"visions Of Glory" - Nonsense? Or Legit?

[mfbukowski]

Let's be clear. I'm firmly on your team -- Team Nutcase. And while I haven't read the book, I didn't have to read L Ron Hubbard or the Hale Bopp Comet guy to know that I should bring my own bottled water to the cult cookout. My question is simply HOW do the rest of my teammates know truth from lies?

It can't be on the basis of historical verification because we believe in the BoM with very little historical confirmation (and even a LITTLE historical information to the contrary). Likewise, we can't rely on scriptural confirmation for many of JS' later revelations as a few even conflicted with the BoM (polygamy comes most readily to mind). So what is it that gives YOU confidence that JS was speaking truth and that this other guy is lying/mistaken?

As always, the answer is "testimony", but you don't understand that.

 

You're going to have to have a better theory of truth to pull this one off- read some Rorty or William James to understand the truth of religious experience, and how it is defined.

 

Pull out your philosophy training and think about it and you will have your answer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

 

James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer. His pragmatic theory of truth was a synthesis of correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth, with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as the extent to which they "hang together," or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together; these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.^[16][17]

"The most ancient parts of truth . . . also once were plastic. They also were called true for human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations. Purely objective truth, truth in whose establishment the function of giving human satisfaction in marrying previous parts of experience with newer parts played no role whatsoever, is nowhere to be found. The reasons why we call things true is the reason why they are true, for 'to be true' means only to perform this marriage-function," he wrote.^[18]

James held a world view in line with pragmatism, declaring that the value of any truth was utterly dependent upon its use to the person who held it. Additional tenets of James's pragmatism include the view that the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly interpreted and understood through an application of "radical empiricism." Radical empiricism, not related to the everyday scientific empiricism, asserts that the world and experience can never be halted for an entirely objective analysis, if nothing else the mind of the observer and simple act of observation will affect the outcome of any empirical approach to truth as the mind and its experiences, and nature are inseparable. James's emphasis on diversity as the default human condition—over and against duality, especially Hegelian dialectical duality—has maintained a strong influence in American culture. James's description of the mind-world connection, which he described in terms of a "stream of consciousness", had a direct and significant impact on avant-garde and modernist literature and art, notably in the case of James Joyce.

In What Pragmatism Means, James writes that the central point of his own doctrine of truth is, in brief, that "Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them." Richard Rorty made the contested claim that James did not mean to give a theory of truth with this statement and that we should not regard it as such. However, other pragmatism scholars such as Susan Haack and Howard Mounce do not share Rorty's instrumentalist interpretation of James.^[19]

 

[mfbukowski]

Since when that become recommended practice on this board? It would seriously truncate our NT discussions.

Also, I did not comment on the book itself but simply reactions to it. I simply pointed out that many of the criticisms of this guy are similar to those made against JS. Do I really need to read the book to be able to recognize that?

No, never read anything.

 

That's the best way to get really smart.

[mormonnewb]

As always, the answer is "testimony", but you don't understand that.

 

You're going to have to have a better theory of truth to pull this one off- read some Rorty or William James to understand the truth of religious experience, and how it is defined.

 

Pull out your philosophy training and think about it and you will have your answer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

You're right. I don't completely understand "testimony." You prayed to get a testimony about the BoM and received one. Someone else prays to get a testimony about VoG and receives one. Are they mistaken? If so, HOW do you know? If we rule out historicity and scriptural coherence as defining arbiters of truth, whose truth wins?

Now, I'm perfectly fine with, saying, "to each his own." I'm even more comfortable with James' pragmatic approach (ie, don't fight about it unless there is a sufficiently practical reason to do so). But the approach on Team Nutcase seems to be, "We're right and you're wrong!" I like this approach best because it makes for much more "interesting" responses on the board. I just would like to know WHY I'm right (although, as you know, I will be more than happy to vigorously argue my point in the absence of a valid basis for it).

[The Nehor]

False prophets confuse because they appear to be similar to the real thing.

 

If Spencer is any indication they don't have to be similar to confuse.

[Garden Girl]

 Likewise, we can't rely on scriptural confirmation for many of JS' later revelations as a few even conflicted with the BoM (polygamy comes most readily to mind). So what is it that gives YOU confidence that JS was speaking truth and that this other guy is lying/mistaken?

Hello mormonnewb...

Actually, polygamy does not conflict with the BoM... not if you read the Lord's words very carefully... I'm speaking of the Lord's instructions to Jacob in Chap 2, v. 27-30... particularly v. 30.

 

GG

[Rain]

Let's be clear. I'm firmly on your team -- Team Nutcase. And while I haven't read the book, I didn't have to read L Ron Hubbard or the Hale Bopp Comet guy to know that I should bring my own bottled water to the cult cookout. My question is simply HOW do the rest of my teammates know truth from lies?

I get what you are saying and sort of agree. My question is how do YOU tell the difference?

[Rain]

Duplicate post

Edited July 6, 2014 by Rain

[Calm]

Giving points for both because I like it so much.

[mormonnewb]

I get what you are saying and sort of agree. My question is how do YOU tell the difference?

I tend to be somewhat of an empiricist and find myself falling back on the Savior's tests:

(1). "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:35

(2). "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-16

As I told my ward family at my first F&T, "I joined the Church because Mormons are fruity." Therefore, despite any problems I might have with our founding narrative, I find it hard to believe that a Church that produces Christians like my beloved saints was birthed from a LIE. And, even if it was, who cares?

I concede that the one drawback to my approach is that it doesn't allow me to be on the cutting edge of any dispensation because I need to wait to see the fruit. Therefore, in all likelihood, had I been around in the 19th century, I would have dismissed the Mormons as a bunch of "kooks." In the same way, I might be missing out on Mormonism 2.0 with this VoG guy because I'll have to wait and see how his revelations turn out. Let's just hope that his theology also allows for vicarious ordinances for slow pokes like me.

[mbh26]

Therefore, despite any problems I might have with our founding narrative, I find it hard to believe that a Church that produces Christians like my beloved saints was birthed from a LIE. And, even if it was, who cares?

 

Wow.  I'm not sure I could ever make myself feel that way.  Maybe that's what it takes though.  

[jwhitlock]

You have put words in my mouth in every single repsonse you have made to me. It makes me wonder concerning what you have written about other things I don't know much about.

 

Please be specific where I have done that. Perhaps you can start with where you stated that the church was in apostasy.

 

Edit: And also please respond with what your real thoughts are in each case.

 

Still waiting for you to provide specifics about where I have put words in your mouth.

[The Nehor]

As I told my ward family at my first F&T, "I joined the Church because Mormons are fruity." Therefore, despite any problems I might have with our founding narrative, I find it hard to believe that a Church that produces Christians like my beloved saints was birthed from a LIE. And, even if it was, who cares?

 

I would care.

[mfbukowski]

You're right. I don't completely understand "testimony." You prayed to get a testimony about the BoM and received one. Someone else prays to get a testimony about VoG and receives one. Are they mistaken? If so, HOW do you know? If we rule out historicity and scriptural coherence as defining arbiters of truth, whose truth wins?

Now, I'm perfectly fine with, saying, "to each his own." I'm even more comfortable with James' pragmatic approach (ie, don't fight about it unless there is a sufficiently practical reason to do so). But the approach on Team Nutcase seems to be, "We're right and you're wrong!" I like this approach best because it makes for much more "interesting" responses on the board. I just would like to know WHY I'm right (although, as you know, I will be more than happy to vigorously argue my point in the absence of a valid basis for it).

There is no knowable standard to decide between the two positions, so choose your poison, or your "fruit".

 

There is no arguing with testimony.

 

Historicity proves nothing about religion.  Because there is a city named "Jerusalem" which is "real", an itinerant preacher son of a carpenter died for your personal sins.

 

Sure.  Boy it that's not proof, nothing is.

 

Why believe in the bible?  Why not the Zoroastrian Avesta?  Why not be a Buddhist?

 

Because for whatever reason, you feel in your heart that the Bible is "true".  But there is NO objective standard to prove that.   Gold plates and angels are not more far-fetched than your wrong-doings disappearing from retribution because a carpenter's son, whose very existence is semi-legendary, supposedly died on a cross 2000 years ago.

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical enough.  You actually believe there is historical "evidence" for any of this and that the scriptures are "coherent".

 

You are wrong on both counts.

 

How did you even decide what to call "scripture"?  Pick your legends- there's plenty go go around.

 

Testimony is all there is.  Period.  God talks to you and you surrender.  If God does not talk to you, all is lost.  Sure he may say something else to someone else.

 

Too bad- live with it, and go with your gut.  It is the only choice there is.

 

By their fruit you shall know them.  If the fruit is sour, keep looking and quit complaining.

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

I would care.

Why? If you found out that JS made it all up, would you choose to live your life differently?

[mfbukowski]

I tend to be somewhat of an empiricist and find myself falling back on the Savior's tests:

Why trust a legend?

(1). "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:35

(2). "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-16

 

OH- wait a minute- this sounds like Pragmatism to me....

Therefore, despite any problems I might have with our founding narrative, I find it hard to believe that a Church that produces Christians like my beloved saints was birthed from a LIE. And, even if it was, who cares?

NOW you are getting it!  Who indeed cares?

 

And if you don't care, why do you......  care so much?

I concede that the one drawback to my approach is that it doesn't allow me to be on the cutting edge of any dispensation because I need to wait to see the fruit.

So you want to wait for someone to tell you what the "history" is?  You don't trust your own eyes/heart?

 

Therefore, in all likelihood, had I been around in the 19th century, I would have dismissed the Mormons as a bunch of "kooks." In the same way, I might be missing out on Mormonism 2.0 with this VoG guy because I'll have to wait and see how his revelations turn out. Let's just hope that his theology also allows for vicarious ordinances for slow pokes like me.

Yeah see that's the problem.  Any of us could be here today and gone tomorrow, to coin a phrase.  No time to wait around - you gotta pick something.

[mfbukowski]

Why? If you found out that JS made it all up, would you choose to live your life differently?

I don't care if Joseph was a "fraud".

 

It's his philosophy I love intellectually.  But God also told me it was his will for me.  THAT was the clincher.

 

If the church was "proven" wrong (impossible) I would found one tomorrow with the same views and not claim to be a prophet- just a guy with another new religion.

[The Nehor]

Why? If you found out that JS made it all up, would you choose to live your life differently?

 

Yes.

[mormonnewb]

Yes.

So you tithe, live the WoW and the law of chastity, etc., because you're convinced that HF will "get you" if you don't? If so, do you think that your obedience is pleasing to HF on the basis that He Is holding your eternal family "hostage"?

I'd hate to find out that my adult children spent time with me and followed my counsel because they thought it was the only way to inherit my fortune after my death (not as disappointed as they would be by the size of my "fortune"). I'd hope that they'd spend time with me out of love, that they'd follow my counsel because it has proven to make THEIR lives better. In fact, it would break my heart to know that our relationship wasn't built on love and respect, but rather because they thought I was vindictive enough to "cut them out of the will" if they didn't do as they were told.

[Calm]

Why are you assuming it is out of fear that Nehor is living how he is living and not for the love of God that he sees expressed in the teachings of JS? A love that would be a lie if JS lied...would you stay married if you found out your wife was lying to you about her love even if you still loved her? You stay because you believe she loves you and you love her...does that mean the only reaon you stay is you fear her?

Edited July 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rain]

I tend to be somewhat of an empiricist and find myself falling back on the Savior's tests:

(1). "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:35

(2). "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-16

As I told my ward family at my first F&T, "I joined the Church because Mormons are fruity." Therefore, despite any problems I might have with our founding narrative, I find it hard to believe that a Church that produces Christians like my beloved saints was birthed from a LIE. And, even if it was, who cares?

I concede that the one drawback to my approach is that it doesn't allow me to be on the cutting edge of any dispensation because I need to wait to see the fruit. Therefore, in all likelihood, had I been around in the 19th century, I would have dismissed the Mormons as a bunch of "kooks." In the same way, I might be missing out on Mormonism 2.0 with this VoG guy because I'll have to wait and see how his revelations turn out. Let's just hope that his theology also allows for vicarious ordinances for slow pokes like me.

Thanks. I can see that. I suspect you have a little more testimony than you think you have- there are plenty of people who recognize the fruits here, but say they are from Satan to deceive people or feel that it is work, not God that has created the fruits, but something helped you recognize them for what they really are.

The difference in the Book of Mormon and some books for me is the peace I get. I haven't read VoG and probably won't honestly because it isn't a priority for me so I can't say positively that I wouldn't get peace from it, but having read excerpts here my gut feeling is it would in the very least annoy me with all the glorious descriptions.

But mostly, the anonymous factor really sets off alarm bells for me. Every good person I have known or known of has felt the need to "stand for something" if they felt from God they needed to share a message. Even when someone blogs usually friends or family know who they are even if the world doesn't.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Rain

[The Nehor]

So you tithe, live the WoW and the law of chastity, etc., because you're convinced that HF will "get you" if you don't? If so, do you think that your obedience is pleasing to HF on the basis that He Is holding your eternal family "hostage"?

 

"Get me"? No. I am convinced that doing all those things will improve me and are baby-steps towards becoming a god and eternal happiness. If the gospel is false then much of my motivation to keep the law of chastity and pay tithing would fade away. Well, that is a lesser motivation I use when my love for God is lacking for whatever reason.

 

I'd hate to find out that my adult children spent time with me and followed my counsel because they thought it was the only way to inherit my fortune after my death (not as disappointed as they would be by the size of my "fortune"). I'd hope that they'd spend time with me out of love, that they'd follow my counsel because it has proven to make THEIR lives better. In fact, it would break my heart to know that our relationship wasn't built on love and respect, but rather because they thought I was vindictive enough to "cut them out of the will" if they didn't do as they were told.

 

Yes, but if Joseph Smith lied it would be more analogous to sending emails and chatting with and following the counsel of a father that doesn't actually exist. I don't expect that God's counsel will necessarily make my life better. It often does but it is calculated more to make me better. Sometimes that involves short-term setbacks and disappointments. I doubt Abinadi went to preach to King Noah because he thought it would make his life better.

 

Now if I found out Joseph Smith was making it up but there is still a God I would toss Mormonism and try to find a way to commune with God and find out His will. If I could not find Him or discovered he wasn't really reachable (something like pantheism for example) then I would just live the best I could and die.

 

All theoretical.....I am too convinced of God's existence and his presence behind the LDS faith based on experiences I have had. If I am tempted away it will be because I lose trust in God or no longer believe I can follow Him.

[Tiki]

So you tithe, live the WoW and the law of chastity, etc., because you're convinced that HF will "get you" if you don't? If so, do you think that your obedience is pleasing to HF on the basis that He Is holding your eternal family "hostage"?

He's not out "to get" us, as you know. We're all fallen and condemned already. He came to save us.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 ¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

It's beautifully taught in this Bible Video:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-10-028-jesus-teaches-of-being-born-again?category=bible-videos-the-life-of-jesus-christ〈=eng

[Calm]

"But mostly, the anonymous factor really sets off alarm bells for me. Every good person I have known or known of has felt the need to "stand for something" if they felt from God they needed to share a message With half the world. Even when someone blogs usually friends or family know who they are even if the world doesn't. "

Same here...I want to see the face of the man and see how his teachings bear fruit and how he intereacts with his followers, and most of all I want to see how he has transformed his life based on all this intimate knowledge of what is to come. Is he a man I can believe has seen God and been called by him.

That he remains completely hidden...even an interview that might have led to his voice being recognized I find it highly likely the answer is no. Especially given the biggest benefit to staying hidden is the confusion in fact checking that info he has given that could easily be fact checked....such as medical records at least of when he was admitted I believe.

[manofthecloth]

This thread seems to have turned the board upside down. It seems that many people who believe firmly in JS' prophetic visions are sure that this Spencer guy is a fraud and/or kook. In doing so, they are bringing up factual inaccuracies and scriptural inconsistencies in much the same way as people who have attacked JS over the years. What makes one so willing to believe that The Lord would give visions to a young farm boy in upstate NY and not Spencer? Is the difference a testimony from the Holy Spirit?

But what about the people who do receive a testimony of Spencer's truth? Or better yet, what about those of who receive a testimony of Mohammed, Krishna, L Ron Hubbard, etc.? What gives us such confidence that our testimonies are any more valid than theirs?

Isn't it possible that all of our "testimonies" are the result of our desire for them to be true? Those that are on Team Spence seem to WANT the Heavens to be open to more radical revelation from God. And those on Team Nutcase seem to be saying, "We had our last wilderness prophet in JS. From now on, HF is going to color inside the lines by working through those in priesthood authority." Now, I fall into Team Nutcase because I'm a natural skeptic. However, it seems that the "true Scotsman/Mormon" position would be to at least allow for the possibility of HF working through Spencer, just as He did through JS.

 

I really like this guy mormonNewb. He is upbeat without being offensive and he seems happy. I like the humor in the terms Team Spence and Team Nutcase. I think he gets his point across well.

[manofthecloth]

Oh, it is definitely talking about the Saints. More specifically those who profess to know the Lord but do not and blaspheme against the Lord. Basically like Spencer does by preaching lies and falsehoods while claiming a divine mandate. You know, those who practice priestcraft.

 

theNehorMan says "more specifically those who profess to know the Lord but do not and blaspheme against the Lord" etc but that's not what it says. It says "First among those among you" but it doesn't single them out only. It is us that will feel the wrath of God first (from my house) and from here He will pour out His wrath upon all flesh. Spencer saw this in the vision and he does not contradict any scripture or doctrine.

 

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. -- D&C 112:24-26