Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[why me]

This doesn't say anything about stake presidents in the early Church.

That is true. But this is where the name comes from. I am sure that the early church must have had area representatives and bishops. Maybe for the catholics, it can be compared to a cardinal in terms of responsibilities to some extent. But I am not sure.

[mfbukowski]

That is true. But this is where the name comes from. I am sure that the early church must have had area representatives and bishops. Maybe for the catholics, it can be compared to a cardinal in terms of responsibilities to some extent. But I am not sure.

Section 107 covers High Councils and stake presidents

The HC is the Q of 12 for the stake.  Too busy to look it up but cfr me if you can't find it

 

Each stake is the church in microcosm.  It is said that anything above a Bishop is "just talk" and that is pretty true.

Edited April 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

We were brain storming during a high priest group meeting, with no woman present. If only you had been there to mention the woman should wear a mask.

Careful now. You don't want to be called an arc steadier, do ya? Men must have brain storming sessions.

I am at a loss on how to read your post.  I thought you were serious in your concerns for this woman so offered a few suggestions that had helped in the past with a friend of mine as it seems way overkill to have to appeal to the presiding bishop for stuff you could take care of in the ward itself.  If you are only being theoretical or speculating for the fun of it, then please say so in the future so I don't waste my time.

Edited April 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Section 107 covers High Councils and stake presidents

The HC is the Q of 12 for the stake. Too busy to look it up but cfr me if you can't find it

Each stake is the church in microcosm. It is said that anything above a Bishop is "just talk" and that is pretty true.

If the early church was only 1 stake including all of those cities mentioned in the Bible then the apostles may not have, and would not have needed to, appoint another council of 12, though.

Each city could have had, and I believe did have, only 1 bishop to a city, with everyone in the city being in the same (what we now call) ward.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Well, not perfect, but they are still prophets

[MormonFreeThinker]

They do not have to be perfect

[MormonFreeThinker]

they still change the lives of many

[mfbukowski]

Good response, considering I didn't give you much info for an Aha! moment.

Now take into consideration that we were wondering if we could make some alterations to the chapel building, or maybe set up a nice big tent outside on the grounds where she could get some fresh air maybe also adding a heater, involving providing electrical connections, or maybe even parking an RV outside and setting that up for her and others who might want to join her out there, while piping in audio and video equipment from our meetings, and then multiply that by infinity and still you would only get a glimpse of what we were contemplating, all so a sister with severe allergies could meet with other members during the regular worship services.

It will take years for building alterations and approval is not likely.  Each building is to have standard uses because if that bldg is ever used by another stake/ward the alterations will become useless and will then have to be changed back.  VERY EXPENSIVE. The church does not approve some handyman coming in and putting up drywall- an alteration is a.big deal.

 

This is not a long term problem.  And all alterations would be handled through the stake anyway.  The bishop would not call up the presiding bishop and say "Hey Bishop- we need to put up a wall- is that ok with you?"

 

The stake president would approve the other ideas - not the pb.

[Ahab]

I am at a loss on how to read your post. I thought you were serious in your concerns for this woman so offered a few suggestions that had helped in the past with a friend of mine as it seems way overkill to have to appeal to the presiding bishop for stuff you could take care of in the ward itself. If you are only being theoretical or speculating for the fun of it, then please say so in the future so I don't waste my time.

I was being playful, even while considering a real issue of importance to my ward and a ward sister, and while your suggestions and the suggestions of everyone in my ward are food for some thought, the final decision about anything having to do with the church building or church property would be the presiding bishop's decision, and that was my main point.

We can't just do something we think is a good thing to do, as if it is our decision to make. Church buildings and church property must meet certain standards and the presiding bishop is the person who has the responsibility of setting and maintaining those standards.

Personally I favor the idea of opening all the windows and doors and setting up some big fans to blow fresh air around the chapel and classrooms, with heaters too if they are needed. Central air wouldn't work because the air is from all over the building, unless we close some rooms off, but then that would create some other problems.

But, alas, it's not up to me anyway.

Your idea about using a mask was cute, though.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Ahab

[canard78]

However, the mormon way seems to be the right way. When many churches have been flip flopping on many moral issues, the lds church has held steady. And when I think of the advice that lds youth get, I see it as truth restored because they are told to stay away many worldly things that would be acceptable for many churches. Likewise for conference. Who can argue with the advice given at general conference.

Mormons who followed the counsel of the leaders and lived within their means were saved a lot of heartache in 2007-2008 when the economic crisis hit. I remember that advice that was given before the crisis...be thrifty and economical.

And that's where we don't agree. I'm sure Mormonism does seem the right way for you (given you're in it). If you didn't I'm sure you'd find some other "way."

Neither of the things you've used as evidence of being the "right way" are very compelling evidence.

[canard78]

For the record I disagree.

This is clearly the best model anywhere for combining a rigorous theocentric humanism with Christianity, without question.

The symbolism of the temple could not possibly have been generated by Joseph or adaptations from Masonry. This stuff is from somewhere above our capabilities.

You find meaning in Mormonism. Good. I like you so I'm glad it's a worthwhile use of your life. Given countless billions do not I can only draw the conclusion that the truth they find is the very best way for them; that they also find the answers they need and the divinely inspired symbolism.

I accept that divine inspiration is found in Mormon practice and doctrine. That does not, however, prove that it's the best or one true version of truth. I could find divine guidance in other non-mormon or even non-Christian religions and none of you are going to hold that up as evidence that they are "the one." I don't believe in "one true church" or "one true way."

[mfbukowski]

You find meaning in Mormonism. Good. I like you so I'm glad it's a worthwhile use of your life. Given countless billions do not I can only draw the conclusion that the truth they find is the very best way for them; that they also find the answers they need and the divinely inspired symbolism.

I accept that divine inspiration is found in Mormon practice and doctrine. That does not, however, prove that it's the best or one true version of truth. I could find divine guidance in other non-mormon or even non-Christian religions and none of you are going to hold that up as evidence that they are "the one." I don't believe in "one true church" or "one true way."

Paradigms and models of reality change as time goes on because some paradigms work better for a given purpose.

 

That is what truth is.  I am not sure you really see the implications of that in this context.

 

The proof is in the pudding, but some like vanilla and some like chocolate.  Does that make the other one false?

 

But yet for either person there is only one true pudding.  

 

Don't worry about the words- they will get you every time.

[MiserereNobis]

Paradigms and models of reality change as time goes on because some paradigms work better for a given purpose.

 

That is what truth is.  I am not sure you really see the implications of that in this context.

 

The proof is in the pudding, but some like vanilla and some like chocolate.  Does that make the other one false?

 

But yet for either person there is only one true pudding.  

 

Don't worry about the words- they will get you every time.

 

Dang, mfbukowski,  you could be the apostle of postmodernism.  After all this time reading your posts, I mean that as an absolute sincere compliment.  I wonder if Mormonism will go down the path you propose for it.  Thank you for being such an intriguing poster

[why me]

 

The symbolism of the temple could not possibly have been generated by Joseph or adaptations from Masonry.  This stuff is from somewhere above our capabilities.

I have always found it amazing that people compare the temple symbolism with masonary. These people must know that masons were among the members of the church from a very early time. No one to my knowledge saw Joseph as a copier. John Dehlin did a wonderful podcast with Greg Kearney way back when where Gregg discusses being a mason and a mormon:

 

 

http://mormonstories.org/podcast/MormonStories-005-Masonry.mp3

[Tacenda]

I am at a loss on how to read your post. I thought you were serious in your concerns for this woman so offered a few suggestions that had helped in the past with a friend of mine as it seems way overkill to have to appeal to the presiding bishop for stuff you could take care of in the ward itself. If you are only being theoretical or speculating for the fun of it, then please say so in the future so I don't waste my time.

Well, your quote got my attention and helped remind me of a woman who was allergic to smells in a ward long ago. I'm going to restrain myself better when applying perfume. I'll have to hide my husbands though, he sprays a ton on. And for the sister in Ahab's ward, if she exists, haven't read to the end, a mention to ward members and the cleaning faciliater, should do wonders. Trial and error sort of thing. And what a way to bring people together with a little service by being conscientious of this sister. ETA: I guess the sister exists. Edited April 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Your idea about using a mask was cute, though.

It was not meant to be cute. It is a serious suggestion. I have worn one on my more sensitive days.

And the other suggestions I made don't have to go all the way to SLC to make a change.

You are acting like this is just a fun little drama for you to play in with a starring role on the board while for many in the sister's situation it may be life or death or if not that extreme, at least whether or not she is a prisoner of her own health or able to find something that allows her to walk among her friends again.

[canard78]

Paradigms and models of reality change as time goes on because some paradigms work better for a given purpose.

That is what truth is. I am not sure you really see the implications of that in this context.

The proof is in the pudding, but some like vanilla and some like chocolate. Does that make the other one false?

But yet for either person there is only one true pudding.

Don't worry about the words- they will get you every time.

It may be different in USA but in UK the phrase isn't "the proof is in the pudding" it's: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

On that basis I agree that prophets are like puddings. Proven true (or not) through consuming their output.

I'm fine with that. It's on this basis that my view of their truthfulness has changed. I'm also fine with someone reaching a different conclusion having consumed the same pudding.

[why me]

And that's where we don't agree. I'm sure Mormonism does seem the right way for you (given you're in it). If you didn't I'm sure you'd find some other "way."

Neither of the things you've used as evidence of being the "right way" are very compelling evidence.

I can only go by my personal experiences with people. I had one cousin who died of AIDs because of drugs. I have had one cousin commit suicide. One cousin who died of alcohol abuse. Another cousin who is an alcoholic. And I have friends who believe that it is fine to have sex as long as one is in love. And they both have children by three different women.

All of the above would have been better off if they were Mormon and learned that the body is a temple.

[why me]

They do not have to be perfect

True. If I remember correctly, Paul often wrote his letters when he was angry. And I do believe that his hand writing was so difficult to understand that he dictated the letters to a scribe. I don't think that we ever had a perfect apostle or prophet in Christian history. Also, we have very little about the lives of the original apostles. But I am sure that they weren't perfect.

[mfbukowski]

Well, your quote got my attention and helped remind me of a woman who was allergic to smells in a ward long ago. I'm going to restrain myself better when applying perfume. I'll have to hide my husbands though, he sprays a ton on. And for the sister in Ahab's ward, if she exists, haven't read to the end, a mention to ward members and the cleaning faciliater, should do wonders. Trial and error sort of thing. And what a way to bring people together with a little service by being conscientious of this sister. ETA: I guess the sister exists.

Perfume is not half as bad as cat box smell.  It clings to clothes and the poor folks don't even recognize it.

[mfbukowski]

It may be different in USA but in UK the phrase isn't "the proof is in the pudding" it's: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

On that basis I agree that prophets are like puddings. Proven true (or not) through consuming their output.

I'm fine with that. It's on this basis that my view of their truthfulness has changed. I'm also fine with someone reaching a different conclusion having consumed the same pudding.

Works for me.  God teaches each of us in the way we need to learn.

 

If sugar doesn't work as a reward, maybe honey or stevia will.

 

How about popcorn?  

 

The point is that we learn the lesson, not the story used to teach it.  The trick is making sure we learn the best lessons.

 

But the answers are out there.

[MiserereNobis]

But the answers are out there.

 

 

(Was X-Files secretly neo-Platonic...?)

[Bikeemikey]

(Was X-Files secretly neo-Platonic...?)

Oh, that's good.

[mfbukowski]

 

(Was X-Files secretly neo-Platonic...?)

You are a flippin genius.

 

To see the difference between what I said and what that says is the entire crux of the issue, and you got it and made it funny.  Answers are not truth.  The answers are out there is entirely different than the truth is out there, and yes the latter is neoplatonism while the other is postmodern.

 

I will post a Rorty quote when I get to it later.

[mfbukowski]

You are a flippin genius.

 

To see the difference between what I said and what that says is the entire crux of the issue, and you got it and made it funny.  Answers are not truth.  The answers are out there is entirely different than the truth is out there, and yes the latter is neoplatonism while the other is postmodern.

 

I will post a Rorty quote when I get to it later.

Well I don't know how to post it. I snipped a paragraph from a pdf and made it into a jpg but don't know how to upload it

The gist is that truth is a property of sentences and not of the world. Truth is linguistic and language is a human invention, so truth is a human invention.

Language does not "represent" the actual world because all it can express is our perceptions of the world. So all there is to talk about is talk, and some answers work better than others.

So to say "the answers are out there" means that there are abroad linguistic concepts which will satisfy the need expressed, but to say "the truth is out there" is to imply that somehow we can perceive the true world independent of what goes on in our brains.

We cannot do that. All we've got is what we can see and say. Some of that works and some doesn't. If you fall off a cliff, what was between your ears didn't work too well, but if you are happy with your life, what is between your ears works very well for you. THAT is what we call "truth"- the sentences I use to describe and understand the world work well for me, and the result is joy.

Man is that he might have joy and fill the measure of his creation. THAT is truth! Achieving your full potential as a human being and becoming godlike.

Incidentally here is the pdf of the entire book I was trying to quote from. Page 5 at the top. I also recommend reading p 20 to 23 and the whole chapters on contingency of the self and contingency of language.

But also remember that Rorty is ultimately wrong BECAUSE he did not understand spiritual experience. He does not believe that there are ANY thoughts which are not linguistic.

If there are any thoughts which are "prelinguistic" he is wrong. AND if there are spiritual experiences, then the self is not totally conditioned by language either, so ultimately the self is not contingent. There is an eternal spirit there that receives linguistic messages and experiences.

Mystics would disagree with Rorty, and so do I as a mystic.

But he is completely right as far as what we can talk about. We can only talk about experiences we have had- never can we talk about the world as unmediated by human experience.

But we can HAVE non-linguistic experiences- enter Wittgenstein. That is why W is ultimately a mystic.

So if you read this stuff don't let it confuse you- Rorty is an atheist because he does not understand spiritual experience. No Moroni 10:4-5 for Rorty- and that is what messes him up.

But the rest of the stuff is absolute brilliance.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf

Edited April 20, 2014 by mfbukowski