Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[cinepro]

Cool, thanks! Learn something new every day.

Or up to five new things if you're in EQ when I'm teaching

[DBMormon]

cinepro - what is your private stance on the church? I want you to know I appreciate your being vocal about some things that you do. Curious your background.

[mfbukowski]

Here is the quote:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. Source.

Ok I thought it was the one about the watch being made by an explosion of parts- or something like that.

But for the record, I have no problem with the above quote- I believe every word. I don't see how that is incompatible with God unfolding the species or with data which science interprets as "Darwinian evolution".

I think Adam was a clear departure from previous creatures in his use of language and culture as taught to him by God.

The data might look like evolution to some, and it might be a reasonable interpretation as scientists see it, but I don't believe in godless evolution.

Everything depends on cultural interpretations and contexts.

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

I don't see how that is incompatible with God unfolding the species or with data which science interprets as "Darwinian evolution".

Last Tuesdayism beckons on such a statement. Which I don't have a problem with. Data never conflicts with data; only interpretations thereof. Sometimes, I think you put on your Captain Ambiguous hat on purpose.

[mfbukowski]

Monticello, UT.

http://www.flickr.co...ion/5135679292/

Wow- that is in the precise geographical center of The Boonies.

Beautiful country though! I wanna move!!

[mfbukowski]

Last Tuesdayism beckons on such a statement. Which I don't have a problem with. Data never conflicts with data; only interpretations thereof. Sometimes, I think you put on your Captain Ambiguous hat on purpose.

What I always always always (shall I continue or do you get the idea? ) argue against is seeing interpretations as "real". There are ONLY interpretations.

If the statement is in language- (and I would like to see one which is not) it is subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. Language IS symbolic after all you know.

[mfbukowski]

What would qualify as evidence for me that the church did not allow belief in evolution?

I can think of no such statement short of something that denies the data- like "Dinosaurs did not exist, and anyone who believes that they did will be excommunicated".

I don't think that is about to happen soon. What you dig up is "real"- everything else is "just talk" and interpretation. And when you get to really abstract stuff- like the Nature of God? In those cases there IS NO data except personal experience.

But for me, personal experience is the way I make decisions and so does everyone else- every single day of our lives. Personal experience is what we live and breathe.

Of course we also have communal personal experiences- I believe the scientist's personal experience, but not necessarily his interpretation. He really did dig up that big bone- that is real. What that bone is a bone of and when it lived is a different story.

But I will take his word for it until it makes a difference in my life and my own personal experience, thank you very much!

[Nominee]

Wow- that is in the precise geographical center of The Boonies.

Beautiful country though! I wanna move!!

What?! Nooo! I think Portland, Oregon Temple takes it! Soooo beautiful!

oh yeah, add pic.

http://www.flickr.co...N05/2131726949/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22096347@N05/2131726389/in/photostream/

Edited June 5, 2012 by Nominee

[mfbukowski]

What is the answer to the white Moroni question, none?

Discussing race is politically incorrect in the USA

[mfbukowski]

What?! Nooo! I think Portland, Oregon Temple takes it! Soooo beautiful!

oh yeah, add pic.

http://www.flickr.co...N05/2131726949/

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

Too many of them green things everywhere. What do you call 'em again?

Oh yeah- I think it's "trees".

[volgadon]

What I always always always (shall I continue or do you get the idea? ) argue against is seeing interpretations as "real". There are ONLY interpretations.

If the statement is in language- (and I would like to see one which is not) it is subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. Language IS symbolic after all you know.

BTW, this isn't entirely related to the topic, but have you read George Steiner's "After Babel"?

[Nominee]

Too many of them green things everywhere. What do you call 'em again?

Oh yeah- I think it's "trees".

TREES. Too many? That's just crazy talk. I don't understand what you are saying. I can't compute.

[mfbukowski]

BTW, this isn't entirely related to the topic, but have you read George Steiner's "After Babel"?

I am familiar with it's thesis and it is right in line with philosophical positions- which incidentally I hold- which are quite a bit older than his book. This general world view is the one I espouse, especially as propounded by Wittgenstein and Rorty

9. Hermeneutics and Pragmatism

The ethical significance of hermeneutics, particularly its resources for handling relativist challenges, has been an important issue in the reception and exploration of hermeneutic thought in Anglo-American philosophy. However, the main impetus for appropriation and integration of hermeneutics with elements of the analytical tradition has been meta-philosophical. The most influential exponent of this development is Richard Rorty.

Filtering Heidegger's ontological hermeneutics through his distinction between constructive and therapeutic philosophy, Rorty reads Being and Time as an anti-Kantian, anti-representationalist antidote to the foundationalist epistemological project of Western Philosophy. Heidegger's emphasis on the temporality and incompleteness of all understanding, on Dasein's inextricable, dynamic and never fully articulated involvement with the world, makes him, in Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), a hero (along with Dewey and Wittgenstein) of therapeutic, anti-metaphysical pragmatist thinking. In time, however, Rorty comes to see Heidegger as unable to escape the metaphysics of representation; in Heidegger's philosophy of Being, Rorty finds another version of the Ground of All Right Thinking. To Rorty's mind, Heidegger fails to heed his own advice, to overcome metaphysics, we must leave metaphysics alone. Continuing his own turn away from metaphysics, Rorty after Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature increasingly looks to literature, and to the relation between philosophy and literature. As he explores the idea of Philosophy as a kind of writing, Rorty seeks to align philosophical thought and insight with, to put it in his own terms, poetry rather than physics. Developing the ramifications of this contrast, Rorty articulates in a more fundamental way than in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature his opposition to the alignment and assimilation of philosophical knowledge with scientific knowledge. This development of Rorty's thought, which eventually leads him away from Heidegger, is not, however, a turning away from hermeneutic philosophy. On the contrary, it brings to the fore a deep affinity with the hermeneutic humanism of Gadamer.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

This is basically the view of Linguistic Constructivism and is also important to me for its implications not only for the translation of ancient texts but obviously also for understanding the "reality" of the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon as "translations". I think Ostler barely scratches the surface with his "expanded theory" of translation, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[mfbukowski]

BTW, this isn't entirely related to the topic, but have you read George Steiner's "After Babel"?

You may have seen this video before, but the second part of it- right around second 58 or so after the interviewer asks his question- is highly relevant, and also represents the way I see things.

[zerinus]

Ok I thought it was the one about the watch being made by an explosion of parts- or something like that.

But for the record, I have no problem with the above quote- I believe every word. I don't see how that is incompatible with God unfolding the species or with data which science interprets as "Darwinian evolution".

I think Adam was a clear departure from previous creatures in his use of language and culture as taught to him by God.

The data might look like evolution to some, and it might be a reasonable interpretation as scientists see it, but I don't believe in godless evolution.

Everything depends on cultural interpretations and contexts.

 Except that that is not what the First Presidency statement is saying.

[Log]

What would qualify as evidence for me that the church did not allow belief in evolution?

The Church allows any belief you like. You can believe literally anything. The temple recommend questions are wonderfully vague, should you care to go down that path.

What a low standard "allowable" is, with reference to the Church!

[mfbukowski]

Except that that is not what the First Presidency statement is saying.

Sez you.

Guess what- you do not get to be the one who decides that.

Love you anyway brother!

[mfbukowski]

The Church allows any belief you like. You can believe literally anything. The temple recommend questions are wonderfully vague, should you care to go down that path.

What a low standard "allowable" is, with reference to the Church!

That's funny, I see it as amazingly wonderful that we get to have personal revelation on our understandings of what the church teaches.

I think that any church which allows that is PRECISELY what the true church would allow and is abundant evidence that this is truly God's church.

God did not give us minds to slavishly follow others except on general principles of what is right or wrong. We are here to learn how create order from chaos- how to take matter unorganized and turn it into worlds yet unknown.

We are not here to follow blueprints, but to draw them from our imaginations for the first time.

[Log]

That's funny, I see it as amazingly wonderful that we get to have personal revelation on our understandings of what the church teaches.

I think that any church which allows that is PRECISELY what the true church would allow and is abundant evidence that this is truly God's church.

God did not give us minds to slavishly follow others except on general principles of what is right or wrong. We are here to learn how create order from chaos- how to take matter unorganized and turn it into worlds yet unknown.

We are not here to follow blueprints, but to draw them from our imaginations for the first time.

I think we're talking about different topics (as usual).

[zerinus]

Sez you.

Guess what- you do not get to be the one who decides that.

Okay, let's look again at what it says:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

What do you make of the highlighted passages?

[zerinus]

That's funny, I see it as amazingly wonderful that we get to have personal revelation on our understandings of what the church teaches.

I think that any church which allows that is PRECISELY what the true church would allow and is abundant evidence that this is truly God's church.

God did not give us minds to slavishly follow others except on general principles of what is right or wrong. We are here to learn how create order from chaos- how to take matter unorganized and turn it into worlds yet unknown.

We are not here to follow blueprints, but to draw them from our imaginations for the first time.

The Church allows considerable latitude to what Church members believe (apart from the core doctrines of the Godhead and the Restoration) because it knows the imperfections of man, and that it takes time for them to come to a "unity of the faith;" but that does not mean that anything goes, or that whatever anyone believes is acceptable.

[mfbukowski]

Okay, let's look again at what it says:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

What do you make of the highlighted passages?

What do you mean what do I make of them? Honestly, I can read!

development from lower orders of the animal creation.

Mankind was a special creation of God- a qualitative change from previous creatures. Have you ever seen a chimpanzee speak or go to work carrying a briefcase? Apes do not have culture, they have no sense or right or wrong, they do not create their own environments, no fire, no huts, no cabins, they do not make arrows or create stone tools. They have no conception of "death" like we do- they eat other creatures like themselves or not like themselves- it doesn't matter what they eat. They do not name things. Nor was there ever an ape who became a man. Each individual is what they are. At some point there was a qualitative change- a special creation if you want to use those words, and that person was named "Adam".

theories of men

Well unfortunately so is the statement itself. I don't see any statements about evolution it in the standard works, do you? Then the statement must be a "theory of man".

Is it really a surprise that prophets are human beings and speak in human language in parables? Things do not come out of our mouths when we speak- words do, and words are symbols.

They are sort of representations of our experience- incomplete and abstract- just as we cannot convey the experience of "red" by the word to those who have not experienced it. In that sense, every statement someone makes is an abstract theory- or parable, or symbol of experience- it is not experience itself. And clearly if evolution is a theory of man, then a statement against evolution is also! God did not invent evolution- we did, and we also invented the arguments against it. The whole discussion is one theory of man vs another theory of man. The data is the data- all we have that explains the data is a "theory"!

Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

Of course that is true.

There was never an ape who became a man, because men begin life as human beings. There was a qualitative change- but I have already discussed that above.

Honestly, I don't think that an ape one day started talking and naming things. We are what we are born to be- and men are in the "image" of God- we are gods in embryo and create our worlds in some small way in imitation of our Father. Apes do not do that.

Again, the scientific data is there to be interpreted, and that is all we have both for and against- our interpretations. But you cannot argue with the data and its scientific interpretation if you want to look at it from the scientific side. There is spirituality and faith and then on the other side is science, and never the twain shall meet.

[mfbukowski]

The Church allows considerable latitude to what Church members believe (apart from the core doctrines of the Godhead and the Restoration) because it knows the imperfections of man, and that it takes time for them to come to a "unity of the faith;" but that does not mean that anything goes, or that whatever anyone believes is acceptable.

You are right. If it disagrees with out testimonies, we are free to leave. Who would want to stay in a church that one did not believe in?

[zerinus]

What do you mean what do I make of them? Honestly, I can read!

Mankind was a special creation of God- a qualitative change from previous creatures. Have you ever seen a chimpanzee speak or go to work carrying a briefcase? Apes do not have culture, they have no sense or right or wrong, they do not create their own environments, no fire, no huts, no cabins, they do not make arrows or create stone tools. They have no conception of "death" like we do- they eat other creatures like themselves or not like themselves- it doesn't matter what they eat. They do not name things. Nor was there ever an ape who became a man. Each individual is what they are. At some point there was a qualitative change- a special creation if you want to use those words, and that person was named "Adam".

Well unfortunately so is the statement itself. I don't see any statements about evolution it in the standard works, do you? Then the statement must be a "theory of man".

Is it really a surprise that prophets are human beings and speak in human language in parables? Things do not come out of our mouths when we speak- words do, and words are symbols.

They are sort of representations of our experience- incomplete and abstract- just as we cannot convey the experience of "red" by the word to those who have not experienced it. In that sense, every statement someone makes is an abstract theory- or parable, or symbol of experience- it is not experience itself. And clearly if evolution is a theory of man, then a statement against evolution is also! God did not invent evolution- we did, and we also invented the arguments against it. The whole discussion is one theory of man vs another theory of man. The data is the data- all we have that explains the data is a "theory"!

Of course that is true.

There was never an ape who became a man, because men begin life as human beings. There was a qualitative change- but I have already discussed that above.

Honestly, I don't think that an ape one day started talking and naming things. We are what we are born to be- and men are in the "image" of God- we are gods in embryo and create our worlds in some small way in imitation of our Father. Apes do not do that.

Again, the scientific data is there to be interpreted, and that is all we have both for and against- our interpretations. But you cannot argue with the data and its scientific interpretation if you want to look at it from the scientific side. There is spirituality and faith and then on the other side is science, and never the twain shall meet.

Sorry mfb, what you are saying makes no sense in the light of what the First Presidency has said, or what the scriptures say.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry mfb, what you are saying makes no sense in the light of what the First Presidency has said, or what the scriptures say.

I agree with everything you post and it still makes no sense. Then what you post makes no sense.

You mean you believe that apes became men?

That we are not created in God's image?

That arguments against the theories of men are in fact not theories of men themselves?

To deny what I said, that is what you would have to believe.