"The Philosophies Of Men" And Mormon Doctrine

[CV75]

Pretty much my take.

I think the number of people interested in philosophy is small relative to the general population whether inside and or outside of the church.

True, as far as taking a formal approach within a specific school of thought goes. But I guess it goes without saying that I’m sure they would also observe that they employ elements of philosophy every day (just like they use math every day): they think about and study fundamental problems, use their understanding and knowledge of the world around them, their values, reasoning, and effort to be understood and to influence through their self-expression and terminology, etc. and that they, consciously or not, adopt a mechanism that works for them to systematically think through matters of import. It is also sometimes like the difference between a natural athlete and a technical athlete (both are athletes, though the first may not recognize himself as such), or between someone who plays by ear and someone who plays from sheet music (both are musicians though the second may not recognize the first).

[treehugger]

In my opinion that line is crossed when one says "This is what X means, and everyone should follow my interpretation of X".

Yes, we have to act on our knowledge according to the line upon line which we are given. However, those lines are given to us individually, for ourselves, not to impose on others.

There are only a select few who are authorized to speak for the Church, I am confident no one who posts on this Board is one of those authorized speakers. Given the very high likelihood that none here are authorized to speak to for Church, almost all that we all post and discuss on this board is our own philosophy mingled with Scripture.

[zerinus]

It also includes some philosophies of men in a form that we call religion. That's all we have actually--human ideas. Some supported by reasoning and evidence and some not so much.

I would not describe true religion as a "philosophy of man". True religion is revealed. Therefore if it is any kind of "philosophy," it is the philosophy of God, not of man.

[zerinus]

Tarski reminded me about this quote- I would still be interested if you think that your personal views are excluded from what we would define as "philosophy", thereby, in your mind making your personal views not "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture".

I know we have had what I would term "philosophical" discussions between us- about omniscience etc

You certainly defend your views and thoroughly ACT as if they are philosophical views, so one is tempted to conclude that if it "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck".

So I guess I must conclude that indeed your views are "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture". I am sure you will not agree with that though.

The contrast there is between revealed religion, and as it is administered by God's authorized servants; and unrevealed (or apostate) religion, and as administered by unauthorized agents. I consider my religion to be true, revealed religion, and myself an authorized agent of it; therefore no, I do not consider the doctrine I preach to be "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture".

[mfbukowski]

The contrast there is between revealed religion, and as it is administered by God's authorized servants; and unrevealed (or apostate) religion, and as administered by unauthorized agents. I consider my religion to be true, revealed religion, and myself an authorized agent of it; therefore no, I do not consider the doctrine I preach to be "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture".

OK, and so then those with whom you disagree would be espousing "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"?

I am not going to attack your position not that that would bother you, since I know you, I am just curious what your true thoughts are on the matter.

Essentially, you are saying that because you feel the spirit and know your revelations from God, you are an "authorized agent" and those who disagree in important ways, even if they are members of the church, are not "authorized agents"- right?

I know that's a tough question, but I really would appreciate an honest reply- I am trying to figure this out because I see the world quite differently than you do.

Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Divine revelation properly received and/or applied will always be correct. Yes, it is possible for the Lord’s anointed who have properly received such revelation to go astray on any number of fronts, including mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. This is one great advantage of each member having the Gift of the Holy Ghost and other checks and balances built into the Church and the Gospel.

My phrasing was “anything arising from anyone less than God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and putting it on a par (“mingling it”) with scripture” is not good. This would be an example of divine revelation being improperly received and/or applied.

OK so now I would ask you the same question I just asked Zerinus.

Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

OK, and so then those with whom you disagree would be espousing "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"?

I am not going to attack your position not that that would bother you, since I know you, I am just curious what your true thoughts are on the matter.

Essentially, you are saying that because you feel the spirit and know your revelations from God, you are an "authorized agent" and those who disagree in important ways, even if they are members of the church, are not "authorized agents"- right?

I know that's a tough question, but I really would appreciate an honest reply- I am trying to figure this out because I see the world quite differently than you do.

Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation.

I find your conversation becoming increasingly confused, which I do not feel I have an obligation to reply to. I consider the meaning of the phrase, "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" in the context in which it originally occurs. It appears that you don't. Therefore I have nothing further to say concerning that.

[mfbukowski]

I find your conversation becoming increasingly confused, which I do not feel I have an obligation to reply to. I consider the meaning of the phrase, "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" in the context in which it originally occurs. It appears that you don't. Therefore I have nothing further to say concerning that.

OK, thanks for the response.

Of course you don't have an obligation to respond, but I appreciate you at least saying that rather than remaining silent and letting me guess what you might have responded.

I will not carry it further then, but of course I would love to.

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth and just to explain my position on the question I asked both of you, my position would be that indeed a "valid revelation" might be given for two seriously differing interpretations of scripture because the individuals obtaining the revelations have different needs and objectives, and that God teaches us individually in the way we each are best taught, each along his own path.

I think the evidence for this is that one can read a scripture a hundred times, and see that scripture in a kind of "classical interpretation" and then after questioning the Lord about a certain problem, see that scripture in an entirely new way, perhaps significantly differing from the "classical interpretation".

Does that mean that one interpretation is right and the other wrong? Not at all- it simply means that the Lord is guiding us individually toward what he needs to teach us at the particular time we receive the revelation.

In such a case, were it possible in some kind of magic time machine, we might want to go back and discuss with our "previous selves" what the interpretation of that scripture "really is".

Extending that idea to other members, it may be that the Lord is teaching them differently than we are being taught at that time, and indeed that one "interpretation" or, "philosophy" which may appear to be out of synch with our understanding is just as "valid" as the other person's understanding is for them.

I would even extend that to members of different churches- that God might "call" them to churches other than ours because there are specific lessons there they need to learn, perhaps in a preparatory way, before they find the full gospel.

As an extreme example of this and I hope this is not offensive to any readers- if one is a drunk on skid row, I think one could have a perfectly valid revelation given by the Holy Spirit to join the Salvation Army- due to the wonderful work they do with these individuals. We don't have a whole lot of missionaries on skid row, and those poor folks wouldn't quite be ready for the Word of Wisdom anyway.

We all have to start somewhere and climb Jacob's ladder one rung at a time, and the same revelation might sound quite differently on rung 15 than it does on rung 19 million, and neither is necessarily "wrong".

But then were those two individuals to be discussing their personal "valid" interpretation, you can be there would be quite a lot of "philosophy" to discuss to come to a meeting of the minds. And I don't have a problem with that at all.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brother Pete]

I would not describe true religion as a "philosophy of man". True religion is revealed. Therefore if it is any kind of "philosophy," it is the philosophy of God, not of man.

Brother Zerinus,

We must have met in the pre-existence because that is EXACTLY what I think true and pure religion is: The Philosophy of God. Men, learned men, have the intellectual capacity to create systems of belief that parallel the Philosophy of God to a point, but sooner or later, those systems diverge. The strait and narrow path is more than a metaphor for living our life, it is a standard by which all philosophies can be measured.

Well met, Brother Zerinus! I hope to read more of your thoughts on this subject.

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

[CV75]

OK so now I would ask you the same question I just asked Zerinus.

"Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation."

Yes--I hold that is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right." To me, this is the beauty of the scriptures--many layers of true meaning, and many substrates upon which many true revelations of diferent kinds may be processed.

It is important not to take ourselves too seriously until we comprehend all things, and that above all we pratice pure religion (James 1:27) in the right Spirit (whether that "Spirit" be the Light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost), and once we find it, in the true Church (D&C 1:30).

[CV75]

oops

Edited May 9, 2012 by CV75

[Brother Pete]

For what it's worth and just to explain my position on the question I asked both of you, my position would be that indeed a "valid revelation" might be given for two seriously differing interpretations of scripture because the individuals obtaining the revelations have different needs and objectives, and that God teaches us individually in the way we each are best taught, each along his own path.

I think the evidence for this is that one can read a scripture a hundred times, and see that scripture in a kind of "classical interpretation" and then after questioning the Lord about a certain problem, see that scripture in an entirely new way, perhaps significantly differing from the "classical interpretation".

Does that mean that one interpretation is right and the other wrong? Not at all- it simply means that the Lord is guiding us individually toward what he needs to teach us at the particular time we receive the revelation.

In such a case, were it possible in some kind of magic time machine, we might want to go back and discuss with our "previous selves" what the interpretation of that scripture "really is".

Extending that idea to other members, it may be that the Lord is teaching them differently than we are being taught at that time, and indeed that one "interpretation" or, "philosophy" which may appear to be out of synch with our understanding is just as "valid" as the other person's understanding is for them.

I would even extend that to members of different churches- that God might "call" them to churches other than ours because there are specific lessons there they need to learn, perhaps in a preparatory way, before they find the full gospel.

As an extreme example of this and I hope this is not offensive to any readers- if one is a drunk on skid row, I think one could have a perfectly valid revelation given by the Holy Spirit to join the Salvation Army- due to the wonderful work they do with these individuals. We don't have a whole lot of missionaries on skid row, and those poor folks wouldn't quite be ready for the Word of Wisdom anyway.

We all have to start somewhere and climb Jacob's ladder one rung at a time, and the same revelation might sound quite differently on rung 15 than it does on rung 19 million, and neither is necessarily "wrong".

But then were those two individuals to be discussing their personal "valid" interpretation, you can be there would be quite a lot of "philosophy" to discuss to come to a meeting of the minds. And I don't have a problem with that at all.

Brother Bukowski,

You have nailed it! God's Philosophy is an open system, tailored to each of us. It is both individual and universal and only a Supreme and All-knowing Being could overcome the paradoxical nature of such a combination. Many times I have pondered a gospel principle or scripture and realized that God was giving me further light and knowledge based on what I needed to learn. What other philosophy, invented by men, is so open and sharpens the intellect to such extremes? I dare say one can not be named!

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

[mfbukowski]

"Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation."

Yes--I hold that is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right." To me, this is the beauty of the scriptures--many layers of true meaning, and many substrates upon which many true revelations of diferent kinds may be processed.

It is important not to take ourselves too seriously until we comprehend all things, and that above all we pratice pure religion (James 1:27) in the right Spirit (whether that "Spirit" be the Light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost), and once we find it, in the true Church (D&C 1:30).

Good- ok!

[mfbukowski]

Brother Bukowski,

You have nailed it!

Great- thanks!

[Storm Rider]

"Edit: I guess the question becomes- is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right"- or if one must therefore be "wrong" because they differ in interpretation."

Yes--I hold that is it possible for two members of the church, each believing they are inspired, to interpret the same scripture in two different ways and both be in some sense "right." To me, this is the beauty of the scriptures--many layers of true meaning, and many substrates upon which many true revelations of diferent kinds may be processed.

It is important not to take ourselves too seriously until we comprehend all things, and that above all we pratice pure religion (James 1:27) in the right Spirit (whether that "Spirit" be the Light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost), and once we find it, in the true Church (D&C 1:30).

I agree with you that this can occur, My only caveat is that where we can find meaning, inspiration, or value does not mean that we have found "truth". Eternal truths are few; these are the truths that exist outside of one's acknowledgement and they exist for everyone. God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Holy Spirit is the promised Comforter. These are eternal truths and exist whether we believe them or not; they are not inspirations.

[california boy]

How do the scriptures themselves fit into this discussion. Do you think that there is a lot written in the scriptures that are just the thoughts of men as well. I am not talking about sinister plots of monks sneaking in their own agendas. I am talking about the prophets and apostles themselves being a product of their time and their own prejudices. All seem to agree that modern prophets and apostles can make statements that they believe is the word of God but in fact are just their views. Is there any difference between these men and those that wrote in the standard works?

For example a lot of Paul's writings are just his opinions. He may have even been expressing them as opinions at the time. But in todays world people read every word of the bible as it it was uttered by God himself. If that was the case, women would not be allowed to wear makeup or jewelery or pray in church or even speak in church. There are hundreds of examples where I believe a writer is just expressing his opinion. Sometimes that idea even appears in multiple places in the scriptures. If a modern prophet came out and said that women should not wear makeup and used the writings of Paul to support his position, would that indeed become the will of God or would it be two prophets/apostles expressing their opinions in different times and different places? What do you think?

[CV75]

I agree with you that this can occur, My only caveat is that where we can find meaning, inspiration, or value does not mean that we have found "truth". Eternal truths are few; these are the truths that exist outside of one's acknowledgement and they exist for everyone. God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Holy Spirit is the promised Comforter. These are eternal truths and exist whether we believe them or not; they are not inspirations.

Yes. I take “right” and “true” to refer only to that which is actually of God (whether in the form of existing in Him, pronounced and exercised by Him, experienced from Him, ratified by the Holy Ghost, covered by grace, enabled by the Atonement, whether revealed to mankind or not, etc.). Truth exists independently of anything else (D&C 93:30—God has placed Himself in that sphere in which He is fully independent and fully acts for Himself), so if were to distill the idea of Truth into one concept, it would be the very Person of God Himself.

[CV75]

How do the scriptures themselves fit into this discussion. Do you think that there is a lot written in the scriptures that are just the thoughts of men as well. I am not talking about sinister plots of monks sneaking in their own agendas. I am talking about the prophets and apostles themselves being a product of their time and their own prejudices. All seem to agree that modern prophets and apostles can make statements that they believe is the word of God but in fact are just their views. Is there any difference between these men and those that wrote in the standard works?

For example a lot of Paul's writings are just his opinions. He may have even been expressing them as opinions at the time. But in todays world people read every word of the bible as it it was uttered by God himself. If that was the case, women would not be allowed to wear makeup or jewelery or pray in church or even speak in church. There are hundreds of examples where I believe a writer is just expressing his opinion. Sometimes that idea even appears in multiple places in the scriptures. If a modern prophet came out and said that women should not wear makeup and used the writings of Paul to support his position, would that indeed become the will of God or would it be two prophets/apostles expressing their opinions in different times and different places? What do you think?

The Book of Mormon has a couple of "confessions" by prophets that say that if there are mistakes and errors, they are unintentional, can be dealt with by the sincere seeker of truth, and by no means have to become stumbling blocks.

[CV75]

The same holds true for "opinions", real and imagined. They are all part of the test and the truth will make you free.

[mfbukowski]

....these are the truths that exist outside of one's acknowledgement and they exist for everyone. God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Holy Spirit is the promised Comforter. These are eternal truths and exist whether we believe them or not; they are not inspirations.

I am just wondering how they could exist for everyone and are outside our acknowledgement at the same time. One idea seems to exclude the other e How could we know that they exist for everyone if no one acknowledged them?

We only know what we know- what we "acknowledge", not what we do not acknowledge.

If no one knew them- how could they exist for everyone?

I am not trying to be tricky- but this goes to the heart of the matter.

[mfbukowski]

How do the scriptures themselves fit into this discussion. Do you think that there is a lot written in the scriptures that are just the thoughts of men as well. I am not talking about sinister plots of monks sneaking in their own agendas. I am talking about the prophets and apostles themselves being a product of their time and their own prejudices. All seem to agree that modern prophets and apostles can make statements that they believe is the word of God but in fact are just their views. Is there any difference between these men and those that wrote in the standard works?

I think that is exactly the issue, and my point is that the standard works were obviously written by human beings who were inspired much as our modern prophets are inspired- or not, since they make errors, so to expect the standard works to not reflect the times in which they were written is unrealistic.

That really is the central reason I believe you cannot separate philosophy from scripture.

But I am beginning to like the idea of "inspired philosophy" and I am beginning to think that might be a good way for at least me to look at scripture. In my opinion, the standard works is what constitutes "doctrine", and I accept the criteria given by Elder Christofferson (What a great name!- "Son of one who offers Christ" -) in this talk, which applies equally well to "inspired philosophy".

[mfbukowski]

Yes. I take “right” and “true” to refer only to that which is actually of God (whether in the form of existing in Him, pronounced and exercised by Him, experienced from Him, ratified by the Holy Ghost, covered by grace, enabled by the Atonement, whether revealed to mankind or not, etc.). Truth exists independently of anything else (D&C 93:30—God has placed Himself in that sphere in which He is fully independent and fully acts for Himself), so if were to distill the idea of Truth into one concept, it would be the very Person of God Himself.

Wow I think it is really interesting you mention that scripture- but you are missing, in my opinion, the impact of verse 29 by only quoting verse 30- which in my opinion turns your conclusion around 180 degrees.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

I see those scriptures quite differently than you I guess- it is God as man- man being God- God being man- as concretions of intelligence as it were- who "act for themselves"- amounting to God and man acting together, and acting for themselves as personifications of intelligence- or else there is no existence!

In other words, if it were not for Intelligence- existing in God and man- as acting beings- there would be no existence!

It is God as man and man in God who organize existence through intelligence. Were there no God/men in "community" nothing would exist, and we participate with God in creating (organizing) our world.

Our world in which we live today is man made and man given- God giving us the intelligence- to use technology and our minds to create a "universe" of our own creation. Put a baby outside in the desert, alone, and it would not survive. It needs- (we all need) human culture to even survive. THAT is our world- that is our truth.

"All truth is independent...to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence"

How can truth act for itself if it is some remote realm "out there" independent of our own sphere, independent of intelligence? It cannot! Passive "Truth" cannot act- believing that somehow "Truth" exists outside of the intelligence of God/man is pure pagan Platonism.

The "sphere" he is speaking of is OUR SPHERE of action. The whole notion that truth can act is the key to understanding it all- that truth is our truth and it is God/man who organizes it.

I think.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

When you look at the meaning of "God's glory" you get these famous scriptures:

"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."

"This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

So who/what are we? WE are God's glory- or at least we add to it by being exalted, should we attain such a blessing. WE (and he) are intelligence. We are beings of "light". We are truth, acting for ourselves.

Those "things" are not out there somewhere- they are right in here.

[CV75]

I think.

...therefore you are!

I agree with what you wrote; expanding beyond the scope / purpose of my reply, I do take God as our Template, so (for myself) when I speak of Him in relation to Truth, I speak of ourselves in a better condition than that in which we find ourselves at this moment.

Are not our posts an example of two people, both inspired (shouldn't have said that), coming to different conclusions from the same scripture, and both are "right"?!?!?