Jump to content

pogi

Contributor
  • Posts

    12,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pogi

  1. You are getting to that age, aren't ya? I would recommend some Depends 😁
  2. I agree that the correlation is pervasive and integral to our faith. As I stated, I think these things serve as "necessary" intermediates due to core limiting beliefs/fears that we all have and must overcome. There is an undeniable correlation, but I suspect that these objects are not causative. I think the belief is causative and these rocks were necessary to generate belief of divine power - just like sugar pills are not causative of medical healing, but they are necessary to generate healing beliefs. The swap would be the easy part to hide, the rock on the other hand would not be so easy to replicate convincingly. I simply cannot buy that Martin could have fabricated a rock equal in appearance, color, texture, and heft to the genuine stone. If this story is genuine, it is possible that Joseph was playing along, knowing that it was fake, to test Martin in some way. I have seen pictures, I just can't imagine a convincing replicate being made, especially with the technology of the day. It is implausible, and therefore the other explanation is more convincing to me. In regards to the stone being prepared by the Lord for a specific divine purpose, I don't disagree with those points. That is how placebos work too. It would be impossible to generate the divine power of healing belief without authoritative preparation of sugar pills set apart for these things. I completely agree that these things are pretty non-essential - It doesn't really pragmatically matter if you are right or I am right, all that matters is that it generates the power of divine belief That is the core, fundamental, and causative door to divine power. If your belief works for you - that is all that matters. If mine works for me - that is all that matters.
  3. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Joseph knew that the stone had been swapped. It was a pretty unique stone. It would have been nearly impossible to duplicate convincingly. I don't know if there is any evidence that Joseph believed on a psychological level that the bogus stone was the genuine one.
  4. I think the Book of Mormon provides the traditional teachings in regards to these artifacts, but if we are talking about fundamental "gospel principles" like "faith" and "love", etc., I don't think that "physical artifacts" makes the list of fundamental gospel principles required for revelation from God. Here is the fundamental gospel principle which I believe explains these things: I think it is sometimes easier to believe in the power of something outside of ourselves then it is to believe in our own capacity and divine power and potential to directly connect with the divine. As mentioned in another thread, I also think there is some hesitancy/fear to directly connect with God and we therefore rely on intermediaries. But I think that underlying and self-limiting beliefs in our own abilities and worthiness are the only barriers to direct experience with God without the need for buffering intermediaries. I think the intermediaries and artifacts such as seer stones, olive oil, temples, etc. are necessary for spiritual development until we learn to believe in our own capacity, worthiness, and become unafraid to approach God without any buffer betwixt us in understand that we ourselves are temples, and can ourselves be the earthly abode of God. I think that is the ultimate goal and the result of living gospel principles - it is a process that strips our minds and beliefs of these limiting factors and beliefs. When our beliefs are pure and without corruption, then "all things are possible" with nothing more than pure "belief". No need for artifacts when we can generate pure belief free of fear and doubt without them.
  5. Great article! I have said in the past that the greater test of faith is not walking into the darkness (as is a common illustration), but stepping into the light of full exposure, or "direct contact with God". This is illustrated in the temple story of Adam in Eden when he came out of hiding and exclaimed "Here I am". I believe that is the greatest catalyst to redemption and oneness with God. It is found in the oft over-looked liturgical words of the temple which put in motion everything else which followed - "Here I am". That is the pure attitude of faithful worship and I believe the only way to truly know God (which is eternal life). I believe this article correctly addresses that fact that anything we substitute for that attitude is an idol (and may include "scriptures", "church", and "leaders") and what is represented in the story of the calf.
  6. Honestly, I despise arguments surrounding personhood. I only address it because the law suggests that rights belong to the arbitrary "person". Because it is arbitrary, it seems rather pointless to argue about what it is - that is my point. What is objective is the science of human development and taxonomy of species and life. Bodily autonomy issues stem from the right to liberty. But the right to life always trumps the right to liberty. So, we circle back to the fundamental issue of who deserves the right to life - again, that all comes back to what is a "person" and what is not. So, I see bodily autonomy as a secondary issue and not the fundamental issue that surrounds the right to life.
  7. Understand in what way? What don't I understand that I should?
  8. I wasn't suggesting that medical review boards intervene before the procedure, but review the decision after - if it is performed outside of general practice guidelines (and yes, there must be guidelines in medicine established by medical boards). That is standard practice in medicine. In other words, the doctor may be subject to losing their license or have other charges if they are not able to defend their medical reasoning. Again, standard practice. Doctors can do whatever they want, but they may be potentially liable if their practice can't be defended. I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I think you are saying that DNA is the only thing all human have in common throughout every developmental stage of life. There is more than that though. They all have life - and that requires more than DNA. It is much more complex than that. My values are not interpreting the science, they are giving value to it. The science is objective and unchanged by my personal values. Comparing Jainism to pro-life stance is a little strained, I think. I am not talking about extreme protection of all life, but the moral protection of human life - and my position is not even extreme on that. You may personally disagree, but your explanation isn't convincing to me that I am extreme or "ridiculous" in my personal values. This "graduated orientation of value" is completely personal and not objective. The problem that you still have not addressed is that of personhood. You can give a graduated orientation of personal value to different stages of human development if you want, but that says nothing of legal rights which belong to "persons" (which you define as a fully cooked loaf of bread and out of the oven). So you have expressed your personal values, but you have neglected to address the legal problem of rights belonging to persons. A viable fetus is not a "person" according to your arbitrary definition. So, why should it be given any rights to life which belong to persons only? You have created a legal dilemma which will allow for extreme measures post 20 weeks gestation (which was where you claim protections should begin). I disagree, I think offering no legal protections for the life of fetus's up until birth is highly morally problematic without equating anything to simple addition and subtraction.
  9. No, that is not what I am saying. This has nothing to do with arbitrarily bestowing the title of "person" to some humans and not others. Every right and rule has an exception - even the right to life. Self defense and capital punishment are exceptions to that right/rule, for example. How could that be if they are considered "persons" by your arbitrary definition which should guarantee them right to life? You see, we don't need to deny personhood to someone to make an exception. The exception in this case is compassion in the face of the devastating prognosis of no recovery. I think that is morally tenable. I already addressed it. Your turn. I will restate the problem that you have avoided answering below. Again you are misunderstanding my position. Also, these people (yes, I consider them persons) are not "brain dead" - they are unconscious. Big difference. Will you please state your position on persons (or humans, if you prefer) in a coma or vegetative state? Are they persons or not? According to your apparent definition of personhood requiring consciousness, they are clearly not and can legally be killed despite their potential prognosis of good recovery. Heck, even someone who loses consciousness temporarily from a head concussion is not a person according to your definition, and can legally be killed while still unconscious. Do you think that is a tenable moral position to hold? Or, do you allow yourself the latitude of exceptions to the rule based on prognosis? Those with a good prognosis, despite their temporary lack of consciousness, should not be allowed to be killed, right? Well, let me tell you, a healthy fetus has a really, really good prognosis. So, there seems to be moral inconsistency in your position unless you believe that all unconscious humans are not persons and can be killed without legal repercussion despite prognosis.
  10. How do you know they are not in pain? https://www.science.org/content/article/unconscious-brain-still-registers-pain https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110539/ Once again, you are trying to attribute to me absolute statements and boundaries of rights. It doesn't work like that - and that is not what I am arguing. There are exceptions to all rights and rules. I would argue that this should be one of the extremely rare and compassionate exceptions to the general rule. As I have noted, this scenario poses problems for your position too (something you have not addressed yet). "In some cases"? What are the exceptions? You agree then that exceptions to the general rules are necessary? If you are going to give yourself that latitude in these moral dilemmas, please allow me the same latitude. "Just willing to feed them"? Is that all it takes to care for someone in a permanently vegetative condition?
  11. Oh, I am definitely that old - born '79 - which is why I am a little embarrassed for not knowing that fact. I never gave much attention to pop-culture back in the day. I was way too underground cool (tongue-in-cheek) to care about stuff like that. Ha!
  12. The reference was appreciated. I was not aware of that hilarious fact. That is somewhat embarrassing to me as my band actually covered that song as a joke at a few shows. We would cover unexpected “classics” from that decade every now and then to keep things interesting.
  13. Ok, are you acknowledging then that some Evangelicals are indeed having a hard time with the change, and that it is not just Fundamentalists? I can accept that and even be patient with it, but I don't like it when people pretend like I am imagining things. I think it just dawned on me that a lot of the misunderstanding is on our respective views of priesthood authority. For us, we distinguish being Christian from having priesthood authority. For Evangelicals (correct me if I am wrong) being Christian is to have priesthood authority. So, it makes sense why Latter-day Saints may have an easier time attributing the title Christian with other faiths, as we don't associate it with authority. While other Christians may have a hard time wanting to share that title with us as it is associated with authority. Does that sound about right? They may be having a hard time acknowledging our authority when we withhold any acknowledgement of their own authority. I have never heard it explained that way to me, but it makes sense. The reason I usually hear is that we don't believe in the proper trinitarian attributes of Christ. I think the corollary situation you present is not really a fair parallel though as Evangelicals are not restorationists who believe that the authority belongs to their church/sect alone. It would be a much more radical change for Latter-day Saints to acknowledge equal authority with other sects, than it would be for Evangelicals to acknowledge the authority of other sects like Catholics and Latter-day Saints, etc. I think it is the Evangelical faith that all believers in Christ are partakers of the royal priesthood that makes their resistance to acknowledging that Latter-day Saints are "Christian" both understandable and troubling at the same time. It is that belief in the priesthood of all believers that makes the comparison a little strained.
  14. Milli Vanilli was singing about something as old as Sodom and Gomorrah: "Gotta blame it on something Gotta blame it on something Whatever you do, don't put the blame on you Blame it on the rain gays (yeah yeah) You can blame it on the rain gays"
  15. Yeah, it's not going to result in any kind of lockdowns. Humans are not the reservoir host so it is not likely to become endemic or spread much outside of Africa where they consume bush meats and have other animal-human exposures. Mostly, this is something that is seen in international travelers (and rarely at that) - it is something I educate people about going to certain parts of Africa. Unless it has mutated (and the WHO suggests that there is no evidence of that), it is not something we need to be terribly concerned about spreading here in the US.
  16. I agree. I don't see anything troubling in what he has said - the troubling part is the response to what he has said. This shouldn't be a news worthy issue. It isn't something that he should be hounded about.
  17. Perhaps you can explain why some Evangelicals are making such a big deal out of it then, as seen through your filters. My point is that if Dallas Jenkins would have said that Evangelicals are Christians, it would have been accepted as obvious - something that doesn't need to be said. He wouldn't have needed to clarify that he was only speaking in the general sense and not about each individual Evangelical. So, the fact that he was pressured to state his position on Mormons in the first place - that he needed to do so "dozens" of times (clearly something that DOES need to be said still), and that those explanations still were not good enough - that news articles were printed about it - and that he felt compelled to need to clarify further that "not all Mormons" are Christians (something that is a given in the rest of the Christian world that "doesn't need to be said") is, to me, telling. IF these are things that don't need to be said in the rest of the Christian world, it seem apparent to me that it still does need to be said, and that it is newsworthy when it is said about Mormons. Could you imagine a news article with the headline "Dallas Jenkins says that Evangelicals are Christians"? Ridiculously obvious right? He wouldn't have been hounded for it. He wouldn't have needed to clarify dozens of times to questioning reporters and Christians. But if the headline reads "Dallas Jenkins says that Mormons are Christians", it may still be seen as ridiculous by some, but for different reasons. Why? I fully welcome the change and believe you that it is happening. But I feel like you are consistently downplaying of our lived experience as Latter-day Saints in our interactions with other Evangelicals. You insist that we are not differentiating between fundamentalists and Evangelicals, and that may be true sometimes, but not always. It still seems to be a fairly controversial issue in Dallas Jenkins religious world - I don't think that is an unfair or inaccurate observation. I am all about change, but downplaying or ignoring the fact that it is still fairly prevalent is perhaps being unfair to our lived experience. There may be some truth to this comment that we have more to lose, but it is a loss that we have been seeking for generations. The LDS church has bent over backwards to be accepted by the rest of Christian America as both Christian and American. We have gone to great measure to fit in - to the point of perhaps experiencing some of that loss and losing our unique identity to be perceived as stereotypical American Christians. The last thing we would do is reject welcome arms as fellow Christians and Americans. We are like the nerd kid who is rejected, and now is finally being accepted into society, we are not going to walk away from that. We will welcome it with open arms, but will still feel the scars of the past when we are reminded by some (maybe even the few) that we are still nerds and don't belong.
  18. Would it be correct to say that the word "Christian" in Evangelicalese is used similar to how "Church of the First Born" is used in Mormonism, as @bluebell notes? It is not a matter of membership of any earthly church, but personal loyalty or commitment to Jesus? Or is it more a matter of belief - that you have to believe in certain attributes of Jesus to be considered a Christian? You may be right that the "majority" of 21st century Evangelicals are not that way, but the fact that Dallas Jenkins has had to repeatedly clarify his comments to questioning Evangelicals is pretty telling that it really is not that uncommon among Evangelicals to question the Christianity of Latter-day Saints. He said he felt compelled to give this clarification because after dozens of comments he continues to be hounded by people about his position. There were even news articles made about his comments. It doesn't seem to be so lost in the fifties and sixties, after all. It still seems to be fairly controversial in his religious world. Even though he stated that he doesn't even claim that all Evangelicals are Christians, I don't think it would have been received with the same controversial and negative response had he done so.
  19. @Navidad would have set the record straight for his fellow Evangelicals without equivocation. Then his inbox would have been flooded with both hate mail and appreciation.
  20. I thought my proposal covered all the bases pretty well. It is clear in that it specifies only in cases of serious threat of life to mother. It offers objective guidelines, and is loose enough to rely on the best judgment of the medical provider. It also offers checks and balances with potential review of medical board in cases that lie outside the standardized guidelines.
  21. You are trying to make a legal/moral absolutist out of me. “Incredible moral value and worth” is not the same as absolute protection under the law with no exceptions. Yes, there are conditions when I think killing a human is a serious moral dilemma but justifiable. I am not sure why that is not clear by now in our discussions on abortion. As I posited, I think pro-choicers are stuck with the larger dilemmas in regards to their arguments of justification based on personhood in the scenario I mentioned. Care to address it?
  22. That is a moral dilemma to be sure, especially where the patient has not made their wishes known in advance. I’m not sure what this has to do with a healthy and viable fetus with full expectations of a healthy birth/life in a few months time. I think prognosis must be taken into moral account. But there are some parallels with pro choice arguments. Let’s say the prognosis was favorable and doctors expected a full recovery in a few months time. By all the definitions of personhood I am hearing, this vegetative body is not a person and can be killed without legal/moral consequence despite a beautiful prognosis and expected full recovery.
×
×
  • Create New...