Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[go_utes01]

I think Teddyaware is merely exercising his right to criticize his interpretation of your beliefs. Seems fine to me on a discussion forum. Would it be better if he said, "I believe" before each sentence? I thought that was implicit, but maybe not for you. If you disagree with his interpretation, just point out where his assumptions are incorrect. That way we can all learn from each other. But, you are, of course, free to offer your opinions on how a discussion of differing beliefs should proceed and Teddyaware is free to have a different opinion.

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

I am not disagreeing with you- clearly these events must be real for any of this to make sense. Yes I personally believe Jesus literally resurrected- that if we were there we could have been physical eyewitnesses of these events.

Same with Joseph

Same with Alma. I believe that if we were there, we could have seen Alma and heard all his stories etc.

But that is not the issue.

We are not there, we were not there we were not eyewitnesses. We live today.

How do we "know" these events occurred? That is the issue.

We can only know because God has revealed it to us. That is the only possible way we can know for sure and yes, I have no problem saying that I know these things because God revealed them to me.

The issue is not whether or not these events literally occurred, the issue is how we know that they occurred and how certain we can be that they occurred AS OPPOSED TO HOW IMPORTANT THIS BELIEF IS IN OUR LIVES.

All I am saying is that THESE BELIEFS ARE SO IMPORTANT AND CENTRAL TO MY LIFE THAT I WOULD HOLD THEM TO BE METAPHORICALLY TRUE EVEN IF THEY NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

So arguably wayfarer's faith is the strongest of anyone here!!!

He doesn't even need for these things to have "really happened" for these beliefs to change his life.

He doesn't need a literal resurrection to believe that belief in the resurrection is something so important that he has based his life around that belief.

He doesn't need to think that Joseph literally translated golden plates to believe that was Joseph wrote is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and that our lives will be permanently altered by accepting these beliefs.

He doesn't need to believe that there even IS a celestial kingdom to believe that he should act AS IF there is one.

I don't know about you guys- but that is some powerful faith if you ask me.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Can't you see that it takes more faith to believe despite the need for historical evidence than to believe because of historical evidence- even if such evidence doesn't exist?

If the BOM could be proven to have never existed, wayfarer would still believe and you would not.

Who has the more powerful faith?

[Darren10]

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?

Eliminating critique of one's posts can effectively be done by obligating people to only speak of themselves. I though this was one of your beefs with Dr. Peterson initially. Accusing him of not allowing your critique of him? Regardless if this is your intent or not, teddy's critique / assesment of your posts I find correct.

[Darren10]

bukowski #152;

Again, there is no argument as tothe spiritual aspect of believing. But do you really have asmuch hope in a metaphoric resurrection as you do in a literal one?

[mfbukowski]

bukowski #152;

Again, there is no argument as tothe spiritual aspect of believing. But do you really have asmuch hope in a metaphoric resurrection as you do in a literal one?

There is no way to answer that because for me all of reality is a metaphor.

But yes, I hope I will be resurrected. I have had experiences which have convinced me beyond a doubt that I will be. But I doubt anyway because that is what I do. Honestly I try to live my life as if it is all true and when it is over, if it is not true, if there is a moment when I "know" it is not true, I will still die a happy man. My life will have been the best I could have done regardless of anything. It will have been a life of service to a greater cause, a life of faith and hope for something better and a life of love for others and of trying to convince others to live that kind of life.

What else could anyone wish?

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[go_utes01]

What else could anyone wish?

Eternal life with Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the rest of our earthly family??

[teddyaware]

Can't you see that it takes more faith to believe despite the need for historical evidence than to believe because of historical evidence- even if such evidence doesn't exist?

If the BOM could be proven to have never existed, wayfarer would still believe and you would not.

Who has the more powerful faith?

Because the historicity of the Book of Mormon is real -- which I know to be verily true by personal revelation -- then (I speak with with humility) I would be the one with the greater faith. It's much more challenging to believe in miraculous events that are said to have taken place in the real material world, than it is to merely intellectually assent to abstract ideas and concepts.

"24 ¶But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John 20

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Eternal life with Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the rest of our earthly family??

See there's this English word called "if". That makes the sentence what is called "a conditional". That means that what follows it is kind of like imaginary.

Of course I hope for that and have faith that IF I can measure up, I will have that. See? There is an example of that pesky word "IF".

[mfbukowski]

Because the historicity of the Book of Mormon is real -- which I know to be verily true by personal revelation -- then (I speak with with humility) I would be the one with the greater faith. It's much more challenging to believe in miraculous events that are said to have taken place in the real material world, than it is to merely intellectually assent to abstract ideas and concepts.

"24 ¶But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John 20

You contradict yourself without seeing it. That is saying those who have NOT seen and believe anyway have the greater faith.

But I am willing to go along with your humility in saying you have the greater faith as well. Whatever floats your boat.

You forgot verse 29 conveniently

²⁹ Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[go_utes01]

See there's this English word called "if". That makes the sentence what is called "a conditional". That means that what follows it is kind of like imaginary.

Of course I hope for that and have faith that IF I can measure up, I will have that. See? There is an example of that pesky word "IF".

But, even IF there is a moment when you realize that what you know to be true is not true, why could you still not WISH for it to be true?

[go_utes01]

You contradict yourself without seeing it. That is saying those who have NOT seen and believe anyway have the greater faith.

But I am willing to go along with your humility in saying you have the greater faith as well. Whatever floats your boat.

You forgot verse 29 conveniently

Wait, where did Teddyaware claim to have "seen" anything? He said he knew it to be literally true by "personal revelation," right? Or, are you saying that the scripture should be expanded to "blessed are they that have not received personal revelation, and yet they have believed"? But, I thought it was only through personal revelation that we could know/believe about Jesus' divinity.

[mfbukowski]

Wait, where did Teddyaware claim to have "seen" anything? He said he knew it to be literally true by "personal revelation," right? Or, are you saying that the scripture should be expanded to "blessed are they that have not received personal revelation, and yet they have believed"? But, I thought it was only through personal revelation that we could know/believe about Jesus' divinity.

Yes you are right. I don't have a clue what he was saying either. It is only through personal revelation that we can know/believe about Jesus' divinity, just as wayfarer has said.

But verse 29 blesses those who have not seen and believed anyway.

[mfbukowski]

But, even IF there is a moment when you realize that what you know to be true is not true, why could you still not WISH for it to be true?

Perhaps now you are having problems with conditionals.

You see yourself driving over a cliff, you know you have just gone over a cliff, and yes I suppose you could still wish you weren't. But that doesn't have much relevance.

I don't think you would thinking much about wishes at that moment.

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think you would be thinking about how you spent your life

[go_utes01]

Perhaps now you are having problems with conditionals.

You see yourself driving over a cliff, you know you have just gone over a cliff, and yes I suppose you could still wish you weren't. But that doesn't have much relevance.

I don't think you would thinking much about wishes at that moment.

That is not exactly analogous. The moment you referenced was some point where you found out that what you know to be true is, in fact, not true. At that moment, I think you could/might be inclined to wish that it were true, don't you?

[go_utes01]

I think you would be thinking about how you spent your life

And how you spent your life, i.e. as if what you know to be true were true, could lead to the wish that it actually was true. For example, you might be inclined to wish that you were able to spend eternity with a loving Heavenly Father, Savior, and your earthly family.

[go_utes01]

Yes you are right. I don't have a clue what he was saying either. It is only through personal revelation that we can know/believe about Jesus' divinity, just as wayfarer has said.

But verse 29 blesses those who have not seen and believed anyway.

Which would include Wayfarer, Teddyaware, myself, and presumably you (unless you have seen). That does not contradict Teddyaware's point that actually, literally believing in the miraculous (some might say supernatural) events in scripture and the bringing forth of the same, requires more faith than believing it all to be metaphorical (which I am not saying Wayfarer is claiming).

Edited January 9, 2013 by go_utes01

[teddyaware]

You contradict yourself without seeing it. That is saying those who have NOT seen and believe anyway have the greater faith.

But I am willing to go along with your humility in saying you have the greater faith as well. Whatever floats your boat.

You miss the point. All the prophets testify that Jesus really was physically/materially resurrected. Thomas lacked the faith to believe in this reality, even though the other disciples solemnly testified to him that they had seen the Lord's real body of flesh and bones. On this particular point (i.e. the issue with doubting Thomas), your ideas only work if there was no actual restoration of the Lord's flesh and bone to his spirit. If there was an actual physical restoration of the Saviour's body, then those who doubt his resurrection don't believe in something that is real and true. Genuine, spiritually empoweing faith can only be generated and sustained when it is founded on something that is real -- read the Lectures on Faith. Ethereal, disembodied ideas can save no one until the reality of their efficacy is made manifest in the real world of experience.

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

That is not exactly analogous. The moment you referenced was some point where you found out that what you know to be true is, in fact, not true. At that moment, I think you could/might be inclined to wish that it were true, don't you?

If you know something why would you wish it was otherwise?

It seems like it is a totally useless exercise. "You have cancer, mfbukowski"

"Golly gee willakers I wish I didn't".

Just silliness.

"I am going to kill you".

"Gee I wish you wouldn't. Let me pretend you didn't say that".

Good luck with that strategy. It won't get you far in life. Facing reality is important.

[go_utes01]

If you know something why would you wish it was otherwise?

It seems like it is a totally useless exercise. "You have cancer, mfbukowski"

"Golly gee willakers I wish I didn't".

Just silliness.

"I am going to kill you".

"Gee I wish you wouldn't. Let me pretend you didn't say that".

Good luck with that strategy. It won't get you far in life. Facing reality is important.

Facing reality may be important, but it seems to me human nature includes a lot of wishful thinking. And, the situation you described, i.e. finding out that the Gospel we know to be true actually is not true, would be a situation where wishful thinking would likely come into play. This all started by you asking "what else could anyone wish?" I was just giving you one plausible answer to your request.

Edited January 9, 2013 by go_utes01

[wayfarer]

Can't you see that it takes more faith to believe despite the need for historical evidence than to believe because of historical evidence- even if such evidence doesn't exist?

If the BOM could be proven to have never existed, wayfarer would still believe and you would not.

Who has the more powerful faith?

It's hard to quantify the power of faith. very hard. I sense that this is a pretty 'faithful' group differing only in how we got there. I chose not to react to what I felt was Teddyaware's condescension, because it wouldn't serve the dialogue. Perhaps it's my trial of faith, but to be clear, I held the position of literal whatever most of my life. at some point, the spirit asks, in the face of conflicting 'evidence', do you need this to be physical in order to still have faith? And after much soul searching, I came to the conclusion that I don't, and that god merely asks me to have faith, and I do.

Each person's trial of faith is customized for that person. And because I see a viable middle way as a path toward faith as opposed to away from it, I feel it my 'mission' as it were, at this point in time, to witness to those who say they no longer believe, that Alma's test can get them to a place called faith even if belief in some aspect still eludes them. My ability to witness in this ways depends upon these souls not being put off by those who insist that there is only one way -- their way -- toward faith. It's not like I disagree with anyone here. I'm only holding the right to disagree, to explore, to ask, to question, and occasionally to differ.

Without going into detail -- because I have twice lost a post intended to answer your statement that I give scientific knowledge a different treatment than spiritual knowledge, I have to say: "The is the entire point of the MIddle Way is to NOT be one sided or another, but rather, to use both physical and spiritual to achieve a fulness of joy." There are scientific fundamentalists as well as religious ones. I specifically reject the type of scientific absolutism that says that without evidence nothing is real. I love my wife, she may not always accept this, and the evidence at times is tenuous at best, but how are we going to 'prove' that I love my wife? 'tis a question I've been grappling with for almost 34 years...but not too much, because in reality, it's not an issue.

No, I propose that both scientific method and spiritual confirmation are valid and important. One should not trump the other in areas of it's own expertise, but even then, neither gets to absolutes... The lack of absolutes...is called, "The Middle Way". ;-)

[go_utes01]

One thing I still can't figure out is why you feel the need to name your belief. "Moderation in all things" and lack of absolutes (creeds, required orthodoxy) are principles that are alive and well in the LDS faith. I agree with those principles, but have no desire to define myself as somehow on a different path or "Way" than other believers. To each his own I guess.

Furthermore, your post seemed a bit condescending as well when you claim that "at some point the spirit asks, in the face of conflicting 'evidence,' do you need this to be physical in order to still have faith?" I guess some of us just have not reached that point in our journey yet? Maybe you meant that at some point you were faced with that question, and perhaps it is not a necessary question the spirit asks all?

[mfbukowski]

Which would include Wayfarer, Teddyaware, myself, and presumably you (unless you have seen). That does not contradict Teddyaware's point that actually, literally believing in the miraculous (some might say supernatural) events in scripture and the bringing forth of the same, requires more faith than believing it all to be metaphorical (which I am not saying Wayfarer is claiming).

Again and for the last time, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

I believe the events happened miraculously. Do you think people rise from the dead NON-miraculously? You can't believe any of it without believing in miracles.

THE POINT IS WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE EVEN IF THE EVENTS DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL, MIRACULOUSLY OR OTHERWISE.

I suppose this is hard but I am about done with that point. If you don't get it, sorry.

Would you change your life based on a story you knew was not true? That is what wayfarer is saying he is willing to do.

It is a conditional statement. IF it never happened, he would still base his life on it. If you cannot conceive of such a thing, so be it I guess.

[mfbukowski]

I was just giving you one plausible answer to your request.

Not plausible to me. I would not do such a thing.