Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[wayfarer]

BS account? I thought I remember you saying something about respecting others' beliefs and allowing each to walk their own path, etc. Calling someone's deeply held beliefs BS doesn't seem to be very respectful. You ask others to respect your "Way", yet disrespect others. Not the best way to ask for understanding from others. Just sayin'.

agreed. I was thinking of the picture often shown that Joseph Smith is pouring over the symbols on the plates and oliver is on the other side of the desk -- that we know didn't happen -- ever, and hence it is not an authentic account of how the plates were translated -- hence the term 'BS'. Unfortunately my two letters get generalized by not being careful.

[wayfarer]

wayward #114;

Did I make a mockery of your handle? Please do not make a mockery of mine.

Oh, please, spare me the pity of your sadness. I've no use or room for it. I want you to follow your conscience. If that means you can *and will* come closer to Jesus Christ via not accepting the events of the Book of Mormon and the resurrection as having literally happened, as literal as I'm writing this post, than so be it. I want you to follow it and I hope and pray you find peace through it as well as to become a better servant of the Mighty One of Israel.

Thank you. Let's just say we have a different Way and leave it at that.

Edited January 9, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

In response to the above statement, I quote Paul:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Again you miss the point of my post. Did I say there is no 'resurrection from the dead'? no. does resurrection have to be physical? Same body? whatever. No. The point is Christ lives -- the outcome is sure, the method doesn't matter. Once one comes to know the living christ, all knowledge about Christ melts away.

All our discussion is doing is confirming your contempt for my position. I understand that a literal belief in a physical resurrection is deeply meaningful and uplifting for a lot of people, and it certainly was for me. That I no longer care in the least about such details is my privilege, and yours is to continue to hold such things as important and relevant to you.

If we were sitting next to each other in a testimony meeting, we are likely to both be motivated to testify of the reality of the living Christ. My point is that we should focus on that outcome, not necessarily the way people get there.

Why continue to beat your head agaist a brick wall or kick against the pricks?

interesting label to apply to yourself there.

If you are comfortable with your beliefs, depart in peace and live the gospel, as you understand it, according to your best conscience. But for those who have unshakable testimonies of the actual physical resurrection of Christ and of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, your sophistry and verbal gymnastics ring hollow and will persuade none but the unstable.

Ah. So when I express my testimony, which is my 'witness' of how I believe that Jesus lives, I am not welcome? "Depart in peace"? That seems to be the issue here. I have never said the physical didn't happen. It may have, or may not have. It's simply not important to me after having had a witness that goes well beyond that. You can choose to reject my witness, but you cannot choose to silence it, for I will stand as a witness to what I know to be true at all times and in all places.

And if it's only the unlearned and unstable who would find your approach at all compelling, you would be better off in the eternal scheme of things to leave well enough alone. For those who take Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses at their word, your posts sound like a literal fulfillment of Paul's words of warning to Timothy:

"3 For the time will come when they (some members of the church) will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4)

How do you know that Paul isn't talking about those who take a fable and make it literally true? Truth is knowledge of things as they really happened. Fable is the the legendary account.

We continue to use a "gospel art" picture that shows Joseph hand-pouring over the plates and physically translating them in the presence of the scribe who can see the plates. This is a fable -- it didn't happen that way, but as a fable, we get the idea that "joseph translated the plates". The reality is that joseph didn't translate them, in at least the modern sense of the term -- he revealed them by the gift and power of god, and as the truth would have it, he literally pulled the words out of a hat. The physical plates were not used -- they serve the function of a physical proxy for an underlying revelatory process -- whether they existed or not is ultimately immaterial. When we realize that the abraham scrolls absolutely did not contain the record of abraham in his own hand, then we come to realize a higher truth: that god can reveal his word without the physical proxy in place. the fable is that the scrolls contain the book of abraham. The reality is revelation.

When we find out some of the literalism is not true, yet we continue to hold to the fabulous version, who, then, is turning their ears from the truth and turning unto fables?

Edited January 9, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

Wayfarer;

agreed. I was thinking of the picture often shown that Joseph Smith is pouring over the symbols on the plates and oliver is on the other side of the desk -- that we know didn't happen -- ever, and hence it is not an authentic account of how the plates were translated -- hence the term 'BS'. Unfortunately my two letters get generalized by not being careful.

Here's a good little article to read. To get the gist of it, go to the section called Non-LDS art and the Nativity

Mormonism and history/Accuracy of Church art

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer;

Here's a good little article to read. To get the gist of it, go to the section called Non-LDS art and the Nativity

Mormonism and history/Accuracy of Church art

I already had read that article. My point remains the same. We use the fable version to avoid people jumping to conclusions about the nature of the revelatory process. But the fable version is not the truth. While we sit in a meeting, we agree to go with the fable version -- the lesser portion of the word, because it isn't desirable or relevant to the principle being taught that someone get stuck over the idea of how scrying and pulling words out of a hat might seem to be an invalid process for revelation.

Edited January 9, 2013 by wayfarer

[Tacenda]

I already had read that article. My point remains the same. We use the fable version to avoid people jumping to conclusions about the nature of the revelatory process. But the fable version is not the truth. While we sit in a meeting, we agree to go with the fable version -- the lesser portion of the word, because it isn't desirable or relevant to the principle being taught that someone get stuck over the idea of how scrying and pulling words out of a hat might seem to be an invalid process for revelation.

I hope as you, that we will show truth soon, in swifter fashion. It may already be happening though, in my sisters ward they had a YM/YW's activity that had someone presenting that JS used a stone in a hat to get revelation for the translation of the BoM. Not sure if they were told that this method was done the majority of the time though, but it's a start. By the church setting history straight like this it might alleviate the shock for those that had no idea.

[Darren10]

does resurrection have to be physical? Same body? whatever. No. The point is Christ lives -- the outcome is sure, the method doesn't matter.

Uhhhh, yes it does. How is that wrong?

If we were sitting next to each other in a testimony meeting, we are likely to both be motivated to testify of the reality of the living Christ. My point is that we should focus on that outcome, not necessarily the way people get there.

One of the great things about learning history is to learn how people, and Jesus, did things. While we may never know the particulars, certain things do bring out deeper meaning and relevance to the recipient. Knowing Christ literally died and literally resurrected makes me connect a bit deeper and meaningfully to Him since I too will literally die at some point in time and literally resurrect (because He resurrected). If this was all a parable than why should I literally resurrect? If I will not literally resurrect than how should I expect or hope for complete happiness in the eternities? Sure, my spirit will live forever and frankly for perhaps the majority of Christians, that in an of itself is fine. But the restored gospel brings additional light and knowledge to one's eternal nature of exitence. We will have bodies of flesh and bone and these are necessary to be like God. This is all possible because of the Son of God's resurrection and mercy.

Ah. So when I express my testimony, which is my 'witness' of how I believe that Jesus lives, I am not welcome? "Depart in peace"?

I don't think anyone in the LDS community would disagree with you that Jesus lives. This, from Dan's link regarding your chit chat, is perhaps more along the lines of what teddy was referring to:

For several pages of this thread, wayfarer accused me of calling him names, mocking him, abusing him, and etc., on this very thread. I was mystified by his claim, because I had done nothing of the sort. In fact, I challenged both him and yootaw to give specific examples of my alleged name calling and abuse, and they both refused. Wayfarer eventually vowed that he would stop posting here, because he couldn’t abide by the “terms” that I demand on this board. But I had demanded no “terms.” None at all.

I became genuinely exasperated when, over on the message board where he plainly feels more comfortable, he repeated the charges (to predictable applause there) and amplified them by . . . calling me names (really, really harsh ones) and claiming that I’m mentally ill, etc.

But I do not know for sure. If teddy wants to clarify anything he certainly may. Up to this very moment, you have NEVER taken full accountibility for whatever went on on the other site. You opened up your posts on this thread saying the following:

First, I want to make clear that we need to close down the contention that has characterized the former thread. It brought out the worst in both of us (my opinion), so I'm vacating that discussion, and will not return to that dark side again.

Really? How did it bring out "the worst" in Dr. Peterson?

That seems to be the issue here. I have never said the physical didn't happen. It may have, or may not have. It's simply not important to me after having had a witness that goes well beyond that.

And I say you cannot simply separate the two. The literal reality of the physical is why the literal blessings of the spiritual are available.

Truth is knowledge of things as they really happened. Fable is the the legendary account.

So the fact that Jesus lives is truth or fable? If it's truth, how do you know? Just like the resurrection, there is no way, according to your own logic, *know* Jesus lives.

We continue to use a "gospel art" picture that shows Joseph hand-pouring over the plates and physically translating them in the presence of the scribe who can see the plates. This is a fable -- it didn't happen that way, but as a fable, we get the idea that 'joseph translated the plates.

Good point.

The reality is that joseph didn't translate them, in at least the modern sense of the term -- he revealed them by the gift and power of god. The physical plates were not used -- the serve the function of a physical proxy for an underlying revelatory process -- whether they existed or not is ultimately immaterial.

First off, we don't know if he actually used the plates or not. But their physical existence is *very much* material. I've no doubt that God *could have* told Joseph Smith what to write regardless Smith posessing pyhsical plates or not but the fact that they were kept in and of itself tells me that there is direct importance, even a connection, between the physical and the spiritual. You seem to completely separate the two. I think the Book of Mormon also makes this connection:

http://www.lds.org/s...&testament=bofm

When we realize that the abraham scrolls absolutely did not contain the record of abraham in his own hand, then we come to realize a higher truth: that god can reveal his word without the physical proxy in place. the fable is that the scrolls contain the book of abraham. The reality is revelation.

While revelation is the key I highly doubt God would tell Joseph Smith what Abraham *should have* written down and preserved until Joseph Smith's time. If Abraham supposedly refused or neglected to write down what God wanted him to, I imagine that God would simply choose someone else to do it and to preserve it for Joseph Smith to translate. Again we see a connection between the physical and spiritual. The Book of Abraham was preserved for Joseph Smith, even if it was a copy of a copy of a copy for Joseph Smith to translate. But preserved they were and the fact they were to me shows the importance to do things physically in order for spiritual blessings to be realized.

In like manner, we really thought that native americans were lamanites.

They are, even if they are not all directly descended from Lehi.

Joseph believed Zelph was a 'white lamanite', likely an incorrect speculation on his part.

The account of Zelph is a hodgepodge of several accounts blended together and altered at the will of the final editor. Things like that I pretty much discount as authoratative. Truth be told, Joseph never made a connection between some old bones and some Lamanite named Zelph.

The most common version of this story is found in the History of the Church.^[1] It should be noted, however, that the History of the Church version was created by amalgamating the journal entries of several people:

• Wilford Woodruff (WW),
  
• Heber C. Kimball (HCK),
  
• George A. Smith (GAS),
  
• Levi Hancock (LH),
  
• Moses Martin (MM),
  
• Reuben McBride (RM).^[2]
  

The accounts were published after the death of Joseph Smith, and the text has a convoluted history:

Read on according to the following link. Take note how you yourself are "revealed" things because of a physical object in front of you (the article). Hmmmmmm.....

Book of Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth century/Joseph Smith's lifetime 1829-1840/Joseph Smith/Zelph

Edited January 9, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I already had read that article. My point remains the same. We use the fable version to avoid people jumping to conclusions about the nature of the revelatory process. But the fable version is not the truth. While we sit in a meeting, we agree to go with the fable version -- the lesser portion of the word, because it isn't desirable or relevant to the principle being taught that someone get stuck over the idea of how scrying and pulling words out of a hat might seem to be an invalid process for revelation.

Or we use art based on the artists' liberty to depict an event as he/she sees fit.

Perosnally, I agree that there should be more depictions of Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat. But the fact that there is a lack of it doesn't really bother me. I'm not troubled very much in people visualizing Joseph Smith sitting down with plates, scrolling through them and translating them. Nor will the lack of paintings of Joseph Smith looking like an ostrich cause me to alter my testimony of the literal / physical.

[wayfarer]

@darren10: I have said that I am vacating the referenced conversation. you may think whatever you wish.

[teddyaware]

Wayfarer,

You have a seemingly infinite ability to rationalize the irrational. An amazing thing to behold! You've somehow found an astonishing way to believe and yet not believe at the same time. It's like you're living in Plato's ideal universe of "pure thought," where the ultimate reality is nothing more than a state of disembodied thoughts and ideas. A universe where when the resurrected Jesus plainly and without any ambiguity testifies to his disciples that "a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me have," but then you, apparently, without a even second thought turn this, one of the most sacred and essential gospel truths, into a fable.

You want it both ways: You want to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and Kingdom of God on earth are true, while simultaneously believeing the only reality that matters is a realm of lifeless ideas, comprised of inanimate, abstract principles. You believe the principles that underlie the gospel are true, but for some reason lack the faith to believe an infinitely and eternally powerful God could bring those principles to life in the real world.

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Darren10]

The account of Zelph is a hodgepodge of several accounts blended together and altered at the will of the final editor. Things like that I pretty much discount as authoratative. Truth be told, Joseph never made a connection between some old bones and some Lamanite named Zelph.

I meant to say that Joseph Smith never made a direct connection between a pile of bones found and a certain Lamanite named Zelph.

[Darren10]

@darren10: I have said that I am vacating the referenced conversation. you may think whatever you wish.

yet you accused Dr. Peterson here in this thread of having the worst in him brought out. How so? By including Dr. Peterson in conducting himself in "the worst" manner, you fail to take full accountability for your actions. Your apology is based upon accusing, again, here in this thread, of being "the worst" in his mannerism.

[go_utes01]

Or we use art based on the artists' liberty to depict an event as he/she sees fit.

Perosnally, I agree that there should be more depictions of Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat. But the fact that there is a lack of it doesn't really bother me. I'm not troubled very much in people visualizing Joseph Smith sitting down with plates, scrolling through them and translating them. Nor will the lack of paintings of Joseph Smith looking like an ostrich cause me to alter my testimony of the literal / physical.

I personally do not understand the hubub regarding Joseph Smith's method of "translation." Whether putting his head in a hat or scrolling through the gold plates, does it really matter? Do people believe that Joseph knew how to read in reformed Egyptian? Regardless of his physical method, the only way Joseph was able to translate the plates was by the gift and power of God.

[Darren10]

I personally do not understand the hubub regarding Joseph Smith's method of "translation." Whether putting his head in a hat or scrolling through the gold plates, does it really matter? Do people believe that Joseph knew how to read in reformed Egyptian? Regardless of his physical method, the only way Joseph was able to translate the plates was by the gift and power of God.

I pretty much agree.

[go_utes01]

I personally do not understand the hubub regarding Joseph Smith's method of "translation." Whether putting his head in a hat or scrolling through the gold plates, does it really matter? Do people believe that Joseph knew how to read in reformed Egyptian? Regardless of his physical method, the only way Joseph was able to translate the plates was by the gift and power of God.

I just want to clarify that this post in no way indicates that I do not believe that the gold plates were not literal or literally necessary. I think in the beginning especially, Joseph needed a more solid connection with the physical to aid in the "translation" process. Maybe it would be difficult for him to believe that he was receiving revelation regarding a people that lived in the Americas (somewhere) thousands of years prior without having some physical artifact of proof. Also, the literalness of the gold plates was essential for Joseph to convince others that his story/calling/revelation/translation was real - including, the witnesses.

[mfbukowski]

If it wasn't real than I'd just forget about it like I would a nice dream. However if it was. Divine learning lesson to me than of course I'd retain it and strive to earn from it. But even though God may not have literally appeared to me the event itself would very much be real. Just like how dream answered a specific prayer of mine many years ago. Even though the events in the dream did not literally ocurre, the dream literally happened and I received my divine answer.

OK then you get it totally! I think this is essentially what wayfarer is saying- but it is definitely what I am saying.

I have to repeat this and underline it because this is the essence:

God may not have literally appeared to me the event itself would very much be real. Just like how dream answered a specific prayer of mine many years ago

Maybe that is the way this whole thing should be put- you cannot know (in this case) that God "really" appeared to you (or that, say, Alma was a "real person") but the event or experience "verifying" it or whatever you want to call it, was in fact real and changed your life. And that is what matters. An experience from God changed your life.

That's it- there's nothing more to say about it once you see that. It's as real as it gets- first hand experience of revelation directly to your spirit..

[wayfarer]

OK then you get it totally! I think this is essentially what wayfarer is saying- but it is definitely what I am saying.

I have to repeat this and underline it because this is the essence:

Maybe that is the way this whole thing should be put- you cannot know (in this case) that God "really" appeared to you (or that, say, Alma was a "real person") but the event or experience "verifying" it or whatever you want to call it, was in fact real and changed your life. And that is what matters. An experience from God changed your life.

That's it- there's nothing more to say about it once you see that. It's as real as it gets- first hand experience of revelation directly to your spirit..

You are completely correct on the above, and it encapsulates the issue well.

[mfbukowski]

agreed. I was thinking of the picture often shown that Joseph Smith is pouring over the symbols on the plates and oliver is on the other side of the desk -- that we know didn't happen -- ever, and hence it is not an authentic account of how the plates were translated -- hence the term 'BS'. Unfortunately my two letters get generalized by not being careful.

But on the other hand, that picture is a symbolic representation of the event itself.

You are going literalist on me again against what you yourself say we should not do! What "actually" happened is irrelevant to the reality of the significance of the event! What is important is that Joseph received a revelation. Whether he was staring at the plates at the time or looking into his hat is totally irrelevant. If you are going to call one "BS" than so is the other.

You are putting a double standard on it- just as you do with science.

No matter how you cut it all things expressed linguistically are symbolic. They are metaphors and "representations" (at best) of something someone somewhere has experienced.

Science is a representation of what a lot of people have experienced and we all can theoretically repeat the experience. Religious experience is what we each individually, subjectively experience and represent verbally.

But both are just as real. That is what we all need to understand in my opinion. Religious experience is just as real as scientific experience, but serves a different purpose. That is precisely what William James and Pragmatism is all about, what Heidegger and Phenomenology are all about, what Quantum Mechanics is all about (Copenhagen Interpretation) and what "Postmodernism" (I hate that word) is all about.

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.^[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves.

http://en.wikipedia...._interpretation

In other words, it's "talk"- human observations linguistically, symbolically, represented

The only "events" there are are human experiences- that is all we can talk about.

Try talking about things we cannot talk about and you will soon seen what I mean. There is nothing there to refute- it becomes self evident once you see it.

"Ontology" is talk- that's all. It's reports and data as seen through human eyes. That is inescapable- you can never get beyond talk to "reality".

You see that perfectly in religion but you still don't see it in science.

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer,

You have a seemingly infinite ability to rationalize the irrational. An amazing thing to behold! You've somehow found an astonishing way to believe and yet not believe at the same time. It's like you're living in Plato's ideal universe of "pure thought, where the ultimate reality is nothing more than a state of disembodied thoughts and ideas. A universe where when the resurrected Jesus plainly and without any ambiguity testifies to his disciples that "a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me have," but then you, apparently without a even second thought, turn this, one of the most sacred and essential gospel truths, into a fable.

You want it both ways: You want to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and Kingdom of God on earth are true, while simultaneously believeing the only reality that matters is a realm of lifeless ideas, comprised of inanimate, abstract principles. You believe the principles that underlie the gospel are true, but for some reason lack the faith to believe an infinitely and eternally powerful God could bring those principles to life in the real world.

You have not characterized, above, what I believe and know in the least. That you don't understand it does not make it 'irrational', many others do in fact understand where I'm coming from quite well -- that doesn't make you inferior in the least, or me superior at all -- we just see things differently, but hopefully both end up at the place called "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" -- something that is deeply important and essential to me as I trust it is for you.

The reason I have posted in these threads is that I reject the idea that there is one way to think about these things. To have "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" is the essential, shared value.

So my recommendation is: Why don't you speak for your faith, and allow me to speak for mine.

Edited January 9, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

You are completely correct on the above, and it encapsulates the issue well.

Glad to hear it.

We are half way there. Now read my reply to you!

[go_utes01]

You have not characterized, above, what I believe and know in the least. That you don't understand it does not make it 'irrational', many others do in fact understand where I'm coming from quite well -- that doesn't make you inferior in the least, or me superior at all -- we just see things differently, but hopefully both end up at the place called "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" -- something that is deeply important and essential to me as I trust it is for you.

The reason I have posted in these threads is that I reject the idea that there is one way to think about these things. To have "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" is the essential, shared value.

So my recommendation is: Why don't you speak for your faith, and allow me to speak for mine.

Again, who is not allowing you to speak for your faith? Some may not agree or be persuaded, but you are provided opportunity to speak and explain, no?

[mfbukowski]

So my recommendation is: Why don't you speak for your faith, and allow me to speak for mine.

But trust me- we are all one once you see it. There is no need to contend here whatsoever. We all see through a glass darkly- the key is to get as much light on the subject as we can!

[Darren10]

OK then you get it totally! I think this is essentially what wayfarer is saying- but it is definitely what I am saying.

(snip)

That's it- there's nothing more to say about it once you see that. It's as real as it gets- first hand experience of revelation directly to your spirit..

In so much as inspiration goes, there hasn't been any disagreement between wayfarer and myself. I disagree that things such as the resurrection *must have* literally happened or else why have hope ina literal resurrection myself? According to LDS theology, how can I gain my full eternal blessings if I do not resurrect literally? I thin kthere is a direct connection between the physical and the spiritual. That a literal resurrection must have happened in order to open up literal spiritual blessings. I think the same goes for the golden plates. for whatever reason, those needed to be preserved and passed to Joseph Smith, literally and physically, in order for the spiritual blessings of the Book of Mormon story to pass on to our generation of time. Ditto for the Book of Abraham.

God did not have to preserve tany ancient record in order for the stories to be known to man in the future yet He did. So I ask, why? What can we learn about the nature of God in that He physically preserved records instead of just revealing the stories to man? this goes straight to the resurrection. To conclude that it literally happened goes right along with the fact that there were literally physical golden plates in Joseph Smith's posession in order to translate the story. Dismissing the need for the physical and literal I think sends people backwards and away from learning about God's eternal nature. Unlike a dream where God may apparently appear to someone, the Son of God, literally died and literally resurrected. Would the full blessings of heaven be open if He did not literally do this? We can have the exact same teachings as we do today regardless of whether or not He literaly passed through His trials and literally overcame them. So the fact that Jesus literally went through His trials, why? Why not just tel the story and skip the ugly part of going through the trials? I think it had to have been done literally in order for the Father to bless us literally.

Maybe that is the way this whole thing should be put- you cannot know (in this case) that God "really" appeared to you (or that, say, Alma was a "real person") but the event or experience "verifying" it or whatever you want to call it, was in fact real and changed your life. And that is what matters. An experience from God changed your life.

Just to be sure, God confirmed to me His doctrine of the Word of Wisdom. I did not "change" other than become more resolute to obey its counsel. A minor difference I know but nevertheless I wanted to be clear.

[teddyaware]

You have not characterized, above, what I believe and know in the least. That you don't understand it does not make it 'irrational', many others do in fact understand where I'm coming from quite well -- that doesn't make you inferior in the least, or me superior at all -- we just see things differently, but hopefully both end up at the place called "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" -- something that is deeply important and essential to me as I trust it is for you.

The reason I have posted in these threads is that I reject the idea that there is one way to think about these things. To have "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" is the essential, shared value.

So my recommendation is: Why don't you speak for your faith, and allow me to speak for mine.

Please note that in my previous post I plainly indicated that you do appear to believe the underlying principles of the Restored Gospel are true. That's a very good thing. You're much further along the path to knowledge than the many who outright reject both the historicity and underlying abstract principles of the LDS faith.

Nevertheless, as you grow in the grace and knowledge of the Restored Gospel, I believe it's likely you'll come around to believe in the historicity of the gospel as well. The time might very well come when you will realize it's not enough for so many of the cardinal truths of gospel to exist only as mere thoughts or ideas, while not having a physical or concrete existence.

All the best to you...

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[wayfarer]

Again, who is not allowing you to speak for your faith? Some may not agree or be persuaded, but you are provided opportunity to speak and explain, no?

Teddyaware said the following:

You have a seemingly infinite ability to rationalize the irrational. An amazing thing to behold! You've somehow found an astonishing way to believe and yet not believe at the same time. It's like you're living in Plato's ideal universe of "pure thought, where the ultimate reality is nothing more than a state of disembodied thoughts and ideas. A universe where when the resurrected Jesus plainly and without any ambiguity testifies to his disciples that "a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me have," but then you, apparently without a even second thought, turn this, one of the most sacred and essential gospel truths, into a fable.

You want it both ways: You want to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and Kingdom of God on earth are true, while simultaneously believeing the only reality that matters is a realm of lifeless ideas, comprised of inanimate, abstract principles. You believe the principles that underlie the gospel are true, but for some reason lack the faith to believe an infinitely and eternally powerful God could bring those principles to life in the real world.

Every sentence in the above quote is in the second person, using the term 'you' to characterize what I have said. He's not saying what he believes, what he holds in faith, but rather, what I hold in faith. it implies that I'm 'rationalizing the irrational'. It even imputes my intent. What I'm asking Teddyaware to do is speak in the first person for his own faith, and I will speak for mine. Is that an unreasonable request?