Missionary Work In The After-Life

[MiserereNobis]

I have no clue what "makes present" means. Does a video make things present? Does a play? What else in human experience is "made present"? If there is nothing, how is one to attach a meaning or a context to this phrase? What is it like to make something "present"?

Mormons are very pragmatic philosophers, aren't they... not too much room from mysticism and miracles and timelessness and other things which are outside of "normal" human experience. Yet humans all over the world, from all times and cultures, have consistently reported on such experiences. Anyways.

A video does not make something present, in the context we are speaking of, because the event is one thing and the video is another. A video of the Sacrifice of the Cross does not make the Sacrifice of the Cross present to us, because that Sacrifice took place 2000 years ago and we are viewing the video now. The Sacrifice of the Mass is made present to us because that Sacrifice is eternal, it is everlasting. The consecration of the chalice during Mass makes this clear:

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFENDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

It is new and it is eternal/everlasting. At every valid Mass, there is a stepping into the eternal, where the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present to us as if we were at the foot of the Cross ourselves.

And how does the nature of man demand such a thing when it is not understandable?

The nature of man desires the supernatural, the eternal, God. We were made for union with God and we desire Him with all our hearts. It is understandable.

[zerinus]

I did not deny it was a sacrifice and I quoted the same passages from the Catechism as you do in your blog. Yes, I agree many Catholics are poorly catechized and do not realize the doctrine that it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the new order of the Mass has much to do with this -- in the traditional rite, it is much more explicit).

I agree 100% with the person who commented on your blog:

It is THE sacrifice, not A sacrifice. It is singular. The Catechism clearly states that, the Church has clearly taught that, and I find it ridiculous that a Mormon would come along and try to tell us Catholics how to interpret our own Catechism and our own doctrine... wait, aren't Mormons always upset at EVs for doing that?

As I said above, you may disagree with this doctrine (obviously), but you need to present it correctly and not as a straw-man. Do not use Protestant misrepresentations. We do not sacrifice Christ "over and over anew." The Mass participates in the one eternal sacrifice of the Cross and makes it present to us. At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are at the foot of the Cross, looking up in sorrow, adoration, and thanksgiving for what God is accomplishing for us on the Cross.

Granted that everything that you have said above is correct, from our point of view it is a fundamental distortion and misrepresentation of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to try to represent it as a sacrifice, whatever meaning that representation is meant to convey.

[mfbukowski]

Mormons are very pragmatic philosophers, aren't they... not too much room from mysticism and miracles and timelessness and other things which are outside of "normal" human experience. Yet humans all over the world, from all times and cultures, have consistently reported on such experiences. Anyways.

I guess you have not been reading my posts. Why do I bother? I know you are busy.

In fact I have posted a lot about religious experience and indeed William James, who has been cited regularly by Mormons has written perhaps THE most influential view of religious experience in the last 150 years, and guess what, he founded the philosophical view called "Pragmatism".

In fact we encourage spiritual experience over tradition and the scriptures. Didn't you know that? The whole point of that is that if you do not know by revelation that the scriptures or your precious "Tradition" is true- you have nothing but the words of men to convince you.

For me, I do not listen to the words of men- I must know for myself what God wants me to do- and that can only happen through personal revelation. I am really surprised you haven't even gotten that much information about our faith in your time here. It is central.

A video does not make something present, in the context we are speaking of, because the event is one thing and the video is another. A video of the Sacrifice of the Cross does not make the Sacrifice of the Cross present to us, because that Sacrifice took place 2000 years ago and we are viewing the video now. The Sacrifice of the Mass is made present to us because that Sacrifice is eternal, it is everlasting. The consecration of the chalice during Mass makes this clear:

This has little meaning to me- you have described nothing.

Incidentally those words are not even scriptural. In other words, they are the words of men. Scripture itself is as well- but at least it is confirmed by the spirit. And yes, I memorized those words as a Catholic myself so I am familiar with them.

It is new and it is eternal/everlasting. At every valid Mass, there is a stepping into the eternal, where the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present to us as if we were at the foot of the Cross ourselves.

This is beautiful in a poetic sense- no question. Maybe that's the best that can be done. But don't try to make it sound as if it rational- if you are speaking poetically about spiritual experience I have no problem with it, but that is not what I think YOU think it is.

The nature of man desires the supernatural, the eternal, God. We were made for union with God and we desire Him with all our hearts. It is understandable.

Agreed- but that is not a "rational" explanation. We demand that as well. Stop pretending they are possible and give up the Neoplatonism. That's my take on it.

If it's poetry, great- say so. Don't pretend it makes sense. Just go with "mystery" one more time and graft in a little more of that Buddhism. Pretend it's a Zen koan or something but don't tell me it makes sense.

Edited September 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

I guess you have not been reading my posts. Why do I bother? I know you are busy.

I have been reading your posts. And you bother because you like posting here

In fact I have posted a lot about religious experience and indeed William James, who has been cited regularly by Mormons has written perhaps THE most influential view of religious experience in the last 150 years, and guess what, he founded the philosophical view called "Pragmatism".

I have read "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (and other works) and relied heavily upon William James for my master's thesis.

In fact we encourage spiritual experience over tradition and the scriptures. Didn't you know that? The whole point of that is that if you do not know by revelation that the scriptures or your precious "Tradition" is true- you have nothing but the words of men to convince you.

For me, I do not listen to the words of men- I must know for myself what God wants me to do- and that can only happen through personal revelation. I am really surprised you haven't even gotten that much information about our faith in your time here. It is central.

Yes, I understand that, but can you see the tension that this creates? I'm told that things have to be rational, logical, and without mystery, and then on the other hand I am told that all of this will be confirmed by an experience that cannot be described with words. I feel a push and pull between these two sides of the LDS view, at least as discussed on this board and among LDS friends I have. I am derided for believing in mystery because it is not rational, yet am told that all the rationality in the world will not bring one to God. Perhaps you can explain this balancing act -- I've seen it in your posts -- how do you do it?

This is beautiful in a poetic sense- no question. Maybe that's the best that can be done. But don't try to make it sound as if it rational- if you are speaking poetically about spiritual experience I have no problem with it, but that is not what I think YOU think it is.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Mystical experience is almost always described in poetry and paradox, because it is undescribable. So what do you want from me? Rational explanation or spiritual explanation? I feel like the bar keeps getting moved, especially when you say if I'm describing spiritual experience you have no problem with it. The Mass should be a spiritual experience. But it is also a true event whether or not members of the congregation have a spiritual experience.

Agreed- but that is not a "rational" explanation.

Again, I'm not sure what you want from me.

Stop pretending they are possible and give up the Neoplatonism. That's my take on it.

What's your grudge against Plato and his successors?

[Calm]

It is a sacrifice. That is how it is defined in the Catechism. Around four years ago I wrote a piece in my Blog about this which explains it as well as I could. You can read it here.

You use your blog that has the stated purpose of teaching about LDS beliefs etc. to write a piece that condemns Catholic practice.

How is that any different from anti-mormon sites?

[mfbukowski]

I have been reading your posts. And you bother because you like posting here

I have read "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (and other works) and relied heavily upon William James for my master's thesis.

Yes, I understand that, but can you see the tension that this creates? I'm told that things have to be rational, logical, and without mystery, and then on the other hand I am told that all of this will be confirmed by an experience that cannot be described with words. I feel a push and pull between these two sides of the LDS view, at least as discussed on this board and among LDS friends I have. I am derided for believing in mystery because it is not rational, yet am told that all the rationality in the world will not bring one to God. Perhaps you can explain this balancing act -- I've seen it in your posts -- how do you do it?

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Mystical experience is almost always described in poetry and paradox, because it is undescribable. So what do you want from me? Rational explanation or spiritual explanation? I feel like the bar keeps getting moved, especially when you say if I'm describing spiritual experience you have no problem with it. The Mass should be a spiritual experience. But it is also a true event whether or not members of the congregation have a spiritual experience.

Again, I'm not sure what you want from me.

What's your grudge against Plato and his successors?

Good well I am not sure why you were studying James- was it from a philosophical pov or psychological? I know those are blurred.

But if you were interested in the philosophy then you have probably read Wittgenstein. That means, I presume, that you know language games what they are, and how he used the term.

All I am suggesting is that one define clearly and not confuse which language game is being used to describe the "reality" ie: the experience of all this.

It's about keeping the vocabularies straight and not using a hammer when a saw is called for. If we are speaking about mystical experience and most religion is about mystical experience, say so, and say something like "This is metaphysical but..."

I am a great fan of Rorty who is of course a successor of James- and he of course is a great critic of Neoplatonism and the correspondence theory of truth. In fact it was both Wittgenstein and Rorty who convinced me that all the problems of philosophy arose from confused language, and Neoplatonism was the chief culprit which brought all these category errors in in the first place.

I am fine if you just say the Trinity is a "mystery" and go away. But if you are going to attack the Godhead on a rational basis- using some kind of Neoplatonic language game- in my opinion it can't be done.

So I guess I am saying if you want to talk philosophy, we can do that, but it is Neoplatonism vs postmodernism and I will use a postmodern viewpoint against a Neoplatonic one.

If you want to talk religious experience, then we can exchange poems about our experience with God, but to mix them is just breed more confusion. Philosophical discourse is philosophical discourse and poetry is poetry. In a sense it is all metaphor anyway since words are not things- but clearly pure romantic poetry is not scientific discourse nor is it philosophical discourse.

So I guess I would say pick a language game and stick with it, or at least mention when you are shifting gears from one to the other.

If you are saying that Christ's sacrifice is "mystically present" in the mass, that's one thing, but pretending that makes logical sense (ie philosophical sense) is another.

I mean I could and have even said that in our sacrament meetings Christ is "present" in a symbolic way, but you would never admit that. To me, He is present in both ceremonies in the same way- but for you he is "more present" in the mass than he is in our sacrament meeting. That is a philosophical statement require the use of logical analysis of language- specifically in what way He is "more" present.

Philosophical problems require definitions and linguistic analysis and that is what I was doing.

Enough.

[MiserereNobis]

Hey mfb,

I came across one of your posts on another thread (see, I am reading you, ha!) that helps me understand your position more. It was describing your take on Wittgenstein. Placing you in context of good ol' Ludvig answers some of my questions as to your demand for rationality yet at the same time your reliance on ineffable experience.

So, you take on neo-Platonism and I'll take on the Tractatus. Let the philosophical war begin!

[mfbukowski]

What's your grudge against Plato and his successors?

They are not Wittgensteinians! Discussion of "Forms" requires category errors. They have inferior philosophies of language. They believe in the correspondence theory of truth.

And worst of all, they are old fashioned and uncool!

[mfbukowski]

Hey mfb,

I came across one of your posts on another thread (see, I am reading you, ha!) that helps me understand your position more. It was describing your take on Wittgenstein. Placing you in context of good ol' Ludvig answers some of my questions as to your demand for rationality yet at the same time your reliance on ineffable experience.

So, you take on neo-Platonism and I'll take on the Tractatus. Let the philosophical war begin!

Forget the Tractatus! I'll take that one on myself!

We are talking late Wittgenstein here- Blue and Brown Books and Philosophical Investigations.

That logical positivist stuff is as bad as Neoplatonism!

[Calm]

Mormons are very pragmatic philosophers, aren't they...

Generally pragmatic all around, but there are some that like the more abstract variety of philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

But you will understand where I am coming from better if you look at Rorty- though by no means do I buy his stuff hook line and sinker

I think he is totally wrong about ironists and find that conflicted but his views on the contingency of language are pretty right on.

I am basically a linguistic constructivist.

[mfbukowski]

This is about the best you can find on the internet

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/

[MiserereNobis]

Good well I am not sure why you were studying James- was it from a philosophical pov or psychological? I know those are blurred.

I was using James (and Emerson and Jonathan Edwards) as standards for the understanding of American religious experience. So it was more philosophical.

But if you were interested in the philosophy then you have probably read Wittgenstein. That means, I presume, that you know language games what they are, and how he used the term.

Indeed. However, I was never fully sold on his and postmodern philosophy's disdain for the metaphysical realm.

All I am suggesting is that one define clearly and not confuse which language game is being used to describe the "reality" ie: the experience of all this.

It's about keeping the vocabularies straight and not using a hammer when a saw is called for. If we are speaking about mystical experience and most religion is about mystical experience, say so, and say something like "This is metaphysical but..."

I firmly believe that most religion is about mystical experience and is therefore in the realm of metaphysics. However, I believe that we can use language (the language game) to attempt to describe that realm and that apparent irrationality (paradox, etc) is the best way to do so. Perhaps this is the illogical paradox I use as my premise: the most logical and practical way to discuss mystical experience is to be illogical and impractical.

I am fine if you just say the Trinity is a "mystery" and go away.

Ah, you don't want me to leave now, do you?

But if you are going to attack the Godhead on a rational basis- using some kind of Neoplatonic language game- in my opinion it can't be done.

I can understand where you are coming from now. Obviously, I reject the premise, but now I understand the context of your objections, which was confusing me earlier.

So I guess I am saying if you want to talk philosophy, we can do that, but it is Neoplatonism vs postmodernism and I will use a postmodern viewpoint against a Neoplatonic one.

Indeed. I'll just toss out there that postmodernism has the tendency to self-destruct under its own scrutiny. What I mean is that the questioning of signifier/signified can be so extreme that all rationality has to be rationally rejected and one ends up with a paradox. I guess I'm thinking primarily of Derrida here, and Lacan (and Irigaray).

If you want to talk religious experience, then we can exchange poems about our experience with God, but to mix them is just breed more confusion. Philosophical discourse is philosophical discourse and poetry is poetry. In a sense it is all metaphor anyway since words are not things- but clearly pure romantic poetry is not scientific discourse nor is it philosophical discourse.

So I guess I would say pick a language game and stick with it, or at least mention when you are shifting gears from one to the other.

I disagree with some of this. While clearly there are different types of discourse, I think that metaphysics and religion overlap to such a degree that the discourse of one can be helpful in understanding the discourse of the other. The poetry of religious experience can point to ideas in metaphysics that cannot be clearly articulated, and the precision of philosophical discourse can add clarity and understanding to religious experience. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you are saying that Christ's sacrifice is "mystically present" in the mass, that's one thing, but pretending that makes logical sense (ie philosophical sense) is another.

I question your conflation of logical and philosophical in the realm of religion and metaphysics, as I pointed out above.

I mean I could and have even said that in our sacrament meetings Christ is "present" in a symbolic way, but you would never admit that. To me, He is present in both ceremonies in the same way- but for you he is "more present" in the mass than he is in our sacrament meeting. That is a philosophical statement require the use of logical analysis of language- specifically in what way He is "more" present.

Agreed, but your requirements for discourse disallow me the tools to explain that. I know that stems from your premises based on Wittgenstein et al, so it appears we are at an impasse until we resolve the differences in our warrants.

[MiserereNobis]

I am basically a linguistic constructivist.

Gotcha. And I'm a morass of words

[zerinus]

You use your blog that has the stated purpose of teaching about LDS beliefs etc. to write a piece that condemns Catholic practice.

How is that any different from anti-mormon sites?

I wrote those posts in the says when I used to engage in a lot of polemical debates with Catholics. If I were to write them now I would write them differently; but the substance of it would still be the same. I am not in favour of distorting the past. That is how I said it then, and that is how I am going to leave it to be.

[mfbukowski]

AAhhhhhhhh....................

At last we are speaking the same language!

I was using James (and Emerson and Jonathan Edwards) as standards for the understanding of American religious experience. So it was more philosophical.

Very cool stuff! In that case I can see why you are interested in Mormonism! Makes perfect sense.

Indeed. However, I was never fully sold on his and postmodern philosophy's disdain for the metaphysical realm.

Somehow I knew you would say that!

I firmly believe that most religion is about mystical experience and is therefore in the realm of metaphysics. However, I believe that we can use language (the language game) to attempt to describe that realm and that apparent irrationality (paradox, etc) is the best way to do so. Perhaps this is the illogical paradox I use as my premise: the most logical and practical way to discuss mystical experience is to be illogical and impractical.

Agreed but I would use different words- my word would be to assign it honestly to the realm of poetry. Poetry can be incredibly moving but it doesn't pretend to be logical- that is not its purpose.

Indeed. I'll just toss out there that postmodernism has the tendency to self-destruct under its own scrutiny. What I mean is that the questioning of signifier/signified can be so extreme that all rationality has to be rationally rejected and one ends up with a paradox. I guess I'm thinking primarily of Derrida here, and Lacan (and Irigaray).

But that is precisely what it is designed to do and why I left academic philosophy. The role of philosophy is to put itself out of business by curing the patient- by solving all the linguistic confusions which have cropped up over the 2000 years of Neoplatonism, uh, I mean "philosophy". Once that's done, when there are no "diseases" to cure, the philosopher goes out of business.

My problem was that I was not that interested (at the time) in curing other people's confusion after I found the truth and cleared up my own confusions (at least to my personal satisfaction) so like a good practitioner, I left philosophy- I was "cured".

I disagree with some of this. While clearly there are different types of discourse, I think that metaphysics and religion overlap to such a degree that the discourse of one can be helpful in understanding the discourse of the other. The poetry of religious experience can point to ideas in metaphysics that cannot be clearly articulated, and the precision of philosophical discourse can add clarity and understanding to religious experience. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I kinda agree but I put hard philosophy outside metaphysics mostly on the basis that poetry is not logical. Metaphysics and religion are in the same ballpark for sure- but many times people think that either or both are science when discussing things like the flood of Noah etc. I could even take the flood of Noah "literally" within that language game- after all, who knows what "really happened"?

But science it ain't. Metaphysical statements are not about physics- they are about META physics- duh! Beyond physics.

So if you want to talk about the Trinity as "metaphysics" or poetry fine. But then Mormons think you are speaking logically- and it doesn't work logically. What works logically is three persons unified by love or purpose- or some ACTIVITY that can be used to describe a way that humans are unified- because logical language games require human references- so you have to explain them in human terms- in terms of humanly understandable relationships. Otherwise just call it a "mystery" and leave it at that.

I question your conflation of logical and philosophical in the realm of religion and metaphysics, as I pointed out above.

I don't think I do that. I think all language is metaphor and that includes religion and metaphysics and for that matter science. Words are not things- so all language is metaphor on some level or another.

Rorty put it this way:

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say

that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are

elements of human languages, and that human languages are human

creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human

mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is

out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the

world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the

describing activities of human beings - cannot.

Agreed, but your requirements for discourse disallow me the tools to explain that. I know that stems from your premises based on Wittgenstein et al, so it appears we are at an impasse until we resolve the differences in our warrants.

The differences don't have to be resolved- they cannot be and also, we don't have to duke out the philosophy here, it has already been done by minds far keener than ours.

They call that the "History of Philosophy".

[MiserereNobis]

AAhhhhhhhh....................

At last we are speaking the same language!

Yes, I think we understand each other better now

Very cool stuff! In that case I can see why you are interested in Mormonism! Makes perfect sense.

Yes, I have been interested in Mormonism as a modern (meaning modernism) American religion.

My problem was that I was not that interested (at the time) in curing other people's confusion after I found the truth and cleared up my own confusions (at least to my personal satisfaction) so like a good practitioner, I left philosophy- I was "cured".

Ah, like Wittgenstein publishing the Tractatus and then remaining a school teacher since all problems of philosophy had been solved, eh? Hopefully you won't go and beat some poor 11 year old child

I kinda agree but I put hard philosophy outside metaphysics mostly on the basis that poetry is not logical. Metaphysics and religion are in the same ballpark for sure- but many times people think that either or both are science when discussing things like the flood of Noah etc. I could even take the flood of Noah "literally" within that language game- after all, who knows what "really happened"?

But science it ain't.

It's strange how everything wants to be science these days. My son is taking an elective cooking class at middle school and it's called "Food Science." Heh.

Metaphysical statements are not about physics- they are about META physics- duh! Beyond physics.

It was the book after physics in Aristotle's collection. Yup, beyond physics.

So if you want to talk about the Trinity as "metaphysics" or poetry fine. But then Mormons think you are speaking logically- and it doesn't work logically. What works logically is three persons unified by love or purpose- or some ACTIVITY that can be used to describe a way that humans are unified- because logical language games require human references- so you have to explain them in human terms- in terms of humanly understandable relationships. Otherwise just call it a "mystery" and leave it at that.

Is there an assumption here that logical means true? If one can describe God "logically" using human references, that explanation can still be totally false, and the "illogical" poetic description can be totally true. Do you agree?

The differences don't have to be resolved- they cannot be and also, we don't have to duke out the philosophy here, it has already been done by minds far keener than ours.

They call that the "History of Philosophy".

Indeed

[mfbukowski]

Is there an assumption here that logical means true? If one can describe God "logically" using human references, that explanation can still be totally false, and the "illogical" poetic description can be totally true. Do you agree?

Yes totally- but I believe in a pragmatic view of truth, primarily as seen by Dewey and of course Rorty pretty much as well. This article is not the best- http://en.wikipedia....theory_of_truth

Then there is this about James:

In his Pragmatism, William James characterizes truth in terms of usefulness and acceptance. In general, on his view, truth is found by attending to the practical consequences of ideas. To say that truth is mere agreement of ideas with matters of fact, according to James, is incomplete, and to say that truth is captured by coherence is not to distinguish it from a consistent falsity. In a genuine sense, James believes we construct truth in the process of successful living in the world: truth is in no sense absolute. Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, "…the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires." Certainly, one difficulty in understanding James lies in the interpretation of his rhetorical flourishes.

http://philosophy.la...k2.1/c8397.html

I hope everyone will forgive me for posting this video- I have only posted here 19 million 467thousand 987 times.

But one more won't hurt.

[media=]

So essentially the truth of a spiritual experience is measured by it's effect in our lives.

Edited September 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

It's strange how everything wants to be science these days. My son is taking an elective cooking class at middle school and it's called "Food Science." Heh.

Heh indeed

There is no need for the concern. Interest wanes and people return to more mundane pursuits once they discover the math requirement..

[cdowis]

In fact I have posted a lot about religious experience and indeed William James, who has been cited regularly by Mormons has written perhaps THE most influential view of religious experience in the last 150 years, and guess what, he founded the philosophical view called "Pragmatism".

I have not seen many/any citations from William James as quoted by "Mormons". Perhaps you can find something in General Conference or the Ensign. I must must have missed them even though they are profilic.

If not clear, this is a CFR, by the way.

In fact we encourage spiritual experience over tradition and the scriptures. Didn't you know that?

I think you are confused on the teachings of the LDS church. Moroni 10:4-5 tells us FIRST to read, meditate and then to pray.

Regarding tradition, Paul tells us

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The whole point of that is that if you do not know by revelation that the scriptures or your precious "Tradition" is true- you have nothing but the words of men to convince you.

Your superior attitude is misplaced.

For me, I do not listen to the words of men-

Sigh

I must know for myself what God wants me to do- and that can only happen through personal revelation. I am really surprised you haven't even gotten that much information about our faith in your time here. It is central.

Where do I begin?

Perhaps the prayer of the Zoramites "Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children"

Edited September 23, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Google mormon pragmatism.

I'm not going to argue with you.