing muscles grow.
So it is entirely rational to believe that reading certain books and praying or meditating in certain ways can invoke feelings of peace and inspiration. But to believe that such feelings must come from an invisible disembodied "ghost" working under the direction of an unseen deity is, shall we say, not entirely rational.
0 -
55 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Rational is just another word for reasonable though and a rational person is one who can think sensibly and clearly. Are there really no reasonable arguments for the existence of God?
I believe there are tons of reasonable arguments for different theories about god(s). I also believe that there are tons of reasonable arguments against the different theories about god(s). That's why the most thoroughly "rational" view would be agnosticism (or "not knowing").
QuoteI've also never heard anyone say to an investigator "in order to know that church is true, you must first believe that the church is true."
How would you try and convince someone to accept the LDS theory of God and other LDS claims without them first needing to believe in the LDS theory of God and the other LDS claims?
0 -
1 hour ago, smac97 said:
I agree that if you believe in God, then it is eminently "rational."
0 -
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:
You don't believe it's reasonable to believe in God and also don't believe that most members are inclined to being reasonable either? Is that what you are saying? I'm not sure if i understand what you mean.
I've never heard a theory about god (or gods) that could be considered fundamentally rational.
If you are considering a claim for XYZ, and the person trying to convince you that XYZ is true says "Okay, the first thing I need you to do is firmly believe that XYZ is true", you're not dealing with a rational argument.
0 -
On 10/12/2017 at 3:53 PM, Jane_Doe said:
Catholic doctrine declares the Heavens to be closed and scripture cannot be added to by even God.
And the second part is only true not because God won't or can't, but because He doesn't need to.
2 -
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:
I actually agree. But in my experience, people with a testimony don't take books that start out with "religion isn't rational" all that seriously. They do sometimes eventually take them seriously, but I've just never seen anyone make the leap from "I know the church is true" to "religion is irrational" in one (obvious from the outset anti mormon) book.
Maybe my experience has been flawed though.
Well to be fair, I would hardly say that growth in religions around the world comes from people who are "rational and intellectual".
I suspect the vast majority of religious people join as children, and for the adults that join, they're either not inclined towards being "rational and intellectual" as a rule (i.e. they already accept irrational premises as a prerequisite to their investigation), or they are but they make their choice based on reasons that don't focus on being rational or intellectual.
Certainly everything I've ever seen as a member and missionary in the LDS Church would bear that out. It may be a minuscule bit of anecdotal evidence, but larger trends would also seem to support that.
0 -
10 minutes ago, amo said:
"Kerry Shirts", the "backyard professor"... ? Really ?
Here's the book that seems to have done him in, as described in his review:
QuoteNow for a confession. I am singularly *unprepared* to deal with this. What?! An apologist for almost 2 decades ***unprepared***? Having tackled innumerable anti-Mormon and idiotic pro-Mormon (you simply have no idea how indubitably silly some conservative Mormon apologetics is, I mean you just have NO IDEA!) thinking for years, reading literally hundreds of books of all kinds and types to broaden my education and ability to discuss intelligently the reasons Mormonism is viable? Am I serious? Unfortunately, yes, I am. Here are a few reasons why I feel completely inadequate to the task of taking on Riskas. I, as a Mormon (and the serious VAST majority of all the rest of you Christian in the Western World have had this problem as well, don't you even pretend you don't), have been told what to think my entire life. I came to recognize this a few years ago actually, and have actually gotten a rather horrid taste in my mouth for apologetics. We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told. Thomas Riskas has shown me the cost now of being raised and kept in abject ignorance of HOW TO THINK through theology ALL THE WAY TO THE LOGICAL, EVIDENTIAL END. This is ***critical*** to grasp. We always (we - meaning we Mormons and ALL the rest of you Christians, whether you admit it or not) stop at the faith-promoting points whether in scripture, or listening to inspired leaders (who also always make sure whatever is taught and said ends up building testimony, not analyzing viable contrasts), or reading church related literature. The simple Sally, ****, and Jane mentality that has been spoon fed to us for decades has now come home to roost with some very powerful evidence that our faith is simply not prepared for *real* thinking, *real* knowledge, and *real* problems of DOUBT, that dastardly devilish doubt, that we all have, we all are taught to fear and think is of Satan, and that we all ignore, entirely to our perils, either sooner or later. Because we have been conditioned to simply have faith and believe, have faith and believe, have faith and believe, the sledge hammer of logic and doubt is now shattering the glass of faith.
His blog for the last few years is here:
https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/
0 -
21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Where are you referencing that a large portion of these people were active to even some degree?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I say "I've long suspected..." which means it's just a gut feeling.
0 -
On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:
QuoteFabrizio: You write that while many resigned or simply walked away from the Church in the aftermath of Prop 8, "unofficial numbers suggest that the effect of the November policy (seven years later) was much more detrimental to Church members."
Prince: Yes. Two data points there. One that came from a source within the Church bureaucracy that I think is well informed, that in the 12 months after the policy was announced they had over 60,000 formal requests for having membership records nullified. "Take my name off the records of the Church." That's entirely different than someone just saying "ya' know, this isn't working for me anymore" and walking away quietly. Those numbers are not countable.
The other one was from a Stake within the Salt Lake valley, where the Stake President in a meeting of Stake members said that in the year after that, 10% of his Stake had resigned their membership. To me that's an astounding figure.
So if that type of thing were to continue. And if you were to multiply that 10% by a factor of the people just pulling back, that's going to have an effect on the long-term vitality of the Church.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history-mormons-and-homosexuality
43:45
Those numbers, if true, are shocking. I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance. If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!
0 -
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
If it were so cut and dried, cinepro, it would have been a simple matter to say so in the 1979 LDS Bible Dictionary, which it did not. Instead it threw cold water on the idea of those lengths of life being dependable by noting the variants in the Hebrew, Greek, and Samaritan versions.
Where does the Bible Dictionary do this?
0
John C Bennett - Assistant to the Prophet Joseph Smith - Scheme to Murder?
in General Discussions
Posted
I'm pretty sure Bennett's services could have been used on a utilitarian basis without God promising him "blessings and great glory."
And there wouldn't be anything wrong with a private revelation to Joseph saying "Behold, John C. Bennett is a charlatan but shall be useful for mine purpose of establishing this city, yea, even the city of Nauvoo. But behold it is wisdom in me that he shall be used for this purpose only, and that he shall not be entrusted with mine Prieshood not mine power, thus saith the Lord. And when his work is done for me, if he shall not repent and hearken unto mine counsel, he shall be cut off and thrust out of Zion."
"Gift of discernment" and all that.