Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    32,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. And this applies also to ordinances "sealed by the Spirit of Promise" https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book _of_Mormon/02_1nephi/1nephi01/1nephi01_04impressionsonsoul_jfs.htm (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve," Improvement Era 69:979 [Nov. pro 1966])
  2. Yeah, but why did you have to call Miserere a "whelp"? (joke! )
  3. I see that 3DOP gave this his imprimatur and nihil obstat with his rep point. Yes I am old enough to clearly remember the switch and I never looked at the church the same way after the switch from Latin. It was just a linguistic shift but so much a part of the church- not only a linguistic shift. From the Mass, I remember the sentence "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: Sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. " It is from Luke 7:7 and is roughly translated "Lord, I am not worthy that you enter under my roof, but only say the word and my servant will be healed" and are the words of a Roman centurian who approached Jesus with such faith that he knew that the Lord could heal his servant simply by his word- he did not need to come to his house and enter "under his roof", but that the servant could be healed by Jesus simply saying the words. But as I grew a little bit older and had a Latin class or two, I realized that possibly those were the exact words the Centurion actually spoke Suddenly it became not a translation, but a living conversation I could understand on my own! And the phrase "under my roof" = "sub tectum meum" did not mean the roof of the Centurion's house, but the roof of MY mouth, in receiving the Eucharist.! The Lord himself was about to enter under MY "tectum", and though I was technically worthy enough to receive communion, was I really WORTHY for the savior of the universe to enter ME?? But then it was all changed to English. Yes the analogy remained- sort of- but those were no longer the words of a Centurion but the words of whomever decided to translate them that way. The Latin Vulgate itself actually uses some different words yet with the same sense- but no longer to me the "real words". The vulgate suggests that the person healed was "my boy" which might have also been a son? Scholars please comment? https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm#007 Anyway, I found that fairly disturbing at the time.
  4. My wife is the smartest person I have ever actually met, and she is about as traditionally LDS as anyone, but she sees my interpretations as acceptable. She kind of humors me about my unorthodoxy, but sees me as orthodox when I fully explain why I think that way. She has no knowledge of or interest in apologetics or Book of Mormon scholarship for the same reasons I do, because her entire belief system is based on direct personal revelation through her own spiritual connections. So do you see why I married her? I explained the EmodE - or however it is spelled- theory to her in an extensive "pontificating session" - as she calls them- consisting of about one minute while she politely listened, though clearly bored. I interrupted her video game for this?? She instantly came up with the same answer you did- It could've been a committee on the other side doing a "creative and cultural translation" circa 1600, the goal of which was to "testify of Christ. and resumed her video game. It could be or could not be, but that is certainly an answer that fulfills all the requirements. And besides it has my wife's stamp of approval.
  5. Brilliant in its simplicity. It never occurred to me in precisely those terms but it is totally true!!
  6. Yet if one takes that as I think Joseph naively took it, that is a right arm, missing the hand, making a gesture which can be seen in the temple today, with the left "hand" showing the symbolic "translation" of both the compass and square. I am never sure why that is not obvious. To me this is THE clear evidence for the whole catalyst theory- in fact- I personally came up with my own "catalyst theory" when I first joined the church and saw the facsimile the first time before I had ever seen the catalyst theory mentioned in apologetic circles. And that left arm raised and the left "hand" illustrates the exact meaning of what that left arm and right hand "say" symbolically, in the temple, or at least that is how I see it. So it is not Min, or a phallus if you see it that way- it is a right arm seen only below the elbow, forming a square, and the left arm raised to the square, and hand illustrated as a compass and square. I saw that and immediately said to myself that Joseph was not "translating" Egyptian but, with that interpretation, clearly (to me) seeing the illustration in a naive way as what he describes it as being- God revealing the symbols used in the temple. It is an interpretation of a drawing the way he saw it- which has nothing to do with Egyptology. For me that was the key to the whole interpretation of "direct revelation" of all scriptures which came through Joseph, from the Book of Mormon through the King Follette Discourse. They trace either 1) the development of Joseph's theology from the rather Protestant stuff in the Book of Mormon OR 2) the gospel as the Lord wanted to reveal it, bit by bit and line by line. To me either way of seeing it- 1 or 2- is "correct". The bottom line is that it is all for our spiritual edification putting together a comprehensive theory from which we can gain meaning in our lives about our eternal journey, which can only be "verified" by resonance felt within us delivered by either- the Holy Ghost- OR perhaps our own unconscious, reflecting the rules which have always worked for humanity. It is either God or some deep instinct within us, as deep as perhaps the one that can lead a Monarch butterfly on its journey of thousands of miles, or the Spirit of God Himself guiding and directing our moral path and giving us meaning in life But that comes down to a distinction without a difference, as we say in Pragmatism- it comes down to two ways of seeing like the rabbit and duck I have used so often to illustrate it. And in my moments of silent meditation it is clear to me that it is a Voice of a Being so far above my intelligence that it is unimaginable, and which can only be spoken about in stories we have made up. And so here we are imprisoned by language as the children of Babel. I wonder if Wittgenstein every thought of that old story which says so much about his own philosophy??
  7. I do not necessarily agree with either statement but there is no conflict that I see, unless one concludes that "Egyptology" consists strictly of translating hieroglyphics which is not the case. It is much more than that.
  8. Good analogy, but the biologist would not be seeing it as a spiritual lesson instead of science. THAT is the category error. The author's intentions become irrelevant- what is important is the value we can gain from the story. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, even the Genesis story can be seen as primitive but biologically "accurate" in that plants come before animals even in evolutionary theory. And spiritually, we are all Adam and Eve and all of us have a fall from innocence at some point in our lives.
  9. For you. How many times do we need to go over the same category error? The problem with the whole argument is summarized in those two words.
  10. Category mistake. If you want to live without mental gymnastics, stop thinking which apparently many have. We all need meaning in our lives and meaning is not derived from objective evidence. Or better yet face our truth square on, that all scripture including the Bible is mystically received and has nothing to do with history or translation in the usual sense. They are metaphors- as is all language- which might have "actually happened" or not, but their VALUE to humanity is in their spiritual message- and the spiritual message is what gives meaning. Poof. Argument over. You don't go to a hardware store to buy cold remedies. That is what "category mistake" means. A human receives visions or truths directly within their minds and writes them down, and then we get to read them and decide if their SPIRITUAL contents warrant- and that is an important word- warrant- them being regarded - seen AS- scripture for oneself. Wittgenstein's rabbit and duck! We need to ask that small voice in our heart that makes us know good from bad - exactly like Moroni 10:4-5 says- which alone makes THAT "scripture" for me. It is a great truth. We need to decide inside ourselves in our hearts- in all things. Add that to James 1 and many other "scriptures" and countless statements by GA's etc which say that we need to get our own testimonies and decide that indeed they are right. All of us have a little voice inside us that tell us right from wrong and deciding what is scripture for us is no different. Heck every day we make these kinds of decisions without need for history or scientific evidence- Am I a racist deep in my heart? Do we really need to worry about global warming? Should I dedicate my life to stopping it? For whom should I vote? Is abortion right or wrong? Is the Book of Abraham scripture because it is the source of the temple rites? If you feel the spirit in the temple, then the Book of Abraham is scripture. We need to give up the kid stuff and stand up as an adult and know that each of us make our own worlds, and these are just decisions each of us need to decide for ourselves on our HEARTS- not evidence other than spiritual evidence. That is what our theology is, isn't it? About human gods creating their worlds? IMO, what else should we doing right now in our lives? Why live if you are not doing what your purpose in life is: creating your world and having joy therein? And like it or not, presented that way, it is what both theists and atheists do every day of our lives. It is the heart of Christianity and Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and every other world religion: listening to that inner voice! "But Joseph thought he was translating!" Yes he used that word, which meant something quite different than it does today.
  11. Yes, this is what I was taught. We must remember that for a Catholic one cannot enter into heaven or be saved if one is not baptized. We have baptism for the dead so our picture of it is entirely different. The urgency of allowing virtually anyone to do a baptism if the baby is about to die is strictly because it is such an urgent sacrament. Catholics used to believe that a child who was unbaptized went to a place called Limbo instead of heaven, even through of course, no fault of the baby. That belief now has become more flexible I believe. This further emphasizes the reason for the importance of baptism. So in an emergency anyone who knows enough about Catholicism could baptize a baby correctly for Catholics to count her as baptized. Baptizing the baby would actually be more important than saving her life since her eternity would be involved. At least that's the way I learned it
  12. For what my opinion is worth on this subject, I affirm that this is a correct description of the importance of the Catholic Eucharist in relation to the crucifixion. Each Mass recapitulates the entire atonement. Well said @MiserereNobis !
  13. Yes I agree It seems so clear to me, though, that I cannot understand why it was even necessary!
  14. Yes, that IS the question isn't it?? Without knowing the exact situation, I would think it likely that probably more formal action is warranted. For me, those kinds of things were a nightmare because in some such cases, individuals who have no desire to repent could spread that attitude to others in the Ward, or convince others that their actions were "ok" because no action was taken. "I know what he did and nothing happened, so it must be ok" That's the attitude you do not want to foster. It's a horribly tough decision point. Suppose someone comes to you and tells you that they were unfaithful to their spouse one time, ten years ago, and never repeated the indiscretion, and never revealed it to the spouse. You know the family and the spouse well and the person before you says that if the spouse found it, even though all those years ago, it would be a divorce for sure. Because you know both individuals, and that the spouse tends to be a rather unforgiving person, you believe them. They have four children and the oldest is 12 years old. A divorce would be disastrous for the children. The standard teaching is that the spouse should be informed, and that the couple receive therapy. There should be no secret indiscretions between spouses. Welcome to being a bishop. What would you counsel? If you prohibit taking the sacrament, it would alert the family for sure, and probably half the ward would become aware that something was going on. And then it comes out that another member of the Ward, knows the secret, as a "best friend" of the offender. If you do nothing as bishop, what will that be signally to the other person who knows? The point is that there are seldom clear answers in the real world. And those who aspire to be bishops don't get it.
  15. I agree. I would never impose that unless after a formal disciplinary council, that was the decision. I know in my own life how essential the sacrament is to repentance. I am a bit of an expert on repentance since I have had to do so much of it. Getting feedback from the Lord weekly is an essential part of charting progress or lack thereof.
  16. And yet another theory. Some day we have to grow up and realize is all we have is our senses AND something else deep inside us that speaks to us, that is as "real" as anything else.
  17. Well, you know me, I have to turn everything into philosophy and how the world as we know it is a social construction, and cannot really be anything more or less than human perceptions of what we think of as "reality" while reality as it is cannot be experienced- at least on this side of the veil. It's kind of like statistics on "new species" of fish recently "discovered" while these species have been sold in fish markets for centuries. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/10/new-grouper-species-discovered-in-australian-fish-market/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissacristinamarquez/2019/01/28/new-species-of-shark-found-in-fish-market/#73044f50741d So in what sense does a new species or continent "exist" - to us- if it has not be "discovered"? Wait- I think I heard a tree falling in the forest.... And still we rely on "scientific facts" or "his-story" for proof of the "truth"? How obviously misguided is that belief? Hearsay reigns supreme unfortunately. "You got a theory, I got a theory All God's children got a theory... "
  18. Has anyone else here actually flaked arrowheads? As a survival freak, I have. To me fluting just seems like an obvious technique to securely seat the arrowhead without having it wiggle around.
  19. Well certainly we have the distinction between salvation and exaltation for the LDS people, always causing ambiguity in these kinds of questions. Temple ordinances are indispensable for exaltation but not for salvation and the rewards of lower kingdoms. The Stations of the Cross are not a Catholic "Sacrament" so really there is no comparison. They are a series of prayers contemplating Christ's atonement and the steps that he went through. They are akin to the rosary which is a series of prayers and contemplations, and is not necessary for salvation. For us they are an ordinance which is the roughly equivalent to a Sacrament for Catholics. If I am in error, I am sure I will be corrected
×
×
  • Create New...