KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Author Posted November 1, 2011 I don't find it offensive. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're a jerk.C'mon Brade - get offended, throw out some hot headed remarks. The moderators are probably bored with all the Kumbayah stuff.
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Author Posted November 1, 2011 I appreciate you and your patience.You are welcome. Just remember this when I'm having a holier than thou day.
stevedallas Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 You are welcome. Just remember this when I'm having a holier than thou day.you are entitled now and thenjust not with me....lol
rpn Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I am blessed with two ancestors in separate lines who knew Joseph Smith well (one from before he got the plates, the other from Kirtland), had every opportunity to know the rumors, the criticisms, the allegations against him and his policies, and whose testimonies led them to follow Brigham Young to Utah and remain faithful. I always figure if they, for whom living the gospel and following the prophet meant a whole lot more sacrifice than we experience today, were not shaken in their faith by whatever JS did or didn't do, or whatever BY required or didn't, why should I be from a distance of 180 years and NO personal experience with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 stevedallas:On a personal note; I'm am old retired Psychiatric Social Worker. So I'm comfortable with people being inconsistant, within reason.TTBOMK they all say essentially that he was in his 15th year.http://lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=engI'm not trying to get you to be re-baptized, unless that is what you really desire. From my perspective it is better to be true to your own convictions than let a mere MB dictate your actions.As always a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As for myself I've got a pretty good handle on what I believe, and the reasons I believe it. If you have any questions. I'll try my hardest to answer them. But when all is said and done it is just my opinion, and I can't speak for anyone else.I've been a member for 40 years now(Baptized in 1971). While there is more understanding now than say 25 years ago. It is a stretch to say there were no reasonable answers to the questions on the FV. They have been asked/answered for over 181 years now.Let me be the first person to welcome you to sit with me on the front row pew of the chapel. Mormonism is much more than a religion to the active Saints. It is a way of thinking, a way of life. To give up the wonderful blessings of membership for another Christian religion is, to me, like moving out of a comfortable home, albeit the carpet is a bit worn, and it could use another coat of paint, for a pasteboard box in a dark alley.
Brade Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I think childlike humility is critical in sustaining a testimony. There are two major reasons this is important:1. If we are so proud of the completeness of our knowledge that we cannot endure finding out "what we knew just aint so" we risk shutting out new knowledge or rejecting what we have based on learning something new. Brigham really had the Saints pack coffee on the trek west?! *faint*Yeah, this sort of speaks to the question I was getting at earlier. The more general question I wanted to get to what this: Do you believe it's admirable when a former believer moves away from the Church by following the best available evidence at their disposal? Can there not be humility in that move, or (from the believers' perspective) is there no such thing as humbly moving from belief to disbelief?
stevedallas Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 stevedallas:On a personal note; I'm am old retired Psychiatric Social Worker. So I'm comfortable with people being inconsistant, within reason.TTBOMK they all say essentially that he was in his 15th year.http://lds.org/ensig...vision?lang=engI'm not trying to get you to be re-baptized, unless that is what you really desire. From my perspective it is better to be true to your own convictions than let a mere MB dictate your actions.As always a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As for myself I've got a pretty good handle on what I believe, and the reasons I believe it. If you have any questions. I'll try my hardest to answer them. But when all is said and done it is just my opinion, and I can't speak for anyone else.I've been a member for 40 years now(Baptized in 1971). While there is more understanding now than say 25 years ago. It is a stretch to say there were no reasonable answers to the questions on the FV. They have been asked/answered for over 181 years now.Let me be the first person to welcome you to sit with me on the front row pew of the chapel. Mormonism is much more than a religion to the active Saints. It is a way of thinking, a way of life. To give up the wonderful blessings of membership for another Christian religion is, to me, like moving out of a comfortable home, albeit the carpet is a bit worn, and it could use another coat of paint, for a pasteboard box in a dark alley.Do I really want to get rebaptized? Yes and No. How is that for an attorney answer? There is a part of me that longs for it, to be a member again, and there is a part of me that has issues that prevent it. I figure if I keep pounding on the door, something will give.
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 stevedallas:Gotta love attorney's. They are like Elves "For they say both no and yes". I quite understand. It is a BIG commitment. That anyone would do it without counting the cost is acting foolish IMNTBHO. I decided a long time ago that whatever issues I had with the Church would be resolved in the good time of the Lord. The issue of race was a big one for me(seven years before the OD2). I am happy with the results of my waiting.(or not waiting as the case may be.).
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Author Posted November 1, 2011 Yeah, this sort of speaks to the question I was getting at earlier. The more general question I wanted to get to what this: Do you believe it's admirable when a former believer moves away from the Church by following the best available evidence at their disposal? Can there not be humility in that move, or (from the believers' perspective) is there no such thing as humbly moving from belief to disbelief?I think it is admirable and moral for anyone to act according to their beliefs. It is very admirable and charitable to act in a way that blesses others and respects their beliefs.It is best to seek the will of God and act according to His guidance.How I feel about a particular former Mormon depends a lot on how they act towards others and the respect they will grant others who are following their beliefs.I realize that this gets very difficult when family members disagree.
CV75 Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I don't find it offensive. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're a jerk.What is the point of disagreement?
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Author Posted November 1, 2011 What is the point of disagreement?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4QrE3ohq0
CV75 Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) Yeah, this sort of speaks to the question I was getting at earlier. The more general question I wanted to get to what this: Do you believe it's admirable when a former believer moves away from the Church by following the best available evidence at their disposal? Can there not be humility in that move, or (from the believers' perspective) is there no such thing as humbly moving from belief to disbelief?I neither admire nor scorn a former believer who moves away from the Church, regardless of his claim of evidence for disbelieving or his humility toward whatever point of faith was once accepted and is now rejected. As you mentioned, there are factors in one area that can interfere or override acting with humility in another area. Edited November 1, 2011 by CV75
Brade Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 What is the point of disagreement?Here are a few.I agree that there are overriding factors that would cause one to misapply a divine communicationI don't agree that the overriding factors I shared cause one to misapply divine communication. What I said was something different. My claim was that those sort of competing explanations make it unjustified to believe the relevant propositions on the basis of the experience. So it isn't as if one is missing something that if they noticed it they'd be justified in believing the relevant propositions. Rather, there's nothing to miss - there simply isn't enough good evidence to know whether one has been divinely communicated to and what specific religious propositions one ought to believe.I’ll refer back to post #53 again. As an example, following Moroni’s Promise will not yield a spiritual experience that qualifies as a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon if the underlying “natural man” overrides the Light of Christ that fuels the childlike qualities essential for asking for, discovering and receiving the truthI disagree with this also. The disagreement is in line what what I said above, but I'll flesh it out since it does specifically bring up the element of humility. My claim is that if the Moroni's promise methodology is the methodology I described, then, be as humble as you like, but it won't matter because that methodology simply doesn't form the basis for reasonable belief in the relevant propositions.On the other hand, your three steps would work when the childlike qualities are applied—but it would work to confirm the correct object or principle of truth.Again, I don't see how being humble will make it reasonable to believe the relevant propositions when there are other plausible explanations for the experience in reach. It seems to me that humility ought to make it work the other way round - by humility one ought not take a position in that sort of situation.By the way, I'm enjoying the spirit of our conversation and I hope don't sense any hostility on my part despite our disagreement.
Brade Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Actual footage of a conversion... Conversion is awesome! I can't wait!
KevinG Posted November 2, 2011 Author Posted November 2, 2011 Conversion is awesome! I can't wait!Well it is awesome but we do experience it in our own way. Jakes Blues notwithstanding.
CV75 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 What is the point of disagreement?And here I thought everybody likes to break stuff...
KevinG Posted November 2, 2011 Author Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) And here I thought everybody likes to break stuff...Just dont break the commandments.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk Edited November 2, 2011 by DaddyG
CV75 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Here are a few.I don't agree that the overriding factors I shared cause one to misapply divine communication. What I said was something different. My claim was that those sort of competing explanations make it unjustified to believe the relevant propositions on the basis of the experience. So it isn't as if one is missing something that if they noticed it they'd be justified in believing the relevant propositions. Rather, there's nothing to miss - there simply isn't enough good evidence to know whether one has been divinely communicated to and what specific religious propositions one ought to believe.I disagree with this also. The disagreement is in line what what I said above, but I'll flesh it out since it does specifically bring up the element of humility. My claim is that if the Moroni's promise methodology is the methodology I described, then, be as humble as you like, but it won't matter because that methodology simply doesn't form the basis for reasonable belief in the relevant propositions.Again, I don't see how being humble will make it reasonable to believe the relevant propositions when there are other plausible explanations for the experience in reach. It seems to me that humility ought to make it work the other way round - by humility one ought not take a position in that sort of situation.By the way, I'm enjoying the spirit of our conversation and I hope don't sense any hostility on my part despite our disagreement.Not at all, I invited you to explain the point of disagreement; thank you for accommodating me.I think each person ultimately determines what constitutes good enough evidence for belief in any proposition, and that they can change their mind about that as they go along in life.Since experience is so subjective, it can only be shared (whether concurrently or through testimony) when there is some intimate link between people, whatever form(s) that may take. For example, faithful LDS will agree to refer to one form of this as “the Spirit.” This united sense is facilitated when people share the same attributes from Mosiah 3:19. “Humility” is just one aspect of it, but, for example, when two entities are “humble” they will relate similarly and accordingly as they understand and accept what one another have to say about a religious or spiritual principle.The difference between inviting someone to know/accept the truth and explaining what evidence is good enough for that truth claim is that the former respects individual agency and allows for the myriad of ways a subjective experience can be had, while the latter seems to cross the line of telling another what to think and how. Of course, the line may only be perceived to be crossed, or someone really wants it to be crossed so that someone else takes responsibility for them, but no one can authentically speak for or experience for another; they can only invite. This is true whether one is telling another how to tie an experience to knowledge that the Restoration is real, or to realize that there is no good reason to believe it.When Moroni says we will know by the power of the Holy Ghost, we have to determine what that means and what it is an experience for ourselves. Very great care must be taken in helping people recognize or understand their own experience with the power of the Holy Ghost, just as in dissuading them from seeking such a thing.So when someone says they have no reason to exercise faith, I take them at their word, but my experience is different, even though they don’t believe me. We may both have them in some fashion, but we obviously don’t share the Mosiah 3:19 attributes in the same way at the same time or with the same application or intent, etc. so as to agree that we are experiencing "the Spirit."
J Green Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Uncertain,Obviously this conversation could entail several articles, which you would then have to peer review, so I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible.I believe spiritual experiences (SEs) are reproducible. Shared SEs with my wife, parents, family members, church presidencies and bishoprics, and members of other faith traditions have confirmed this for me over the span of several decades. But to fully respond to your argument I first need to explore several assumptions I have that may be different than yours.First, not all revealed truth is universal. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are many universal truths: Christ is our Savior, God is our father, the only way for eternal spiritual redemption is through the atonement of Christ, etc. But I also believe that much of the framework in which we operate here often has just as much to do with appropriateness of time and place. Eating nutritious food is appropriate, except when fasting. Sexual intimacy has its own appropriate time. Taking life is wrong, except when the men under my command are under fire on a hill in eastern Paktika and need to defend their lives. Etc. As each of us navigate our way to the Tree of Life across fields and through mists, we will be presented with SEs that will include both universal truths that apply to everyone as well as customized invitations that are appropriate to our time and place on the path but not to others.Secondly, I believe that there is supposed to be contradiction. It’s what I call the Lehi principle. Building up to 600 BCE, Lehi is told to leave Jerusalem for another continent. Ezekiel is guided into exile in Babylon. Jeremiah winds up in Egypt with Zedekiah’s daughter. Several stay in Jerusalem and go down with the ship. Given a similar set of circumstances, each was told to respond differently. I have some friends who have felt prompted to leave the military while others have been told to stay. Same question, almost opposite answers. In his autobiography, James E. Faust says he believes spiritually that God wants good LDS men and women involved in both major US political parties in order to influence them for good. I believe him, and in doing so believe that aside from traditional family leanings, some will actually be prompted spiritually to become Republicans or Democrats while others will be prompted to leave these institutions for something else. In many cases, individuals are led by God to different faith congregations for various reasons. Perhaps the restored church is not available, or perhaps they are needed in a certain place to prepare their immediate family, neighbors, or descendants for a change. If someone believed MLK Jr was inspired to push for social change could they assume anything about his being a member of another faith? Did belonging to that faith group impact his work? If so, was he inspired to be there even when the restored church was available? When it comes to God placing branches in other parts of the vineyard, I try not to assume I know the end from the beginning.Compounding these two ideas is the fact that assumptions about SEs can be attached to the events themselves. In this respect, SEs are no different than any other type of communication where we are specifically told certain things but assume others. Sometimes the latter can be aggregated to or confused with the former.So with all of that in mind, let’s take a look at the two distinct views of the afterlife that you posited. Are there various stages in the afterlife? Are any of them personalized? What were the questions asked that revealed the knowledge portrayed? Is metaphor involved? Has there been any cultural accretion to the revelation? What assumptions were made in addition to the revelation?One example of a possible solution: The restored gospel posits an eternal frame of existence with a short mortal existence. We enter by birth and exit through death. Within that period, baptism symbolizes a death and rebirth. So far we have a birth/death/birth/death. There is a symbolic new name in there as well: what does that mean? Can we assume also then, that the birth that brought us into existence was preceded by a type of death? (d/b/d/b/d) Is our mortal death followed by a type of rebirth? (d/b/d/b/d/b) What brought us from the stage of intelligence into spirit? Is there another death/birth involved? Is death and birth simply a way of passing from one stage into another? And is this series of deaths and births in new existences and planes that far from the concept of reincarnation? Are those who feel spiritually drawn to this idea being taught about similar concepts in an eternal plan or have they been praying to God with a specific question about whether or not they will return to Earth as a grasshopper, regardless of their Kung Fu skills?But lest you think I am picking and choosing, I ask these same kinds of questions about my own belief systems as well. What do I really know through revelation and what is assumption I’ve made because of the revelation? Are there cultural accretions? Am I only being shown part of the picture? And as I have these SEs, the Spirit usually lends context in a way that doesn’t make me feel that I’m contradicting the SEs of others but that it’s all part of one plan. I trust that and believe it.And what I do have I believe is reproducible. I see it independently verified by family members and others with whom I serve. And while I don’t think it’s the only method of discovering truth, I think that when I combine it with reason and all of its methods of testing, it becomes a powerful and fulfilling combination.Cheers. Edited November 2, 2011 by J Green
CV75 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Just dont break the commandments....or mispronounce "FRAHNK-en-steen..."
SeattleGrunge Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4QrE3ohq0Anyone who proves a point with fosters is awesome, anyone who does it without directly referencing their foster video is awesomer, anyone who does all of that twice should be translated!
Storm Rider Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yeah, this sort of speaks to the question I was getting at earlier. The more general question I wanted to get to what this: Do you believe it's admirable when a former believer moves away from the Church by following the best available evidence at their disposal? Can there not be humility in that move, or (from the believers' perspective) is there no such thing as humbly moving from belief to disbelief?I have talked with many LDS that have left the Church and joined the Catholic Church. Though several of them were not stable (they could not leave the LDS alone; it occupied their time more than their new church), I did meet a few that were sincere believers in Catholicism. We had excellent discussions and I concluded that their actions were the best decisions they could make at the time. It was where they could feel closest to following Christ than in the LDS Church. Faith is not understanding. Faith is something different and should not be confused with understanding. It operates in a different sphere of learning.
TAO Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Brade, the trouble with describing the spiritual experience is because you can't properly describe it to someone who hasn't had it. I believe one of the apostles described it as similar to asking 'What does salt taste like?' The word that comes to mind is 'salty'. But you can't properly know what it is without experiencing it yourself.In the long run, describing it isn't going to be the same as experiencing it - everything we give meaning too at all is to a degree, subjective. We can't describe to a blind person what it's like to see, or to a deaf person what it is like to hear; we wouldn't know where to start, or where to relate to. And yet, we still trust these senses too. And so do blind people... and deaf people... even though they can't actually sense them.I guess I have a respect too for those who believe, and want a witness, but haven't received one yet. They go on true faith. And so do we, to varying degrees, but they go on alot of it. =)Best of Wishes,TAO =D Edited November 2, 2011 by TAO
CV75 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I thought of another way of looking at this. If I were to say that I no longer have a good reason to believe that my particular experience with praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was authentically spiritual, or that it means that the Book of Mormon is true, I would be lying. If I were to actually adopt that belief, I would be denying or betraying what I once held as true, now considering it a deception or a lie. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in principle, as people do this all the time when they repent or change their mind on an issue. The wrongness is found in the fruits and attitudes brought forth as a result and how they play out in my life and others’ lives.There is a link or a point between lying about and then betraying my faith in the Book of Mormon and I think it has to do with the forces of my carnal and childlike natures. I would lie only because it appeals to the carnal mind (and not the childlike mind) to do so, no matter how “white” or “experimental” or “insincere” the lie may be. Betrayal would follow when the consequences (the carnal rewards of the lie) are discovered to be more appealing than the rewards of my former integrity.This is the formula found in how Korihor’s became anti-Christ, but without all the drama and extremity. We all do it or have done it to some degree or another. But instead of “an angel” we may just be faced with people smarter than we are. Instead of willfully betraying our former truth, we may just be overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckle under pressure. We may even vacillate until we finally decide on developing one or the other of our carnal or childlike natures, or cultivating and living for the childlike or carnal rewards.So I would say that a good reason to accept the authenticity of an experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true might be that the experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone. A powerful reason to reject it would be that childlike attributes are not retained in high enough esteem by oneself or others (“the finger of scorn”).
Recommended Posts