Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I don't think faith is being sure about something. Rather faith is a willingness to test a proposition... If anything faith is the opposite of surety; it suggests an uncertainty that needs to be tested in order to arrive are more certain knowledge.Faith is a willingness to act without surety... To act based on hope.Nope. Think about it some more even if you feel sure you are right. Faith doesn't always come to us from God like when he gives us his assurance to help us feel sure that we understand what is true, so sometimes we have faith in things that are not true when the source of that faith is not God.
teddyaware Posted February 5, 2014 Author Posted February 5, 2014 You would be supported by Alma 32 in that view. The progression stated there is that one starts with a "particle of faith" and when one finds that the principle "works"- or "grows sweet" in the experience of living it, one becomes more certain until it becomes "knowledge". For what it is worth, this fits perfectly with the Mormon saying "I know the church is true" which on this view means "I have exercised faith in the church, and it has grown from faith to certainty that this is God's path, and I know that because it has worked and grown sweet in practical application in my life". This is beautiful stuff!
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I don't think faith is being sure about something. Rather faith is a willingness to test a proposition... If anything faith is the opposite of surety; it suggests an uncertainty that needs to be tested in order to arrive are more certain knowledge.Faith is a willingness to act without surety... To act based on hope.Nope. Think about it some more even if you feel sure you are right. Faith doesn't always come to us from God like when he gives us his assurance to help us feel sure that we understand what is true, so sometimes we have faith in things that are not true when the source of that faith is not God.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Look at your computer. Aren't computers good ideas?No, but they are a result of many good ideas.If you can show me a good idea, meaning the idea itself, I will be very impressed.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Look at your computer. Aren't computers good ideas?No, but they are a result of many good ideas.If you can show me a good idea, meaning the idea itself, I will be very impressed.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Deleted double post caused by a glitch. Edited February 5, 2014 by Ahab
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I did see a purple elephant once. He had fallen through the ice on a frozen lake and was in the frigid water for over 45 minutes before a truck hitched to him by a strong rope could finally drag him out of what could have been a watery grave. He actually looked purple by the time they got him out. But in the end it all just happened in my imagination.Don't hold your breath expecting me to believe that is true. Ovet 45 minutes. Pfftt. Yeah,.right.
teddyaware Posted February 5, 2014 Author Posted February 5, 2014 If you mean they are linguistic conventions I agree otherwise I do not. I do not like the phrase "abstract entity". They are just ways we use language- nothing more, nothing less. "Manifests" can be used subjectively or objectively. "The disease manifests itself in boils" or "God manifested himself to me". No entities floating around waiting to take form or any of that. Even the "laws of nature" are just ways of saying that "This always happens". "Unsupported, things always fall". " We should always treat others as we wish to be treated." We call these "absolute truths" but another way of saying that is that these statements are always true- meaning that you can rely on their results in action. Don't step off a cliff or you will fall. Treat others badly and you will have unpleasant consequences eventually. This is an excellent insight into the "disagreement" with CV75. We think so called immaterial abstractions have an existence of their own, but in reality they can only exist within the mind. We can sort of visualize immaterial principles floating around in the ether, but in the end its all happening in the mind, not in the ether. And what happens in the mind are real phenomena.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 So your formula and the scriptural meaning and conclusions one draws from it are also "somewhat fluid," for yourself as well as anyone! That is why I think it perfectly acceptable for me to posit that the light of Christ is a material substance in some cases and a principle of government in other cases. This fluidity in meaning is a function of our subjective natures, and I'm certain the Lord's as well since by design He communicates "after the manner of [our] language." For example: I am an uncreated intelligence (matter) that by definition exists in an inherent state of subjectivity and agency. As such, I assess and use “all things” at my disposal, which in turn changes the range and scope of my perception and action, which depends on the quality of my spirit (for the better with obedience to Christ or for the worse with disobedience). My perception is and can only be subjective, but since I can only control my actions and not the consequences of those actions, my agency is not (only my application of agency is subjective), and I am judged by God according to the laws He personifies and follows. So as my subjectivity and agency change with my spirit, my being both subjective and an agent does not change because eternal law prescribes that uncreated intelligence is subjective and acts independently. This law is personified in me, and is as uncreated as I am, but is not comprised of matter in and of itself, as I am. The only problem with this is that muddled speaking leads to muddled thinking. What color is courage? After all, courage is a noun, and adjectives modify nouns, and color names are used as adjectives. So we could argue all day about what color courage is, when indeed courage has no color. This is called a "category error". Gilbert Ryle, a philosopher talked a lot about those kind of errors. Suppose someone strolled around a University campus, and saw only a bunch of buildings and wondered "But where is the university?" as if he expected "The University" to be an entity independent of buildings and people learning things. You could say the same about a group of people marching in a parade and say "Well I see people and their instruments, but where is the "BAND"? because you thought the band was an entity independent of the people and their instruments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake One could make up a category- "Stuff on My Desk" and then think it was an abstract entity, then I move something and the abstract entity has now transformed its substance into another entity- or better yet- does the substance of the entity of the category of "stuff on my desk" attach itself to the stapler when I move it? All of this obviously becomes very confusing.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 This is beautiful stuff!Aw shucks, thanks.
KevinG Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Keep it simple. Don't let terminology get in the way. You may have just killed the discussion board.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 No, but they are a result of many good ideas.If you can show me a good idea, meaning the idea itself, I will be very impressed.I will when you show me a hunger pang or a pain in your toe or your love for your wife. I suppose those are entities too right? Dude you are full of.... entities.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 This is an excellent insight into the "disagreement" with CV75. We think so called immaterial abstractions have an existence of their own, but in reality they can only exist within the mind. We can sort of visualize immaterial principles floating around in the ether, but in the end its all happening in the mind, not in the ether. And what happens in the mind are real phenomena. Absolutely!
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 You may have just killed the discussion board. :diablo:II can only hope.... 1
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 You would be supported by Alma 32 in that view. The progression stated there is that one starts with a "particle of faith" and when one finds that the principle "works"- or "grows sweet" in the experience of living it, one becomes more certain until it becomes "knowledge".For what it is worth, this fits perfectly with the Mormon saying "I know the church is true" which on this view means "I have exercised faith in the church, and it has grown from faith to certainty that this is God's path, and I know that because it has worked and grown sweet in practical application in my life".The process starts by someone accepting the possibility that a proposition might be true, and then from might be, or maybe, it grows to I think it is or I'm kinda sure but not totally sure it is true until it becomes I'm totally sure it is true.
teddyaware Posted February 5, 2014 Author Posted February 5, 2014 Aw shucks, thanks. I really mean it! The whole post is profound but being able to share the insight that the motions of spiritual growth are very real phenomena, motions truly felt within the soul that can be attested to as concrete reality, is worth all the time I've put into this board thus far.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I will when you show me a hunger pang or a pain in your toe or your love for your wife.I suppose those are entities too right? Dude you are full of.... entities.No you won't, because you can't, and I haven't used the word entities for ages, until now.
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 teddyaware What is interesting is that when one understands Mormon materialism- which includes spirit- many of the arguments used by supporters of materialism work for us perfectly. It in essence turns secular materialism on its head. Just as we saw with Nagel, when one sees purpose and design as having a physical basis and God himself being physical, suddenly secular materialism makes no sense without God in the equation. It's like the debate between science as it is presently constituted and intelligent design. A true science would examine the idea that intelligent design was valid- but we do not have a true science because it does not examine that possibility. Once you see this, you can see that Mormonism is a theistic twist on secularism. If God is human, then "humanism", PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, becomes theology. If Mormons truly got this idea, we could be the greatest force for good the world has ever seen- truly the stone cut without hands filling the earth. But no, we are still stuck in 2000 year old neoplatonism debating immaterial substance. It is horribly frustrating!!!! 1
mfbukowski Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I really mean it! The whole post is profound but being able to share the insight that the motions of spiritual growth are very real phenomena, motions truly felt within the soul that can be attested to as concrete reality, is worth all the time I've put into this board thus far.I am truly glad. Maybe I will hang out here awhile after all!
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Once you see this, you can see that Mormonism is a theistic twist on secularism. Or if you like, you could say that secularism is a satanic twist on Mormonism. 1
teddyaware Posted February 6, 2014 Author Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) teddyaware What is interesting is that when one understands Mormon materialism- which includes spirit- many of the arguments used by supporters of materialism work for us perfectly. It in essence turns secular materialism on its head. Just as we saw with Nagel, when one sees purpose and design as having a physical basis and God himself being physical, suddenly secular materialism makes no sense without God in the equation. It's like the debate between science as it is presently constituted and intelligent design. A true science would examine the idea that intelligent design was valid- but we do not have a true science because it does not examine that possibility. Once you see this, you can see that Mormonism is a theistic twist on secularism. If God is human, then "humanism", PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, becomes theology. If Mormons truly got this idea, we could be the greatest force for good the world has ever seen- truly the stone cut without hands filling the earth. But no, we are still stuck in 2000 year old neoplatonism debating immaterial substance. It is horribly frustrating!!!!After reading this brilliant post, several thoughts came to mind. The first is inspired by the line wherein you said, "If God is human, then "humanism", PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, becomes theology." My mind was immediately turned to the King Follett Discourse and how it mirrors and vindicates your words.The second thought is inspired by the line where you said, "many of the arguments used by supporters of materialism work for us perfectly." This helps me to realize that a proper and accurate understanding of eternal Gospel principles will enable the possessor of that knowledge to become a peacemaker in the world. For example, I doubt it would ever dawn on most LDS Church members that there is a missionary approach, if you will, when dealing with supposedly "impossible" prospects like humanists and the radical materialists. But like the brilliant Paul, a proper Gospel understanding would enable a Latter-day Saint to become "a humanist to the humanists" and a "materialist to the materialists;" and without violating sacred Gospel precepts or teaching false doctrine be able to present the Gospel message in a way that doesn't immediately seem to invalidate closely held beliefs and points of view.The third thought that came to mind (and I hope nobody takes offence at this) is that a lot of the chatter that goes on on boards like this one is more like reading a tabloid than reading that which truly inspires, edifies and equips Latter-day Saints to fulfill their divine destiny. Edited February 6, 2014 by teddyaware
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 After reading this brilliant post, several thoughts came to mind. The first is inspired by the line wherein you said, "If God is human, then "humanism", PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, becomes theology." My mind was immediately turned to the King Follett Discourse and how it mirrors and vindicates your words.The second thought is inspired by the line where you said, "many of the arguments used by supporters of materialism work for us perfectly." This helps me to realize that a proper and accurate understanding of eternal Gospel principles will enable the possessor of that knowledge to become a peacemaker in the world. For example, I doubt it would ever dawn on most LDS Church members that there is a missionary approach, if you will, when dealing with supposedly "impossible" prospects like humanists and the radical materialists. But like the brilliant Paul, a proper Gospel understanding would enable a Latter-day Saint to become "a humanist to the humanists" and a "materialist to the materialists;" and without violating sacred Gospel precepts or teaching false doctrine be able to present the Gospel message in a way that doesn't immediately seem to invalidate closely held beliefs and points of view.The third thought that came to mind (and I hope nobody takes offence at this) is that a lot of the chatter that goes on on boards like this one is more like reading a tabloid than reading that which truly inspires, edifies and equips Latter-day Saints to fulfill their divine destiny.Absolutely agreed on all counts! There was an article written during Romney's campaign by a secular philosopher about James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy prof who holds similar views, essentially saying that "Mormons don't know what they have" and that is absolutely right. Faulconer bases his insights on what we call "continental philosophy" which consists of a philosophy called "phenomenology" which says, essentially (if one can do this in 25 words or less- which one can't!) that all phenomena- primarily subjective phenomena- is "real" in every way and that a true science would investigate the subjective as well as the objective. One of the founders of phenomenology was Martin Heidegger. To make his highly complex and difficult philosophy cartoonishly oversimplified, one could say that it is based on the analysis of what it means to "be in the world" which he calls "Being"- making it sound Platonic- but it is not- but which one might characterize as what we as individual humans in this world experience in being human. Richard Rorty was an American philosopher whom I quote all the time, and he had an affinity for Heidegger, because both phenomenology and Pragmatism- which was Rorty's philosophical background. My philosophical background is based in Pragmatism as well. To make a long story short- this secular philosopher praised Faulconer and his understanding of Mormonism as it related to phenomenology. So I am not making this stuff up, long story short. A founder of Pragmatism was William James, who wrote a book about the "validity" of religious experience and it has been recognized as having great affinity to Mormonism. I will look up references as I have time to do so, but the bottom line is that this affinity between seeing Mormonism this way and Pragmatism and Phenomenology has been long established in Mormon intellectual circles. http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/ There are many other articles showing this affinity- it's not like I made it all up. I wish I did, but I didn't!
Bikeemikey Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Nope. Think about it some more even if you feel sure you are right. Faith doesn't always come to us from God like when he gives us his assurance to help us feel sure that we understand what is true, so sometimes we have faith in things that are not true when the source of that faith is not God. How does this impact anything I said regarding faith? Of course faith can exist in things that turn out to be false. Hence the need to judge our experimentation by fruits. I don't see how this contradicts my earlier comments?
Bikeemikey Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The process starts by someone accepting the possibility that a proposition might be true, and then from might be, or maybe, it grows to I think it is or I'm kinda sure but not totally sure it is true until it becomes I'm totally sure it is true. Your right; people progress from faith to knowledge, that is from hope something is true to surety something is true. Faith and surety are not connected. Hope and faith are connected, just as knowledge and surety are connected.
Calm Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 The only problem with this is that muddled speaking leads to muddled thinking. What color is courage? Too easy. But then you never got to go to Primary, did you? http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/our-primary-colors?lang=eng Our Primary colors are one, two, three--Red, yellow, and blue.Each one has a message for you and me.Each is a symbol true!Red is for courage to do what is right,Yellow for service from morning till night.Blue is for truth in our thought and our deed.We will be happy when this is our creed. This may be false doctrine now that I think about it though since it teaches that we have a "creed"….
Recommended Posts