MiserereNobis Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Nobody needs to accept correction from you simply because you say they are wrong. I don't think you appreciate the gravity of their beliefs and religious experience. Indeed.
3DOP Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I am at a loss, Rory. No matter what I say now, I am condemned to be the ultimate bad guy, painting others as unwitting atheists, and blissfully unconcerned about being offensive to you and others who might come from a mainstream Christian background (even though a century ago here in America, Roman Catholics were condemned in the same breath as those horrible Mormons). I am deeply concerned about all this, and should probably reflect very carefully on whether I am even capable of carrying on a meaningful conversation here. Thanks for the useful insights. Extrapolating from my and Mark's turgid prose and not always successful efforts at philosophical sophistication might not be a terribly good idea, Rory. Mark is probably sui generis in his philosophical views within the Mormon community (though he does accurately reflect the world of analytical philosophy outside of Mormonism), and I can't think of any LDS thinkers out there who might share my odd assertions about what LDS theology really is. So, while I think that my logical formulation of the LDS faith is accurate, 99% of Mormons are blissfully unaware of the nature of the issues which we are discussing here, and live their lives without any concern for such matters.What they actually do is admire those great cathedrals, and work hard to create temples very much along the same lines (outwardly), and with the same devotion. In Sunday School they use color reproductions of the great religious art of Europe and the Renaissance. When in Europe, they are awed by the depth of feeling and reverence caused by a visit to St. Petere's Basilica or to Hagia Sophia, just as they are moved by the sincere actions and pleas of a modern Pope. If you ask them, they are likely to say that St. Francis and Mother Teresa were inspired by God, as were many other holy people over the centuries. Will they maintain (as do the Roman Catholics) that theirs is the only true Church of Christ. Of course. Does that mean that they feel that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims worship a non-existent God? Of course not. Some might take issue with the way that God is described by the different dogmas, but that does not change the fact that they see all men as brothers and children of God, and believe that we all pray to the same God. Just as a practical matter, your description of the LDS faithful could not be more wrong, and I admit my part in leading you into that misperception. Orson Pratt, me, Mark, and a handful of others may sometimes make the case for materialism, but you won't find many Mormons who have the foggiest idea what that might mean -- not to mention metaphysics. Mormons just don't concern themselves with such mattters, and see Mormonism as a way of life (something like the ethnic self-identification one finds among Jews, believing or not).I can see now that our friendly repartee here (which I have very much enjoyed) has led you to a very unrealistic view of Mormonism. One of the dangers of exploring the mysteries, I suppose, and I apologize. RoryYou are a formidable character when riled, Rory, and I am very impressed with this particular post, even if it takes the super smart aleck comments of some of us rightly to task on the assumption that we are representative of the Mormons and Mormonism. We are not. We are just a bunch of oddballs who spend too much time yapping like dogs, as though we have something important to say.One good thing, though: Despite all the hullaballoo (speaking just for myself), if we listen, we can learn something. Well, maybe . . .. Thank you for the reply Robert. I may reply with a different thread. Maybe even a poll about that would hopefully reveal the extent to which materialist philosophy has filtered into mainstream LDS ways of thinking. I don't think deeply about philosophical matters frequently myself. I am unable to articulate my own position without consulting guides. I am not suggesting that many LDS have studied their way into a materialist worldview. A few years ago at ZLMB, somebody found this Philosophy test online where you could answer some questions and find out who among maybe two dozen or more philosophers your thought most closely reflected. I did not need to read the Summa to have absorbed the philosophy of Augustine and Aquinas. Nor did the Mormons need to have studied Wittgenstein or Rorty to reflect a modern philosophical approach. Although we may not be able to explain why, our thoughts are influenced "by the air we choose to breathe" and I think we are pretty happy with where we are. Anyway, someone has objected to this derailing, and I will desist now from speaking of it further here. I should have made my points a subject of a new thread on Saturday. So I offer my apologies to all those who are sorry to have their thread hijacked. Rory
rodheadlee Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 No need to apologize. The one thing the internet will never have over live conversation is the Spirit in which all these words were intended. It's just the way it is. 1
CV75 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Well I am not sure the analogy works here - you don't use a hammer to tweak your software settings or call Picasso to paint your house, and certain tools and modes of expression are just fitted to solve specific needs better than others.(...within reason, of course!) But those who are that far off tthe mark typically warrant our sympathy!
Ahab Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Squared.Pure halooey.I and everyone else who has received revelation from God about anything can share that message with others to teach them what God has told us, but of course nobody will be forced to believe it.
Ahab Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I am trying to show you a different "how".And creating a diversion to my main point. Even when a mistake is what someone wants to call a "successful mistake" the mistake should be corrected, regardless of how anyone points out the mistake.I don't think you have any personality defects Ahab. You are perfectly able to make the right choices.I agree with that point, but let's not divert from the mistake I pointed out that should be corrected.Nobody needs to accept correction from you simply because you say they are wrong. I don't think you appreciate the gravity of their beliefs and religious experience.Whoever points out a mistake, the mistake should be corrected. Truth is truth, independent of who points the truth out. So if I or anyone else points out a mistake, the mistake should be corrected, even if the mistake is called a "successful mistake" and even if the person who points out the mistake doesn't consider it to be important that many people have accepted the mistake as the truth and really like the mistake they have mistaken for truth.In this case there are specific points of doctrine regarding God's nature which are not true which many people have mistaken for truth, and those mistakes should be corrected because they are not true. It doesn't really matter that I was someone who pointed the mistake and the truth out to you. Only a fool would despise correction. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (...within reason, of course!) But those who are that far off tthe mark typically warrant our sympathy!Yes, I feel that often.
knowone Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Brought up and debated recently on several other posts is how to define the "supernatural" and if science can or cannot detect something or force (such as God) deemed to be seemingly outside of scientific means,My position is that the supernatural doesn't exist. By saying this I don't disbelieve in God nor do I disbelieve in a God of miracles. To properly understand the supernatural we need look no further than defining terms. Many in scientific fields use the word supernatural as being some type of phenomenon outside of the laws of science. thus they can easily dismiss God and all his workings from science and stick to purely naturalistic explanations for everything.But this doesn't solve the problem becuase its just a cheap way of saying that science can't detect that which is magic. My philosophy on the matter is that no such magic exists and no powers beyond the scientifically explainable exists. In saying this I agree fully that we do not know all the laws and principles of science. We can thus break down all things that happen in the universe in 2 sets of knowledge- 1. Things that happen of which we know about and can predict, or happen so frequently we accept it naturally and- 2. Things we have yet to find out about or cannot predict or are rare occurrences in the universe.Many will automatically state the word "supernatural" in any case that deals with God or deals with anything of spiritual in nature. But this is in reality just another way of saying that we have certain things we have yet to know about and can predict. Suppose a man from 2,000 years ago was to invent a time machine and travel to our day and watch all of our actions. He would thus conclude us to be supernatural beings performing many supernatural acts. This because he has no way to possibly fathom or know about the workings of all the laws in science.Then you also have this enigma we call "intelligence" of the which science has yet to even begin to define or understand. Even though we havent found ways to predict with accuracy the mechanism of intelligence it happens so often in all life forms with such high frequency that we call it a natural action and definately not supernatural. But suppose for a moment that all the rocks in the known galaxie could think and wonder and in all their searching they saw nothing but rocks upon more rocks and then suddenly for no apparent reason this rare occurrence of life on this planet. Would we thus be "supernatural" to all the other rocks? It brings up an interesting aspect and proper perspective ina relative sense with how we look at the things we cannot explain but yet also incorrectly chalk some things up as being unexplainable. Its just a view of perspectives.And this is why I believe that the supernatural does not exist. The glory of God is intelligence. In other words this literally means the glory of God is knowledge of truth and order. Gods glory in part is a perfect knowledge and perfect use of truth and order all done within laws measurable and detectable in science. God himself we are told has a body of order just as yours and mine only his has been perfected. He also has a higher understanding of language and communication ability that allows him to more perfectly control the elements. Agreed this is an area where our technology in science hasn't been able to yet know or detect, so true it also is that the enigma of visions in our minds really do happen but yet is not detectable or knowable to our technology.Thus I do not picture a God who has some magic power running around the universe outside of the laws and order of which he is part of. I fully understand that mainstream science wants a natural explanation for everything. Their only fault however is that they do not understand the fact that the supernatural can't exist- its literally outside of existence. This must mean then that if God does exist- and He truly may for we haven't as of yet disproven his existence, then he must exist inside of the laws and order of detectable science even if we do not yet possess the technology to ascertain this reality at this point. It also means that the miracles God performs are done inside of natural laws- laws that have order and are scientific in every way. The difference is however that He has a perfect understanding and we do not.Thus it somewhat bothers me when someone within science says science isn't about the supernatural and as such anything relating to God is not science but instead religion. They are right about one thing for sure- science, nor anything for that matter, can detect the undetectable supernatural because it doesn't exist. I find it thus intriguing that they can say something like God can truly exist, just not inside of the laws of science. My appeal to them is this- If God does exist but outside of the laws of science, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to perform any action within our laws?If God is supernatural then wouldnt it hold true that all his word and actions- even all his creations also be supernatural? i would tend to agree with you mostly. there is some quote from somewhere that God works within the limits he has created. however, one thing that cant be explained is translation, such as the 3 nephites, james or even sasquatch cain. obviously, there must be some higher form of being that lives on earth that is above our understanding.
Rob Osborn Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 i would tend to agree with you mostly. there is some quote from somewhere that God works within the limits he has created. however, one thing that cant be explained is translation, such as the 3 nephites, james or even sasquatch cain. obviously, there must be some higher form of being that lives on earth that is above our understanding.Things like translation were miraculous events but still within the laws of nature. God causing a change to come over their bodies was done so in a manner within natural laws. Its just that we do not understand yet how it works.
Ahab Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Thank you for the reply Robert. I may reply with a different thread. Maybe even a poll about that would hopefully reveal the extent to which materialist philosophy has filtered into mainstream LDS ways of thinking. I don't think deeply about philosophical matters frequently myself. I am unable to articulate my own position without consulting guides. I am not suggesting that many LDS have studied their way into a materialist worldview.A few years ago at ZLMB, somebody found this Philosophy test online where you could answer some questions and find out who among maybe two dozen or more philosophers your thought most closely reflected. I did not need to read the Summa to have absorbed the philosophy of Augustine and Aquinas. Nor did the Mormons need to have studied Wittgenstein or Rorty to reflect a modern philosophical approach. Although we may not be able to explain why, our thoughts are influenced "by the air we choose to breathe" and I think we are pretty happy with where we are.Anyway, someone has objected to this derailing, and I will desist now from speaking of it further here. I should have made my points a subject of a new thread on Saturday. So I offer my apologies to all those who are sorry to have their thread hijacked. Roryhttp://selectsmart.com/philosophy/
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Nor did the Mormons need to have studied Wittgenstein or Rorty to reflect a modern philosophical approach. Although we may not be able to explain why, our thoughts are influenced "by the air we choose to breathe" and I think we are pretty happy with where we are.Just to set the record straight, most Mormons do not read Wittgenstein or Rorty. I would be surprised if they are even studied at BYU but I suppose they may be.
MiserereNobis Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Just to set the record straight, most Mormons do not read Wittgenstein or Rorty. I would be surprised if they are even studied at BYU but I suppose they may be. I would hope they are taught... well, at least Wittgenstein. A philosophy major would have a seriously lacking education without at least a cursory knowledge.
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I would hope they are taught... well, at least Wittgenstein. A philosophy major would have a seriously lacking education without at least a cursory knowledge.I honestly don't know the answer to that. I googled "BYU Rorty" and found some stuff, mostly anti-Rorty, which I would expect. I really know almost nothing about the BYU philosophy departments. I have read some papers of some of them and know that Faulconer and some others are into Heidegger and Phenomenology, which is actually quite close to positions similar to Rorty and Wittgenstein. I have had some difficulty getting further information and articles written by the others.
knowone Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Things like translation were miraculous events but still within the laws of nature. God causing a change to come over their bodies was done so in a manner within natural laws. Its just that we do not understand yet how it works. yes, i was supporting youre argument. in another thread, i mentioned the tayos cave in ecuador...most members believe the only importance of the cave is the existence of a giant metal library. however, also of note is the discovery of scores of miniature animal statues. i would contend that they came from noahs ark. with recent events showing that the arc wwas exactly as described in ether, round & not a 'normal' boat shape. i would make an argumeent that noah couldnt bring whole animals with him on this boat. but that the Lord instructed him to make statues of each animal & place a drop of blood in each statue. thus when arriving on dry ground, they were instructed to bring out the statues on the ground, disappear into the arc & then the Lord would do some sort of dna regeneration thing to 'create' the new animals. is this along the lines of your theory as well?
Rob Osborn Posted March 4, 2014 Author Posted March 4, 2014 yes, i was supporting youre argument. in another thread, i mentioned the tayos cave in ecuador...most members believe the only importance of the cave is the existence of a giant metal library. however, also of note is the discovery of scores of miniature animal statues. i would contend that they came from noahs ark. with recent events showing that the arc wwas exactly as described in ether, round & not a 'normal' boat shape. i would make an argumeent that noah couldnt bring whole animals with him on this boat. but that the Lord instructed him to make statues of each animal & place a drop of blood in each statue. thus when arriving on dry ground, they were instructed to bring out the statues on the ground, disappear into the arc & then the Lord would do some sort of dna regeneration thing to 'create' the new animals. is this along the lines of your theory as well?Never heard about the statue theory...interesting
knowone Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Never heard about the statue theory...interesting check out some of the contents here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1671926-legendary-metal-library-found-tayos-cave.html of course, the metal library is most significant BUT i also see all those metal statues as being part of the noah expedition. & of course them landing on dry land in south america. modern archeology shows that there was a land bridge in the west that the clovis people came to north america on but there was a land bridge from north america to modern day france in the east where there was migration. the smithsonian has flint tools that were found in florida, but are from french stone. with the recent find of the sumerian script instructions of noahs arc: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/28/new-discovery-raises-flood-of-questions-about-noahs-ark/we, as lds members always knew it was round according to the book of ether. so in my estimation, the Lord worked out some sort of dna 'miracle' with these statues to repopulate the earth. maybe the skeleton in the sarchophegus is lehi himself. Edited March 4, 2014 by knowone
Bikeemikey Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 check out some of the contents here:http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1671926-legendary-metal-library-found-tayos-cave.htmlof course, the metal library is most significant BUT i also see all those metal statues as being part of the noah expedition. & of course them landing on dry land in south america. modern archeology shows that there was a land bridge in the west that the clovis people came to north america on but there was a land bridge from north america to modern day france in the east where there was migration. the smithsonian has flint tools that were found in florida, but are from french stone.with the recent find of the sumerian script instructions of noahs arc:http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/28/new-discovery-raises-flood-of-questions-about-noahs-ark/we, as lds members always knew it was round according to the book of ether. so in my estimation, the Lord worked out some sort of dna 'miracle' with these statues to repopulate the earth.maybe the skeleton in the sarchophegus is lehi himself.Wow!!! That's a really cool idea, it's a shame that there is limited evidence to support it.
Recommended Posts