Elements Of The True Church?

[mfbukowski]

The last point you made about rationality and God not going together doesn't make sense because it's contradictory.

You wish people would "understand" it. Yet is your point rational or not? 

 

LOL.

 

I think so.

 

 

Fideism

First published Fri May 6, 2005; substantive revision Wed Sep 26, 2012

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (246) This question of the relation between reason—here represented by Athens—and faith—represented by Jerusalem—was posed by the church father Tertullian (c.160–230 CE), and it remains a central preoccupation among contemporary philosophers of religion.

“Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds—or at any rate appears to hold (more on this caveat shortly)—that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief. The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. “Fideism” is thus to be understood not as a synonym for “religious belief,” but as denoting a particular philosophical account of faith's appropriate jurisdiction vis-a-vis that of reason.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

You really should read up on it.

 

It's been around a long time

 

A Formal Definition

Alvin Plantinga has noted that fideism can be defined as an “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth” (87). Correspondingly, Plantinga writes, a fideist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious” and who “may go on to disparage and denigrate reason” (87). Notice, first, that what the fideist seeks, according to this account, is truth. Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith. Insofar as fideism insists that knowledge of these truths is possible, it must be distinguished from various forms of skepticism with which it otherwise shares certain common features. Notice too that this definition is largely formal; the plausibility of fideism as a philosophical doctrine and the proper extension of the term will therefore depend on the content given to the terms “faith” and “reason.”

 

Edited April 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

I was drawn to the Church because it was organized in a way that resembled what I imagined the true Church to look like after a fairly extensive investigation of other Christian churches, I had pretty much given up on organized religion. However, I have to confess that right now the only Christian religious leader who truly impresses me is Pope Francis, although I admire and respect our current First Presidency and support and sustain them.

[mfbukowski]

I want to underline a principle here- when I was a philosophy student, I embraced Fideism, as demonstrated in the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

 

In other words, when I found the church, I found that it fit perfectly what I already believed on a philosophical basis.

 

For those who are LDS and have trouble with the statement "I know the church is true", I would invite them to re-read the post above, post 126.

 

Please compare what this says with Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4-5, if you are having trouble understanding how religious experience teaches TRUTH.

A Formal Definition

 

Alvin Plantinga has noted that fideism can be defined as an “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth” (87). Correspondingly, Plantinga writes, a fideist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious” and who “may go on to disparage and denigrate reason” (87). Notice, first, that what the fideist seeks, according to this account, is truth. Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith. Insofar as fideism insists that knowledge of these truths is possible, it must be distinguished from various forms of skepticism with which it otherwise shares certain common features.

We have perfectly legitimate philosophical reasons, not that we need them, to declare the statement "I know the church is true", or "I know that Christ lives".

 

Not "believe", not "think", not "wish" but KNOW, as a statement of TRUTH.

 

Joseph Smith was far ahead of his time, if we only view him as a teacher and a philosopher of religion, but of course we view him as much more than that, and indeed know him to be a prophet.

 

To those others who perhaps think I have not explained my position thoroughly, I am sorry but I would have to summarize the history of western philosophy to show all the arguments which end up illustrating where Wittgenstein "was coming from", and I simply don't have the skill to do so.

Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

I want to underline a principle here- when I was a philosophy student, I embraced Fideism, as demonstrated in the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

In other words, when I found the church, I found that it fit perfectly what I already believed on a philosophical basis.

For those who are LDS and have trouble with the statement "I know the church is true", I would invite them to re-read the post above, post 126.

Please compare what this says with Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4-5, if you are having trouble understanding how religious experience teaches TRUTH.

A Formal Definition

We have perfectly legitimate philosophical reasons, not that we need them, to declare the statement "I know the church is true", or "I know that Christ lives".

Not "believe", not "think", not "wish" but KNOW, as a statement of TRUTH.

Joseph Smith was far ahead of his time, if we only view him as a teacher and a philosopher of religion, but of course we view him as much more than that, and indeed know him to be a prophet.

How was he far ahead of his time? Was it that he wanted or had, an answer to the unknown questions people were asking in his time?

[mfbukowski]

I was drawn to the Church because it was organized in a way that resembled what I imagined the true Church to look like after a fairly extensive investigation of other Christian churches, I had pretty much given up on organized religion. However, I have to confess that right now the only Christian religious leader who truly impresses me is Pope Francis, although I admire and respect our current First Presidency and support and sustain them.

Good.

So become Catholic.  I commend you on following the path you want. 

[mfbukowski]

How was he far ahead of his time? Was it that he wanted or had, an answer to the unknown questions people were asking in his time?

Oh yes I am sure that is true.

 

It is my belief that in addition to the great success we are now having in missionary work, if people understood this philosophical position which is quite compatible with Mormonism, we as a church could become the greatest force for good the world has ever seen.

 

If we could get folks to really catch the vision, we could do away with all this silliness about conflict between science and religion, this evolution nonsense, and all the fundamentalist understanding of scriptures which causes thinking people to ridicule religious people.

 

People in the world view religious people as fools.  But indeed we could hold one of the most sophisticated justifications for religious belief ever created by man if we only understood it and adopted it.

 

And indeed we already have the principles available in Alma 32 and in Moroni.  All I believe is totally scriptural- AND philosophical at the same time.  Both are compatible.  And its not that I thought this up myself- there are many many Mormons who are catching on to this view and seeing the parallels.

 

I think our future is limitless, if we only allow it to be.

Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How was he far ahead of his time? Was it that he wanted or had, an answer to the unknown questions people were asking in his time?

I am not sure I answered this.

 

I think God set this all up so that compatible philosophy was available on the earth in this dispensation.  We are now at a time in the restoration when original Christianity found Neoplatonism, and in my opinion, made a wrong turn.

 

But the good news was that the unification of Neoplatonism and Catholicism took the message that Jesus was the Christ to the whole western world, even if the philosophy behind the message was a little.... off.

 

At this point, it is my opinion that the world is ready and philosophically sophisticated enough, that if we are able to unify with certain philosophical schools, we could become the predominant religion of the west.

 

That could be totally fantasy and will not happen, but ain't faith wonderful??

[Tacenda]

Oh yes I am sure that is true.

It is my belief that in addition to the great success we are now having in missionary work, if people understood this philosophical position which is quite compatible with Mormonism, we as a church could become the greatest force for good the world has ever seen.

If we could get folks to really catch the vision, we could do away with all this silliness about conflict between science and religion, this evolution nonsense, and all the fundamentalist understanding of scriptures which causes thinking people to ridicule religious people.

People in the world view religious people as fools. But indeed we could hold one of the most sophisticated justifications for religious belief ever created by man if we only understood it and adopted it.

And indeed we already have the principles available in Alma 32 and in Moroni. All I believe is totally scriptural- AND philosophical at the same time. Both are compatible. And its not that I thought this up myself- there are many many Mormons who are catching on to this view and seeing the parallels.

I think our future is limitless, if we only allow it to be.

That's a great vision, since people are thinking evolution and science mean no God. Hope the church can become open to expanding on that situation. Something must be done to counteract it. '''

[mfbukowski]

That's a great vision, since people are thinking evolution and science mean no God. Hope the church can become open to expanding on that situation. Something must be done to counteract it. '''

Agree.  I am trying to "turn people on" to these positions, who have probably had no exposure to thinking in these ways.  But I am finding it ain't easy.  Once you get locked into old ways of seeing things, it is hard to teach "old dogs new tricks".

 

We are so locked into the understanding of the old god of the sectarians- with all the Neoplatonism that went with it- that we cannot see how it should be.

 

We are locked into the 500 year old philosophy of the Enlightenment and the popular mind has not advanced past 1700 philosophically.  Science science science.  If it is not scientific, it is "irrational" and only the parameters of science define "truth".

 

To philosophers that idea pretty much faded with the logical positivisits in the 1950's though it has been on its way out really since Kant.

[why me]

I was drawn to the Church because it was organized in a way that resembled what I imagined the true Church to look like after a fairly extensive investigation of other Christian churches, I had pretty much given up on organized religion. However, I have to confess that right now the only Christian religious leader who truly impresses me is Pope Francis, although I admire and respect our current First Presidency and support and sustain them.

I think that we need to be careful about words and actions. For example, the pope says wonderful things but there hasn't been much change in catholic policy. And the ordination of the two saints recently cost millions of dollars. If the lds church spent that much money on such a thing, the critic voices on the web would have said that that mony would have been better spent on the poor.

 

Catholic doctrine has not changed. No SSM, no abortion, no birthcontrol etc. And I haven't seen the catholic church donate millions to the poor by selling off its art. So, regardless of the nice words that francis may say, nothing much has changed within the catholic church. But I also like the pope even though I think that he does play up to the media and the media responds in kind.

 

What the pope needs to be done is for the pope to begin to speak on things that would not be so popular: the need to chasity before marriage, the meaning of confession, keeping the commandments, etc. However, he has just mentioned that the devil does exist and hell is a real place which would be good for catholics to remember.

Edited April 28, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

I do think that Pope Francis sets a very different tone than Pope Benedict did or the previous popes. He lives in a much humbler manner and focuses on teaching others to live in a more humble manner of service to others. I don't think it is possible for a pope to make gigantic shifts in such a short time; but given time his tone may set a new dynamic - a focusing on something Catholics have done for generations and that is serving the poor.

 

The harder part is speaking to evil, which he has not done in a direct manner.  It may be that an indirect approach will turn into a more effective approach, but we will have to wait and see. Sometimes urging people to do what they should rather than what they should not is more effective. 

[3DOP]

If because of the poor, it is wrong of a religious institution to own and retain precious art and magnificent churches that have been acquired and maintained over the centuries through the charity of its own faithful, does it not follow that it would be wrong for any individual, institution, or municipality to purchase and maintain these works? If owning precious things is sinfully selfish, the Church has no right to sell them to another who would in turn, under conscience, be obligated to sell them to someone else so they could give to the poor.

 

If the Catholic Church, whose art is mostly explicitly Catholic, cannot rightly own these things, who can in good conscience own them? Where does it stop? Is it okay to go on vacation when poor people exist? What about that nice watch? I just don't get this moralizing that some do about how beautiful works of Catholic art need to be deposited into profane hands. If a Church can't own what her own children make and donate, what gives anybody the right to own anything? 

[Stone holm]

If because of the poor, it is wrong of a religious institution to own and retain precious art and magnificent churches that have been acquired and maintained over the centuries through the charity of its own faithful, does it not follow that it would be wrong for any individual, institution, or municipality to purchase and maintain these works? If owning precious things is sinfully selfish, the Church has no right to sell them to another who would in turn, under conscience, be obligated to sell them to someone else so they could give to the poor.

 

If the Catholic Church, whose art is mostly explicitly Catholic, cannot rightly own these things, who can in good conscience own them? Where does it stop? Is it okay to go on vacation when poor people exist? What about that nice watch? I just don't get this moralizing that some do about how beautiful works of Catholic art need to be deposited into profane hands. If a Church can't own what her own children make and donate, what gives anybody the right to own anything?

I agree, and we Mormons have no room to criticize the Catholics on this issue given the amounts we lavish on our Temples. Although I investigated the Catholic Church at one time and eventually rejected it as not conforming to my understanding of the Gospel. I have considerable respect for its intellectual community and it's more balanced approach to social economic issues. It's views on distributism remind me of the approach that our Church followed for more than a century before embracing American corporatism.

[danielwoods]

"

If historical witnesses to a physical even aren't a valid form of confirming the truth, then why did Jesus tell them to tell others what they have seen?"

To create the possibility in their minds that they could receive their own witness of his existence.

" I disagree there there is one monolithic org. that is the "true church""

So you do not believe that your church has the most truth? And that there are others that have just as much? Why do you go to that one then? Because you like the social aspects?

". So, no I don't think that "my" church has all truth and yours has none"

That isn't what LDS mean when they say "true church", besides authority (which is another word for acting with the power of God), we believe other faiths have many truths. It is not an all or nothing claim.

" I do believe that the church I attend has a higher percentage of truth (in it's doctrine), than the LDS does."

Why do you believe this? If it is because it better matches your interpreations of scriptures, why do you feel those interpretations are better than our interpretations?

"Spiritual discernment is this process"

Which is a personal experience. One can't put one's own spiritual discernment in a box and give it to someone else. Everyone who experiences must experience their own, correct? Even if is discernment about another's discernment.

1) Purpose of a historical witness. I don’t see the statement anywhere in the NT, where it says, tell others what you’ve seen “to create the possibility in your minds that you could receive your own witness.”

Instead, Jesus said, “Go and tell what you have seen and heard.” In answer to the question are you the one?

 

2) Do I believe my church has the most truth? As I stated before, I see it as a percentage. I think the church I go to now has most things right.

 

3) I was opposing the term or goal of seeking “the true church” as if there is one. I also disagree with the idea that one church organization has authority (ie the priesthood) and others don’t. Because all authority comes from Christ directly.

 

4) Why do I feel my interpretations are better? I guess, that I wouldn’t ever use the word “better” rather I would use the word, more accurate or closer to the truth. Why though? Many reasons. I listed the 5 different foundational reasons above in post 116.

 

5) About discernment we agree. 

 

Think of authority as the power given by God.

Do you believe your church has been given the highest percentage of truth and power by God, more so than other faiths?

"power" to act as his instruments, to fulfill his Will on earth, for God to work through you.

The problem is twofold. One is thinking the "church" is an organization. Second is thinking that this organization has the power. 

First the church are those believers who are connected to christ. Second it is "those people" not an organization that has the power to fulfill his will on earth. 

So, while leaders of LSD or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox can claim they have authority, they may or may not depending their direct connection to Christ and that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of authority for any other reason. 

 

So, my "church" that I attend may or may not have the highest percentage, it depends on the people. Doctrinally though they fairly spot on. 

[Gray]

The one true church is the plainest, most weathered-looking church that is constructed out of wood rather than gold and jewels.

 

#everythingiknowilearnedfromindianajones 

[mfbukowski]

I do think that Pope Francis sets a very different tone than Pope Benedict did or the previous popes. He lives in a much humbler manner and focuses on teaching others to live in a more humble manner of service to others. I don't think it is possible for a pope to make gigantic shifts in such a short time; but given time his tone may set a new dynamic - a focusing on something Catholics have done for generations and that is serving the poor.

 

The harder part is speaking to evil, which he has not done in a direct manner.  It may be that an indirect approach will turn into a more effective approach, but we will have to wait and see. Sometimes urging people to do what they should rather than what they should not is more effective. 

Agree on all points-

 

This has nothing directly do do with your comment but I heard a member of our Stake Presidency say something which stuck with me- and I thought it was a great phrase to use as a reminder.  This brother is not a native English speaker so he put together some words we usually would not put together.

 

He said "Brethren we have got to 'humble up' and stop being so proud!"

 

I thought that was a great one!  So humble up everyone! 

[danielwoods]

LOL.

 

I think so.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

You really should read up on it.

 

It's been around a long time

 

 

Thanks. I disagree. You appeal to our intellect using reason, only to then say to stop using it. Makes no logical sense. 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. I disagree. You appeal to our intellect using reason, only to then say to stop using it. Makes no logical sense. 

LOL

Nope.  You have confused two different contexts for the word "reason".

 

Category error.

[danielwoods]

LOL

Nope.  You have confused two different contexts for the word "reason".

 

Category error.

 

Doesn't change my objection. 

 

You define faith as non-reasoning (or something similar), then when I object to your message that faith is non-reasoning, you call it a category error, based on your previous definition that it's not. 

 

I notice that you are using reason in your defense though. I still would maintain that your call for a non-reasoning faith is self-defeating. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

1) Purpose of a historical witness. I don’t see the statement anywhere in the NT, where it says, tell others what you’ve seen “to create the possibility in your minds that you could receive your own witness.”

Instead, Jesus said, “Go and tell what you have seen and heard.” In answer to the question are you the one?

 

2) Do I believe my church has the most truth? As I stated before, I see it as a percentage. I think the church I go to now has most things right.

 

3) I was opposing the term or goal of seeking “the true church” as if there is one. I also disagree with the idea that one church organization has authority (ie the priesthood) and others don’t. Because all authority comes from Christ directly.

 

4) Why do I feel my interpretations are better? I guess, that I wouldn’t ever use the word “better” rather I would use the word, more accurate or closer to the truth. Why though? Many reasons. I listed the 5 different foundational reasons above in post 116.

 

5) About discernment we agree. 

 

The problem is twofold. One is thinking the "church" is an organization. Second is thinking that this organization has the power. 

First the church are those believers who are connected to christ. Second it is "those people" not an organization that has the power to fulfill his will on earth. 

So, while leaders of LSD or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox can claim they have authority, they may or may not depending their direct connection to Christ and that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of authority for any other reason. 

 

So, my "church" that I attend may or may not have the highest percentage, it depends on the people. Doctrinally though they fairly spot on. 

Rare to find so many vaguely contradictory statements in one place.  It's the best but not the best, the truest but not the truest.

 

Got it.

 

You have a future in politics.

[mfbukowski]

Doesn't change my objection. 

 

You define faith as non-reasoning (or something similar), then when I object to your message that faith is non-reasoning, you call it a category error, based on your previous definition that it's not. 

 

I notice that you are using reason in your defense though. I still would maintain that your call for a non-reasoning faith is self-defeating. 

Positively brilliant.

 

In one post you have proven Wittgenstein wrong.  And to think he never had you to point that out to him

 

Write that in a book and make a zillion bucks.  The world is waiting.

 

Seriously, you are still seeing "reason" in a sense incompatible with the theory.  Reason is always contextual, and you are confusing two contexts.

 

All you are really doing is asserting your own definition of reason, which is the Enlightenment version

 

You can't use Newton to disprove relativity.  One view is "bigger" than the other.  What matters is the internal consistency of the view and how well it solves the problem.

 

It's like saying I am wrong because the world is flat.

 

W's position implies a world view that is not part of your definition of "reason".

 

It's talking passed his position.

Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[why me]

I do think that Pope Francis sets a very different tone than Pope Benedict did or the previous popes. He lives in a much humbler manner and focuses on teaching others to live in a more humble manner of service to others. I don't think it is possible for a pope to make gigantic shifts in such a short time; but given time his tone may set a new dynamic - a focusing on something Catholics have done for generations and that is serving the poor.

 

The harder part is speaking to evil, which he has not done in a direct manner.  It may be that an indirect approach will turn into a more effective approach, but we will have to wait and see. Sometimes urging people to do what they should rather than what they should not is more effective. 

The lds church has leaders  who live rather humbly. I see no grand flaunting of wealth. Also, listening to general conference I heard a lot about living a christlike life. However, the media does not exactly play up to lds leaders since the lds church numbers in the millions and not billions. I have always heard lds speakers speak about living in one's means and serving the poor and loving one's neighbor. Maybe the pope is now focusing on things that the lds church has always focused on: living humbly, within one's means and love of other.

[why me]

Agree on all points-

 

This has nothing directly do do with your comment but I heard a member of our Stake Presidency say something which stuck with me- and I thought it was a great phrase to use as a reminder.  This brother is not a native English speaker so he put together some words we usually would not put together.

 

He said "Brethren we have got to 'humble up' and stop being so proud!"

 

I thought that was a great one!  So humble up everyone! 

He might have heard the phrase 'cowboy up' and put humble up in its place. People who like pope francis for what he is now saying should be loving lds leaders for what they have been saying for decades now.

[danielwoods]

Positively brilliant.

 

In one post you have proven Wittgenstein wrong.  And to think he never had you to point that out to him

 

Write that in a book and make a zillion bucks.  The world is waiting.

 

Seriously, you are still seeing "reason" in a sense incompatible with the theory.  Reason is always contextual, and you are confusing two contexts.

 

All you are really doing is asserting your own definition of reason, which is the Enlightenment version

 

You can't use Newton to disprove relativity.  One view is "bigger" than the other.  What matters is the internal consistency of the view and how well it solves the problem.

 

It's like saying I am wrong because the world is flat.

 

W's position implies a world view that is not part of your definition of "reason".

 

It's talking passed his position.

 

One view is a faith based on evidence (external and internal).

 

One view is a faith based solely on internal feedback.

 

The flaw with the second is discernment, and discretion. How to determine what is true, and/or make claims that "A" is true but "B" is not true? 

 

In essence, if truth is like ice cream (it's tastes good to me!), then one cannot claim it's good for everyone. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

One view is a faith based on evidence (external and internal).

Oh my gosh.

See? There it is.  THAT is precisely where the misunderstanding is.

FAITH IS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE. 

 

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This is exactly where we started- it is a pointless conversation.  No progress whatsoever has been made.