Sethbag Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Is it possible to believe in Christ but, at the same time, not believe some of what he's said?Sure. Why would you want to?
teddyaware Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Sure. Why would you want to?What I said was in response to canard78. He seems to disbelieve the following words of Nephi:"10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day."(2 Nephi:33)
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) 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.Look, let's get to the bottom line here.If in principle it is unknowable whether or not spiritual experiences are "real" in whatever that word means to you, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?In principle you will never know the difference! It is a distinction without a difference for all practical purposes.Maybe it gives you comfort to believe there is something "real" there or "historical" etc BUT YOU CAN NEVER KNOW! (we have assumed that)So for psychological reasons you feel comforted thinking that somehow it might have "actually happened" whatever that means.What is wrong in recognizing that you need that psychological assurance and that that is all it is? The "truth" can never be known- so it is irrelevant.If you can take that step, you can take another, and that is forget about even asking the question about whether or not it is "real" because ultimately it doesn't matter. What is actually important is whether or not it is real to you - psychologically speaking. It is where you get your understanding of what gives your life meaning. You can cling to some presumption that beneath it all, it actually happened, BUT YOU CAN NEVER NEVER KNOW THAT for sure."Blessed are they who have NOT seen yet believe". That is the bottom line here. Faith is the substance of things hoped for but NOT seen.That is the bottom bottom line for me. I gave up the psychological crutch of worrying about whether or not they were "real" whatever that is supposed to mean 40 years ago and my life has been incredibly non-complicated on these issues since then. They are as "real" as anything in the world to me. I can say "I know the church is true" and say that knowing full well that the statement is true, knowing full well and very well what the word "know" and "true" really really mean. Maybe the events happened maybe they didn't. I believe they did, but it really doesn't matter at all because what is important is the effect of my perception of those events in my life.All we can know of the world is what we have experienced directly. The rest is just talk about silly definitions. Edited January 18, 2013 by mfbukowski 1
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Everything you say, after you state that the book is true to for you, has no dependence on the truthfulness of the book. If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line then the distance between me and Truth does not require a belief that the Book of Mormon is true. Some, who question the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, might even believe that the book is a stumbling block along that straight line.It depends on your understanding of truth. I condider the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be the ultimate. The Book of Mormon and the doctrines, principles and practices of the church are, for me the most direct and most enlightening, fulfilling path to that truth. If it's a stumbling block or distraction for someone else I've no problem with finding an alternative route. I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel. Perhaps there is only one path but we join it at different points. Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path. I don't mind, I like my point on the path. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 In that case I'm the Pekin Duck:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Duck
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Nevermind- it's a waste of time. Fergetabout it. Edited January 18, 2013 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 It depends on your understanding of truth. I condider the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be the ultimate. The Book of Mormon and the doctrines, principles and practices of the church are, for me the most direct and most enlightening, fulfilling path to that truth.If it's a stumbling block or distraction for someone else I've no problem with finding an alternative route. I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel. Perhaps there is only one path but we join it at different points. Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path. I don't mind, I like my point on the path.I may not always stay on the path, but I do cross it every once in awhile.
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Look, let's get to the bottom line here.If in principle it is unknowable whether or not spiritual experiences are "real" in whatever that word means to you, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?In principle you will never know the difference! It is a distinction without a difference for all practical purposes.Maybe it gives you comfort to believe there is something "real" there or "historical" etc BUT YOU CAN NEVER KNOW! (we have assumed that)So for psychological reasons you feel comforted thinking that somehow it might have "actually happened" whatever that means.What is wrong in recognizing that you need that psychological assurance and that that is all it is? The "truth" can never be known- so it is irrelevant.If you can take that step, you can take another, and that is forget about even asking the question about whether or not it is "real" because ultimately it doesn't matter. What is actually important is whether or not it is real to you - psychologically speaking. It is where you get your understanding of what gives your life meaning. You can cling to some presumption that beneath it all, it actually happened, BUT YOU CAN NEVER NEVER KNOW THAT for sure."Blessed are they who have NOT seen yet believe". That is the bottom line here. Faith is the substance of things hoped for but NOT seen.That is the bottom bottom line for me. I gave up the psychological crutch of worrying about whether or not they were "real" whatever that is supposed to mean 40 years ago and my life has been incredibly non-complicated on these issues since then. They are as "real" as anything in the world to me. I can say "I know the church is true" and say that knowing full well that the statement is true, knowing full well and very well what the word "know" and "true" really really mean. Maybe the events happened maybe they didn't. I believe they did, but it really doesn't matter at all because what is important is the effect of my perception of those events in my life.All we can know of the world is what we have experienced directly. The rest is just talk about silly definitions.Your bottom line is profound. I agree that my only reality is the things I have experienced directly.I'll ponder it a while.Joseph 1) saw God & Jesus, 2) thought he had but imagined it or 3) knew he hadn't and made it up.One of those three is what actually happened to him. Some days that still really matters. Other days I recognise I can't ever 'know' (empirically) and I realise it makes no difference to what I know and believe. Today I feel the first way. It does matter. Tomorrow might be different. Edited January 18, 2013 by canard78
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Nevermind- it's a waste of time. Fergetabout it.Me?
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Today I feel the first way. It does matter. Tomorrow might be different.But what happened or didn't will not have changed regardless of what you think about it, and you still will not know "for sure" either way. Stop worrying about it. You can't change anything by worrying about it. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Me?No heck no- someone else. I have been around and around with him before.
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_DuckAnd just before dinner too (here). A real one would still have the head on. The chinese prefer it that way to show it's really a duck.
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 And just before dinner too (here). A real one would still have the head on. The chinese prefer it that way to show it's really a duck.Yeah, who knows.It could be a Pekingese.
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I'm a member of PETAPeople Eating Tasty Animals.
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 But what happened or didn't will not have changed regardless of what you think about it, and you still will not know "for sure" either way. Stop worrying about it. You can't change anything by worrying about it.True. I can choose to stop worrying about it. Perhaps that what Givens meant when he said that all faith is a choice. The choice to weigh it up with limited information. The choice to worry about what information I still lack to the point of being incapacitated or to let go and embrace what I can and do know with all its limitations.Again, I'll give that choice a bit more thought.
Gervin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 It depends on your understanding of truth. I condider the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be the ultimate. The Book of Mormon and the doctrines, principles and practices of the church are, for me the most direct and most enlightening, fulfilling path to that truth.Fair enough. I assume that Christ is Truth, and that the Gospel of Jesus is Christ, as described in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-9, is correct. If, however, I want to confom to the "doctrines, principles and practices of the church" then my understanding of 1 Corintians (as the path to Truth) isn't sufficient; I need the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the truthfulness of the doctrines, principles and practices" of the church. The end of the verse you first cited is that "no one comes to the Father but through Me." If I have to amend that to read that "no one comes to the Father but through Me via the correct church or correct scripture," then - for me - the gospel has changed.If it's a stumbling block or distraction for someone else I've no problem with finding an alternative route. I don't believe the church is the only path to the ultimate truth of Christ's gospel. Perhaps there is only one path but we join it at different points. Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path. I don't mind, I like my point on the path. The claims of the LDS Church, however, don't jibe with with your "path" statement. Just sayin'.
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Fair enough. I assume that Christ is Truth, and that the Gospel of Jesus is Christ, as described in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-9, is correct.No, you don't do that at all.You assume that a story taught in a book full of traditions and stories is "true" - that book is called "The Bible". The Gospel of Jesus Christ as you espouse it doesn't exist anywhere except as stories surrounding that volume which you regard as "scripture"If, however, I want to confom to the "doctrines, principles and practices of the church" then my understanding of 1 Corintians (as the path to Truth) isn't sufficient; I need the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the truthfulness of the doctrines, principles and practices" of the church. The end of the verse you first cited is that "no one comes to the Father but through Me." If I have to amend that to read that "no one comes to the Father but through Me via the correct church or correct scripture," then - for me - the gospel has changed.But of course you are yourself in the same position- all you are asserting is that your interpretation is correct and ours isn't.Not too interesting a position. I'm right, You're wrong. Snore.The claims of the LDS Church, however, don't jibe with with your "path" statement. Just sayin'.Whatever that means. Show me the "claims"- where are they? 1
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Fair enough. I assume that Christ is Truth, and that the Gospel of Jesus is Christ, as described in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-9, is correct. If, however, I want to confom to the "doctrines, principles and practices of the church" then my understanding of 1 Corintians (as the path to Truth) isn't sufficient; I need the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the truthfulness of the doctrines, principles and practices" of the church. The end of the verse you first cited is that "no one comes to the Father but through Me." If I have to amend that to read that "no one comes to the Father but through Me via the correct church or correct scripture," then - for me - the gospel has changed.If I need a mode of transport to progress along the path then I'd be foolish to abandon the vehicle. The church and its scripture is, for me, a vehicle. An imperfect one, but I know of no better one.If you're happy walking the path or using a different mode of transport I've no issues with that. The claims of the LDS Church, however, don't jibe with with your "path" statement. Just sayin'.Depends on which claims you're reading and your understanding of them. I recognise that there are many on this forum who disagree with me. 2
Damien the Leper Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I would stay within the realms of the Restoration- I certainly wouldn't throw out the BofM in favor of a Bible-only religious construct.Even though I am no longer part of the Restoration movement, I can't throw out the Book of Mormon either. There is still something about the book that draws me to its pages. I'm not concerned with the historicity, I think, I'm more concerned with what the book is able to teach me about not only God and His general relationship to His creation but more specifically about His relationship to me. Sorry to sound like a narcissist. 1
Gervin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 No, you don't do that at all.You assume that a story taught in a book full of traditions and stories is "true" - that book is called "The Bible". The Gospel of Jesus Christ as you espouse it doesn't exist anywhere except as stories surrounding that volume which you regard as "scripture"GuiltyBut of course you are yourself in the same position- all you are asserting is that your interpretation is correct and ours isn't.Not too interesting a position. I'm right, You're wrong. Snore.You seemed to have missed the premise under which I started the conversation. It sounds, also, as if you're sleepy. Perhaps you need some rest.Whatever that means. Show me the "claims"- where are they?Ok, I have a hard time rectifying this:"Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path"with this:“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)"
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Ok, I have a hard time rectifying this:"Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path"with this:“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)"Perhaps you do not understand Mormon beliefs.The belief is that we have eternity to find the truth- in short if we do not find it here, we can continue on the "path" in the afterlife.It's kind of like "all roads lead to Rome". The belief is that eventually all will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.We believe that the truth path is found in the Book of Mormon, and the church including subsequent revelations etc.But we also believe there are many things yet to learn in the eternities. Mormonism does not teach how to create universes and the full path to exaltation- it is not meant to.So though Mormonism does not reveal all that is needed to know in order to become like our Father, it is the first step, and "most correct" path to the eternities we have available to us here on earth.So now you have the two reconciled. Feel better? Good.
Gervin Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Perhaps you do not understand Mormon beliefs.The belief is that we have eternity to find the truth- in short if we do not find it here, we can continue on the "path" in the afterlife.It's kind of like "all roads lead to Rome". The belief is that eventually all will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.We believe that the truth path is found in the Book of Mormon, and the church including subsequent revelations etc.But we also believe there are many things yet to learn in the eternities. Mormonism does not teach how to create universes and the full path to exaltation- it is not meant to.So though Mormonism does not reveal all that is needed to know in order to become like our Father, it is the first step, and "most correct" path to the eternities we have available to us here on earth.So now you have the two reconciled. Feel better? Good.In reconciling it for yourself you've created a host of new conflicts. That seems to be the MO and am glad to leave you to it.
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Ok, I have a hard time rectifying this:"Perhaps Mormonism is not the furthest up the path. Perhaps it's only the start of the path"with this:“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)"Don't worry, I only said perhaps. Besides, what if those of us who start further back on the path need the best/fastest (or 'most correct') vehicle to get us along the path.It seems evident from the short or limited lives of some of the human family that some people are born much further than me up that path and only need a few more small steps in mortality.
canard78 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 In reconciling it for yourself you've created a host of new conflicts. That seems to be the MO and am glad to leave you to it.Can you be more specific?
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 In reconciling it for yourself you've created a host of new conflicts. That seems to be the MO and am glad to leave you to it.Oh please don't do that.By all means show me the conflicts. You may save me from this cult after all!
Recommended Posts