Would You Stay Lds If It Was Found That The Bom Was Not Historical?

[mfbukowski]

Lol, a duck (see the sig). Why?

Oh.

I thought you were a rabbit.

Seeing that vs. seeing as

The duck-rabbit, made famous by Wittgenstein

In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures which can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something.

An example Wittgenstein uses is the "duckrabbit", a picture that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.[29] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigations indicate, Wittgenstein isn't sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an 'internal' cognitive change takes place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

Edited January 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

The point of my previous post is that there are higher revealations God has in store for men than the ones that come by means of the light of Christ. I testify that one of those higher revelations of truth is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true Church. Anyone can know the truthfulness of what I've just testified to, if they follow the way prescribed by the Lord to obtain such.

And yet some people don't get an answer, even after following the way you mention. Or some who once believed it stop doing so, sometimes for, what they consider to be a greater closeness to God.

I can only conclude that Mormonism isn't the only way for all people. The whole of the Eastern countries have gone through 5,000+ years with little attempt from God to give them christianity. Instead they have theologies and philosophies that still teach the importance of respect, kindness, social cohesiveness, service, respect for family, their ancestors, and devotion to God.

D&C 89: 3 is “Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."

Perhaps we LDS are among the weakest who need a prescriptive religion. Perhaps God only trusts his most dedicated children with the apparent flexibility in other less dogmatic faiths.

[canard78]

Oh.

I thought you were a rabbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

Then why did you post a drawing of a duck...

[mfbukowski]

So do we see that the Bom is historical or do we see the BOM as historical?

Does it make a difference?

[mfbukowski]

Then why did you post a drawing of a duck...

Caught you with the edit- sorry

[canard78]

Caught you with the edit- sorry

I was debating whether to add a smiley to my reply - message boards and dead-pan don't work

[teddyaware]

I see scripture... What's that I see mingled into it? Nevermind

Are you presuming that those who claim revelation in contradiction to yours haven't really received revelation? Speaking as someone who has also had spiritual witnesses of truth and guidance about leadership and family questions, I have some questions for you:

If a Bishop and Stake President receive revelation in the same week about the same person, but different callings, is one of them not doing it right?

If a dating couple go to the temple to pray about marriage and get different answers is the woman listening to the spirit and the guy listening to his heart?

If a member resigned his membership and says he prayed to know if it was the right thing to do and got a confirmation that it was (in the same manner as the spiritual witness within the church) would you believe them?

The fact is that there is an actual real truth of all things. Or in other words things as they really were, things as they really are, and things as they really will be from the perfect, infinite and eternal perspective of God himself. So if humans stumble as they look through a glass darkly while they're on the way to perfection, it's no big deal to me. In your examples, one may be right or both could be wrong, or it could just be God's way of allowing the parties to decide for themselves. But when it comes to something really big, like Moroni's challenge, for example, now there's an invitation with a very big promise of delivery!

I'm wondering if what you're trying to say is that you believe it isn't possible for God to accurately communicate his knowledge and will to man because man is too imperfect to allow for the possibility? So here's a couple questions for you: Do you believe God has ever communicated with a man or woman? And if he has, do you believe there was at least one instance where the message was accurately received, just the way God wanted his message to be understood.

[canard78]

Picture this- we have all had this experience I am sure.

You are on a winding mountain road, going up and down and around and round through heavily wooded forest, and suddenly as you come over the crest of a hill, the forest disappears and you see a magnificent vista of white-capped mountains, incredible geological formations, and the entire valley below- you can see maybe 20 miles in all directions! Beautiful!! Everyone in the car suddenly exclaims the same thing.

Is that "inside their heads" or is it "objectively beautiful"?

Do you ever doubt that it is indeed "beautiful"?

Can you be mistaken that it is "beautiful"?

Did you "choose" to call it "beautiful", or is the beauty just part of what it is?

I think that God's verification is in the experience, much like beauty is in the experience. There is no choice involved.

Great picture. What if I were to say I don't believe that's a real place... it looks at least artificially enhanced to me. But still beautiful. Does that matter?

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? I've pointed out beautiful vistas to kids on ipods and got nonchalant grunts.

Terryl & Fiona Givens suggest all faith is a choice:

"Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously, to conclude from that evidence. To our minds, this fork in our mental road is very much the point." (The God who Weeps)

Are you saying that you have not chosen to believe? That is was almost imposed on you, regardless of any agency or choice? Would it not be possible for you to stop believing, even if you chose to?

[Ahab]

I was debating whether to add a smiley to my reply - message boards and dead-pan don't work

Yeah they do. If you have to tell someone it's funny then it's not funny, or at least not to them.

[canard78]

The fact is that there is an actual real truth of all things. Or in other words things as they really were, things as they really are, and things as they really will be from the perfect, infinite and eternal perspective of God himself. So if humans stumble as they look through a glass darkly while they're on the way to perfection, it's no big deal to me. In your examples, one may be right or both could be wrong, or it could just be God's way of allowing the parties to decide for themselves. But when it comes to something really big, like Moroni's challenge, for example, now there's an invitation with a very big promise of delivery!

I'm wondering if what you're trying to say is that you believe it isn't possible for God to accurately communicate his knowledge and will to man because man is too imperfect to allow for the possibility? So here's a couple questions for you: Do you believe God has ever communicated with a man or woman? And if he has, do you believe there was at least one instance where the message was accurately received, just the way God wanted his message to be understood.

That's the problem and challenge of a revelation principle, if it contradicts our own, we have to presume someone is wrong. I do believe that the heavens aren't closed so yes I do believe he has communicated with many men and many women. I believe he has communicated with me.

But I have problems with the idea that my communication with the heavens is better/stronger/truer than another persons communication. Elder Uchtdorf's recent CES address said we all have to find truth for ourselves. He said to seek truth "where-ever it may be" and that the truth is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Given the gospel of Jesus Christ is beautifully expressed in Matt 25 - 'don't delay, use your time well, serve others' then this is the ultimate objective of divine inspiration and guidance.

My wife is no longer a member. She is genuinely happier that way. She is more at peace, more fulfilled, more able to fulfill the principles of Matt 25.

So yes, God does communicate with his children. But it's possible for him to give different instructions to different children based on what's in their best interest and opportunity to fulfill the ultimate condition of the final judgement. I am LDS, active etc. I believe God has directed me to be so. I don't presume to impose that on all of humankind. I believe that Mormonism is the only true and living church on the face of the earth for me but I don't see evidence that God applies that to all of his children. I'm fine with God teaching it is as 'the only one' for those who embrace it... it makes it easier to stop me wondering and wandering.

[canard78]

So do we see that the Bom is historical or do we see the BOM as historical?

Does it make a difference?

Que?

[ControlFreak]

Lol, a duck (see the sig). Why?

...because isn't your avatar a goose?

[Rob Osborn]

A Hemispheric Model makes geographic hash of the BoM. A modern army can at best hike 50 miles a day on improved surfaces. It would take hiking 50 miles a day every day for about a third of a year just to cover the distances from New York; New York to Santiago; Chile.

It is estimated that it took 7 years for the Lehites to migrate from the old world to the new. It is nowhere mentioned that it took that long for the Nephite and Lamanite armies took that long just to meet.

Well, most of the warring in the BoM took pkace over relatively. short distances. It wasnt until the end of the Nephite record that they may have traveled a greater distance.

[teddyaware]

That's the problem and challenge of a revelation principle, if it contradicts our own, we have to presume someone is wrong. I do believe that the heavens aren't closed so yes I do believe he has communicated with many men and many women. I believe he has communicated with me.

But I have problems with the idea that my communication with the heavens is better/stronger/truer than another persons communication. Elder Uchtdorf's recent CES address said we all have to find truth for ourselves. He said to seek truth "where-ever it may be" and that the truth is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Given the gospel of Jesus Christ is beautifully expressed in Matt 25 - 'don't delay, use your time well, serve others' then this is the ultimate objective of divine inspiration and guidance.

My wife is no longer a member. She is genuinely happier that way. She is more at peace, more fulfilled, more able to fulfill the principles of Matt 25.

So yes, God does communicate with his children. But it's possible for him to give different instructions to different children based on what's in their best interest and opportunity to fulfill the ultimate condition of the final judgement. I am LDS, active etc. I believe God has directed me to be so. I don't presume to impose that on all of humankind. I believe that Mormonism is the only true and living church on the face of the earth for me but I don't see evidence that God applies that to all of his children. I'm fine with God teaching it is as 'the only one' for those who embrace it... it makes it easier to stop me wondering and wandering.

Thanks so much for the frank insight. I appreciate you and where you're coming from. It all make a lot more sense now. The only additional comments I wish to make at the moment is that there is a reality of truth of things as they really are waiting to be discovered. Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful to find out for ourselves just exactly what that truth is? The Saviour said that when we come to know reallty as he knows it, it set's our hearts free.

All the best to you and yours,

Ted

[thesometimesaint]

Well, most of the warring in the BoM took pkace over relatively. short distances. It wasnt until the end of the Nephite record that they may have traveled a greater distance.

In ancient times armies(largely conscripts from the general population) didn't travel thousands of miles to fight each other. With the end of the Nephite record. There were no more Nephites, and the record ends for the Lamanites too. So those civilizations were confined to a pretty small area. I believe that area is best described in Mesoamerica. I'm open to other idea's but none I've heard so far are convincing.

[mfbukowski]

Great picture. What if I were to say I don't believe that's a real place... it looks at least artificially enhanced to me. But still beautiful. Does that matter?

Yeah, I noticed that too, but then I asked the same question, and no, it doesn't matter. Should it? Why?

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? I've pointed out beautiful vistas to kids on ipods and got nonchalant grunts.

It is, but if dozens/ hundreds/ millions agree on it- what is the significance of that? The point is that it is instantly apprehended in those who apprehend it. You get it instantly or not at all. The fact that some are colorblind does not mean that those colors are not "real".

Terryl & Fiona Givens suggest all faith is a choice:

"Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously, to conclude from that evidence. To our minds, this fork in our mental road is very much the point." (The God who Weeps)

That seems too simplistic to me. Sometimes it's a choice sometimes it's not. Certainty is not a choice and knowledge is not a choice. Certainly acting as if something is true is a choice, but that does not imply certainty that it IS true. But I suppose "faith" is often just that- acting as if something is true.

Frankly, though I believe that God is compassionate I have always thought that the idea of God weeping is somehow repugnant. Surely he would have more mastery of his emotions than that, and certainly weeping is often as a result of a surprise. But I have not read the book and I really should not criticize it- for all I know that is exactly what they say.

Are you saying that you have not chosen to believe? That is was almost imposed on you, regardless of any agency or choice? Would it not be possible for you to stop believing, even if you chose to?

I think there are multiple issues here and one of them is how much is instantly apprehended as an experience.

I don't "believe" that the scene is beautiful- I don't doubt it for a second. Yes I am certain it is beautiful and I know it is, though I cannot even define why it is. Indeed I act on it as a "beautiful scene"- I chose it and posted it as an example of one.

Similarly I think we can know that God "is speaking to us" as much as I recognize a person's voice whom I know. Phone rings, I pick it up, and "I know" who is on the line the minute he says something.

Could I be mistaken about that? Yes- it happens. Mirages happen too- you might mistake one for a pool of water, but you would soon figure that out- just as you would figure out that the person on the phone was not who you thought it was after perhaps another sentence. But you would not be wrong that indeed someone was on the phone, or even eventually that it was not who you thought it was even if it took a second or two to figure it out.

Knowing what is beautiful or recognizing someone is not a choice. It is instant apprehension.

[canard78]

...because isn't your avatar a goose?

Is it? Don't you have white ducks in USA? I though it was a duck. Maybe not.

[mfbukowski]

Que?

See the quote in post 101

[thesometimesaint]

Is it? Don't you have white ducks in USA? I though it was a duck. Maybe not.

We do have them. Along with plenty of other colors.

http://www.birds-of-....net/ducks.html

Edited January 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Damien the Leper]

Not me.

We all need some way to feel redeemed for the rotten things we have done. I would stand on a mountain top and confess all my sins to the universe and promise to never do them again.

It might not help, but it would be better than continuing to do them and make myself more miserable.

This is odd. If there is nothing out there to do the redeeming, is your confession and repentance of sins more for self gratification and peace of mind? Then again, isn't that not part of why we repent?

Ugh...this can be so confusing.

[canard78]

Yeah, I noticed that too, but then I asked the same question, and no, it doesn't matter. Should it? Why?

My attempt to switch from dead pan to sarcasm... Didn't work again.

I was implying that if beauty is the objective, does it matter if it is real or not?

If it has a spiritual impact, does it it matter if it is real or not?

It is, but if dozens/ hundreds/ millions agree on it- what is the significance of that? The point is that it is instantly apprehended in those who apprehend it. You get it instantly or not at all. The fact that some are colorblind does not mean that those colors are not "real".

I can see that beauty can be reached by a consensus, but then I can show people a vista and know they have seen it, from the same perspective and under the same light that I have.

But I can't with spiritual experiences. There's no consensus on spiritual experiences. I don't know whether mine are more intense or substantial than those you have had or less so. I can't take a friend to the same spiritual experience that I have. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy but there's not consensus on spirituality like there is on expected behaviour as a result of spiritual experience.

That seems too simplistic to me. Sometimes it's a choice sometimes it's not. Certainty is not a choice and knowledge is not a choice. Certainly acting as if something is true is a choice, but that does not imply certainty that it IS true. But I suppose "faith" is often just that- acting as if something is true.

Frankly, though I believe that God is compassionate I have always thought that the idea of God weeping is somehow repugnant. Surely he would have more mastery of his emotions than that, and certainly weeping is often as a result of a surprise. But I have not read the book and I really should not criticize it- for all I know that is exactly what they say.

I think there are multiple issues here and one of them is how much is instantly apprehended as an experience.

I don't "believe" that the scene is beautiful- I don't doubt it for a second. Yes I am certain it is beautiful and I know it is, though I cannot even define why it is. Indeed I act on it as a "beautiful scene"- I chose it and posted it as an example of one.

Similarly I think we can know that God "is speaking to us" as much as I recognize a person's voice whom I know. Phone rings, I pick it up, and "I know" who is on the line the minute he says something.

Could I be mistaken about that? Yes- it happens. Mirages happen too- you might mistake one for a pool of water, but you would soon figure that out- just as you would figure out that the person on the phone was not who you thought it was after perhaps another sentence. But you would not be wrong that indeed someone was on the phone, or even eventually that it was not who you thought it was even if it took a second or two to figure it out.

Knowing what is beautiful or recognizing someone is not a choice. It is instant apprehension.

This going to sound like a contradiction... I know I have had experiences that I ascribe to being 'spiritual' in nature. I know I felt what I felt, had the impressions etc. They were real feelings. But I don't have certainty that I interacted with God, only that I had strong feelings in response to religious questions.

However certain I am that the experiences happened, I choose to give God the credit as the source of the feelings. That's the choice that I think we all make. We can't see or touch God, but we choose to give him credit for the powerful feelings we sometimes have when considering/asking/studying things of a godly nature.

[canard78]

Thanks so much for the frank insight. I appreciate you and where you're coming from. It all make a lot more sense now. The only additional comments I wish to make at the moment is that there is a reality of truth of things as they really are waiting to be discovered. Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful to find out for ourselves just exactly what that truth is? The Saviour said that when we come to know reallty as he knows it, it set's our hearts free.

All the best to you and yours,

Ted

Thanks. It would indeed be great to be sure of knowing truth. Many people believe they do. They're just not all Mormon. Who's to say the ones who aren't are wrong?

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I don't think it is possible to 'find that the Bom was not historical'. We just don't know enough about history to accurately say anything of the likes.

[Ahab]

Thanks. It would indeed be great to be sure of knowing truth. Many people believe they do. They're just not all Mormon. Who's to say the ones who aren't are wrong?

Those who know the truth and can then see when other people are wrong in their ideas.

[Ahab]

My attempt to switch from dead pan to sarcasm... Didn't work again.

I was implying that if beauty is the objective, does it matter if it is real or not?

If it has a spiritual impact, does it it matter if it is real or not?

I can see that beauty can be reached by a consensus, but then I can show people a vista and know they have seen it, from the same perspective and under the same light that I have.

But I can't with spiritual experiences. There's no consensus on spiritual experiences. I don't know whether mine are more intense or substantial than those you have had or less so. I can't take a friend to the same spiritual experience that I have. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy but there's not consensus on spirituality like there is on expected behaviour as a result of spiritual experience.

This going to sound like a contradiction... I know I have had experiences that I ascribe to being 'spiritual' in nature. I know I felt what I felt, had the impressions etc. They were real feelings. But I don't have certainty that I interacted with God, only that I had strong feelings in response to religious questions.

However certain I am that the experiences happened, I choose to give God the credit as the source of the feelings. That's the choice that I think we all make. We can't see or touch God, but we choose to give him credit for the powerful feelings we sometimes have when considering/asking/studying things of a godly nature.

Strong feelings don't necessarily equate to feelings from God.

All good things are of God, including good strong feelings, but things that are evil come from his Nemesis, and he can give people strong feelings too. The key is to learn the difference between God and Satan, or in other words, Good and Evil.