Interesting Seminar Tomorrow In Claremont Ca

[mfbukowski]

There will be seminar tomorrow, Wenesday the 8th, at the Claremont School of Theology which promises to be quite interesting for any interested in process theology.  I am planning on attending if I can, and will "return and report" if indeed I can get over there.

 

The topic is "Christ as Creative Transformation of John B. Cobb Jr. & Christophany of Raimon Panikkar"

http://www.ctr4process.org/news-events/activities/Seminar%20Kalloor%20Oct%202014.pdf

 

Why would this be interesting for an LDS audience?

 

Arguably LDS thought is highly compatible with process theology, which sees God's relation to mankind as of prime importance.  We know that in certain ways God progresses, and we as humans progress, or at least that is our goal.  We know that through our faithfulness we can be transformed to be like Christ, and even God himself.

 

I suppose this seminar will be about different ways we can envision those ideas, especially more in harmony with a "secular" approach to philosophical issues.

 

Should we worry about being in harmony with secular thought?

 

I think it is clear that we need at least to be able to communicate and understand these concepts, even if our LDS views differ in important ways.  Don Bradley recently posted a thread about Ann Taves, and this is in the same vein.

 

I hope to see someone from the board there.  I will be the ugly guy in the back row. 

 

There will also be a live video feed, so all could view who are interested.

 

Here is a link to their video library  http://videocenter.cst.edu/videos/channel/50/

Edited October 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

There will be seminar tomorrow, Wenesday the 8th, at the Claremont School of Theology which promises to be quite interesting for any interested in process theology.  I am planning on attending if I can, and will "return and report" if indeed I can get over there.

 

The topic is "Christ as Creative Transformation of John B. Cobb Jr. & Christophany of Raimon Panikkar"

http://www.ctr4process.org/news-events/activities/Seminar%20Kalloor%20Oct%202014.pdf

 

Why would this be interesting for an LDS audience?

 

Arguably LDS thought is highly compatible with process theology, which sees God's relation to mankind as of prime importance.  We know that in certain ways God progresses, and we as humans progress, or at least that is our goal.  We know that through our faithfulness we can be transformed to be like Christ, and even God himself.

 

I suppose this seminar will be about different ways we can envision those ideas, especially more in harmony with a "secular" approach to philosophical issues.

 

Should we worry about being in harmony with secular thought?

 

I think it is clear that we need at least to be able to communicate and understand these concepts, even if our LDS views differ in important ways.  Don Bradley recently posted a thread about Ann Taves, and this is in the same vein.

 

I hope to see someone from the board there.  I will be the ugly guy in the back row. 

 

There will also be a live video feed, so all could view who are interested.

 

Here is a link to their video library  http://videocenter.cst.edu/videos/channel/50/

 

Gasp...! So your avatar is you? I am so sorry...Hehehe. Well anyway, Its in the neighborhood for Mr. Feser. Should I send him your picture so you two can sit together, compare notes?

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................   

Arguably LDS thought is highly compatible with process theology, which sees God's relation to mankind as of prime importance.  We know that in certain ways God progresses, and we as humans progress, or at least that is our goal.  We know that through our faithfulness we can be transformed to be like Christ, and even God himself.

I consider it less a transformation that a realization of our essential nature "to be like Christ, and even God himself."

 

I suppose this seminar will be about different ways we can envision those ideas, especially more in harmony with a "secular" approach to philosophical issues.

 

Should we worry about being in harmony with secular thought?

Since there is no true difference between sacred and secular, perhaps we merely need to see or understand how much such terms are aspects of a full conceptual spectrum.

......................................................................................

Thanks for letting us know about this.  When I lived in Southern California, I used to enjoy regular attendance at such symposia.

[mfbukowski]

Gasp...! So your avatar is you? I am so sorry...Hehehe. Well anyway, Its in the neighborhood for Mr. Feser. Should I send him your picture so you two can sit together, compare notes?

Actually I picked a Picasso self portrait exactly because his art was completely about transforming the way we see both things and art itself, and yet that portrait still looks enough like a person that it would not be too totally weird for those who do not understand his art. It is kind of the perfect mixture of milk and meat to communicate to both sets of people.

And yes it would not be a bad drive for Feser, but I don't think it's quite his cup of tea.

If you hear a scuffle in the back row, you will know he showed up after all

Incidentally, Blake Ostler considers himself a process theologian. I'm not making this stuff up.http://www.blakeostler.com/theology.html

[mfbukowski]

I consider it less a transformation that a realization of our essential nature "to be like Christ, and even God himself."

Since there is no true difference between sacred and secular, perhaps we merely need to see or understand how much such terms are aspects of a full conceptual spectrum.

Thanks for letting us know about this. When I lived in Southern California, I used to enjoy regular attendance at such symposia.

Agree on all points, it's just words getting in the way.

I have trouble deciding how far I can take the language for an LDS audience. Always have.

Repentance IS transformation, and we can speak of becoming saviors on mount Zion but if you say that we can have Christophany by transforming and perfecting our Consciousnes that gets raised eyebrows and no one listens.

I have seen that again and again; as long as I speak LDS lingo I get rep points, but in my opinion, some of my best posts have gotten zip because I used process vocabulary.

I'm just trying to learn to communicate it to an LDS audience. Ostler is very good at it, but doesn't take it far enough imo.

Edited October 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Agree on all points, it's just words getting in the way.

I have trouble deciding how far I can take the language for an LDS audience. Always have.

Repentance IS transformation, and we can speak of becoming saviors on mount Zion but if you say that we can have Christophany by transforming and perfecting our Consciousnes that gets raised eyebrows and no one listens.

I have seen that again and again; as long as I speak LDS lingo I get rep points, but in my opinion, some of my best posts have gotten zip because I used process vocabulary.

I'm just trying to learn to communicate it to an LDS audience. Ostler is very good at it, but doesn't take it far enough imo.

Simple language works best on me, FYI.

I'm not a Frasier Crane type and don't want to be.

Oh, and now back to the point of the OP.

Is it basically about how to become like Jesus, and our Father?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Simple language works best on me, FYI.

I'm not a Frasier Crane type and don't want to be.

Oh, and now back to the point of the OP.

Is it basically about how to become like Jesus, and our Father?

Essentially that is what it is about I think, though of course I have not heard the talk yet.

 

The speaker is an East Indian Catholic priest and theologian, so he sees philosophy from an Eastern perspective, with Hindu influences.  The basic view as I understand it so far is that Christ dwells within our hearts and as we use Him as an ideal, through "creative transformation"- or using our hearts mind and will to change ourselves, we change our very beings into being Christlike.

 

I think that is essentially the idea.

 

But now it appears that I will have to watch the video- I have gotten swamped with work and probably will not be able to drive out there- about 30 miles or so, 60 round trip in LA rush hour traffic, which lasts from about 3 pm to 7 pm.  Very time consuming, it could be easily 2 hours driving time total.

[Ahab]

Essentially that is what it is about I think, though of course I have not heard the talk yet.

The speaker is an East Indian Catholic priest and theologian, so he sees philosophy from an Eastern perspective, with Hindu influences. The basic view as I understand it so far is that Christ dwells within our hearts and as we use Him as an ideal, through "creative transformation"- or using our hearts mind and will to change ourselves, we change our very beings into being Christlike.

I think that is essentially the idea.

But now it appears that I will have to watch the video- I have gotten swamped with work and probably will not be able to drive out there- about 30 miles or so, 60 round trip in LA rush hour traffic, which lasts from about 3 pm to 7 pm. Very time consuming, it could be easily 2 hours driving time total.

Sounds more like the basic idea I followed before becoming a member of the Church, before I got the gift, then.

Just trying to be like the best kind of person that I could imagine, modifying the ideas that I could imagine as I got better ideas. The premise was that if I could eventually become that kind of person, however long it would take, then I would essentially be the best kind of person there is. The same kind of person as Jesus and our Father, essentially

The gift is helping things to work out much better for me now though because my imagination was getting me in some trouble.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds more like the basic idea I followed before becoming a member of the Church, before I got the gift, then.

Just trying to be like the best kind of person that I could imagine, modifying the ideas that I could imagine as I got better ideas. The premise was that if I could eventually become that kind of person, however long it would take, then I would essentially be the best kind of person there is. The same kind of person as Jesus and our Father, essentially

The gift is helping things to work out much better for me now though because my imagination was getting me in some trouble.

So the reason it is valuable to understand the similarities between the LDS view and the view of say, this Indian priest, is that if eventually he can see our point as being, despite semantic differences and jargon, as basically the same as ours, that could be an avenue to gaining many converts.

 

So that is my goal in discussing humanism and even atheism with their proponents- once we can speak their language, we can show them that we are not all that different from them, and that as people we all have the same needs.  Many atheists for example, have an innate desire to be the best human beings they can be.  We would call that the Light of Christ pushing them forward, they would see it as a desire to improve society, or save the whales or whatever.

 

Once they know that we also want humanity to become the best we can be ("becoming a zion society") we have common ground.

 

Their understanding of God is like a spirit without body, parts, or passions- and THAT is what they do not believe, and why they are atheists.

 

But if they understood God as we do- as a being infinitely perfected, but yet with a basic humanity and therefore a human nature, we would be another step closer to helping them believe as we do.

 

Perhaps as an intermediate step they could worship the idea of an "Ideal Human" who acts perfectly to do all things that are best in humanity to a perfect degree.  At first they may worship the ideal only, but as they develop a testimony, they will learn that indeed God is not only a "perfect ideal" but indeed Our Father, the Man of Holiness.

 

And that is why I think it is important to first understand these other ideas, and then speak their language, and finally to explain ourselves to them using their terminology so they see us for what we are.

[Ahab]

Sounds good to me, mski. I don't know that we need to necessarily learn their terminology though, or only their words. I think the goal should be to simply get the basic idea across while they use whatever words they want to for those ideas.

They don't even need to use the word or name/title "God" as long as they understand who we are referring to as our Father/father/fathers/ancestors.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds good to me, mski. I don't know that we need to necessarily learn their terminology though, or only their words. I think the goal should be to simply get the basic idea across while they use whatever words they want to for those ideas.

They don't even need to use the word or name/title "God" as long as they understand who we are referring to as our Father/father/fathers/ancestors.

We need to know their language for the same reasons we send missionaries to the MTC to learn languages.

 

If we want to remain an obscure small church, we don't need them at all.  If we want to convert them, we better be able to talk to them on their terms.  It's that simple.

[Robert F. Smith]

So the reason it is valuable to understand the similarities between the LDS view and the view of say, this Indian priest, is that if eventually he can see our point as being, despite semantic differences and jargon, as basically the same as ours, that could be an avenue to gaining many converts.

..........................................................................................  

 

And that is why I think it is important to first understand these other ideas, and then speak their language, and finally to explain ourselves to them using their terminology so they see us for what we are.

Meantime, you will sound like a heretic to ordinary Mormons.  However, it is a noble endeavor, and well-worth the effort.  In fact, you may be the only Mormon capable of bridging that gap -- not only because others don't even know about the gap, but because you actually understand it and can engage the non-Mormon intellectual community.  Wish I had your depth of understanding.

[Ahab]

We need to know their language for the same reasons we send missionaries to the MTC to learn languages.

If we want to remain an obscure small church, we don't need them at all. If we want to convert them, we better be able to talk to them on their terms. It's that simple.

Translation is the key then.

Exalted = being the best we can be.

Gospel = good news about how to be the best we can be.

Savior = role model/guy who did it and can help to teach us how we can do what he did too.

God = our Father/father/fathers/ancestors/origin/alpha/finale/omega/the kind of being we are and the kind we will always be whether we are as good as the best of our ancestors like our Father or as bad as we can be like the guy we call Satan

Heck we could even stop using our terminology entirely and use their own words to teach them what we're trying to teach them.

[mfbukowski]

Meantime, you will sound like a heretic to ordinary Mormons.  However, it is a noble endeavor, and well-worth the effort.  In fact, you may be the only Mormon capable of bridging that gap -- not only because others don't even know about the gap, but because you actually understand it and can engage the non-Mormon intellectual community.  Wish I had your depth of understanding.

Goodness Thanks for the wonderful complement!

[mfbukowski]

Translation is the key then.

Exalted = being the best we can be.

Gospel = good news about how to be the best we can be.

Savior = role model/guy who did it and can help to teach us how we can do what he did too.

God = our Father/father/fathers/ancestors/origin/alpha/finale/omega/the kind of being we are and the kind we will always be whether we are as good as the best of our ancestors like our Father or as bad as we can be like the guy we call Satan

Heck we could even stop using our terminology entirely and use their own words to teach them what we're trying to teach them.

You have it! And those are very good suggestions. Maybe my posts will be clearer to you now

[Calm]

I like the others, but I think God is confusing and if used as "our species", should be also have an alternate definition as "the very, very, very best of us".

 

I would disagree about including Satan under God as too confusing and use something else for him, if you want to include him "currently ruler/rolemodel of those who give into their worst natures" or something like that.

[Teancum]

There will be seminar tomorrow, Wenesday the 8th, at the Claremont School of Theology which promises to be quite interesting for any interested in process theology.  I am planning on attending if I can, and will "return and report" if indeed I can get over there.

 

The topic is "Christ as Creative Transformation of John B. Cobb Jr. & Christophany of Raimon Panikkar"

http://www.ctr4process.org/news-events/activities/Seminar%20Kalloor%20Oct%202014.pdf

 

Why would this be interesting for an LDS audience?

 

Arguably LDS thought is highly compatible with process theology, which sees God's relation to mankind as of prime importance.  We know that in certain ways God progresses, and we as humans progress, or at least that is our goal.  We know that through our faithfulness we can be transformed to be like Christ, and even God himself.

 

 

  Did not at least McConkie argue that the idea God progresses is heresy?

[Ahab]

I like the others, but I think God is confusing and if used as "our species", should be also have an alternate definition as "the very, very, very best of us".

I would disagree about including Satan under God as too confusing and use something else for him, if you want to include him "currently ruler/rolemodel of those who give into their worst natures" or something like that.

All of that should be taught and understood when contemplating what God is, though. Some might prefer to think in terms of "sometimes a God-person can be an evil God-person" or "some Gods/gods are evil", but with God understood as a reference to an entire species, it should be easier to understand the truth that some of that species are good and some of that species are evil.

So it's not so much that it's false when Satan refers to himself as God. It's just that he is an evil God-person, especially when he tries to confuse people into believing that he is the very, very, very best of us, or our kind of being.

[Robert F. Smith]

All of that should be taught and understood when contemplating what God is, though. Some might prefer to think in terms of "sometimes a God-person can be an evil God-person" or "some Gods/gods are evil", but with God understood as a reference to an entire species, it should be easier to understand the truth that some of that species are good and some of that species are evil.

So it's not so much that it's false when Satan refers to himself as God. It's just that he is an evil God-person, especially when he tries to confuse people into believing that he is the very, very, very best of us, or our kind of being.

That might be O.K., as long as we understand this generic "god"-concept in light of biblical bnei 'el "sons of God" being "gods" in that sense.  But also simultaneously understanding that some members of God's retinue could end up being ejected from the celestial realm for rebellion.  This doesn't leave Satan and his retinue in an enviable situation simply because their interim power will abruptly end, power only temporarily allowed through the  suffrance of God.  Because, of course, there must be opposition in all things.  A universal law.

[Yirgacheffe]

Essentially that is what it is about I think, though of course I have not heard the talk yet.

 

The speaker is an East Indian Catholic priest and theologian, so he sees philosophy from an Eastern perspective, with Hindu influences.  The basic view as I understand it so far is that Christ dwells within our hearts and as we use Him as an ideal, through "creative transformation"- or using our hearts mind and will to change ourselves, we change our very beings into being Christlike.

 

I think that is essentially the idea.

 

But now it appears that I will have to watch the video- I have gotten swamped with work and probably will not be able to drive out there- about 30 miles or so, 60 round trip in LA rush hour traffic, which lasts from about 3 pm to 7 pm.  Very time consuming, it could be easily 2 hours driving time total.

So did you watch the video?

[Ahab]

That might be O.K., as long as we understand this generic "god"-concept in light of biblical bnei 'el "sons of God" being "gods" in that sense. But also simultaneously understanding that some members of God's retinue could end up being ejected from the celestial realm for rebellion. This doesn't leave Satan and his retinue in an enviable situation simply because their interim power will abruptly end, power only temporarily allowed through the suffrance of God. Because, of course, there must be opposition in all things. A universal law.

Yes, with the point being to help people who don't know to understand that the word/name "God" refers to a species/kind of being and that ALL "people" are that kind of being, whether in a mortal or immortal stage and whether their/our behavior is good or evil, with the word/name often also used by us/LDS to refer to "our" Father who lives out there in heaven/outer space and is our ideal of the very, very, very best that our kind of being is and can be.

Just basic and simple ideas about what "God" is.

[mfbukowski]

  Did not at least McConkie argue that the idea God progresses is heresy?

No, just that He does not progress in knowledge.  God progresses through his children adding to his kingdoms.

[Ahab]

No, just that He does not progress in knowledge. God progresses through his children adding to his kingdoms.

I used to wonder if he gained more knowledge by having more children and getting to know each one, since children have their own personalities and some could maybe be entirely different than the personalities of his other children, but later I realized that idea was flawed. After billions and billions of children he's already seen it all.

[Ahab]

No, just that He does not progress in knowledge. God progresses through his children adding to his kingdoms.

I used to wonder if he gained more knowledge by having more children and getting to know each one, since children have their own personalities and some could maybe be entirely different than the personalities of his other children, but later I realized that idea was flawed. After billions and billions of children he's already seen it all.

[mfbukowski]

I like the others, but I think God is confusing and if used as "our species", should be also have an alternate definition as "the very, very, very best of us".

 

I would disagree about including Satan under God as too confusing and use something else for him, if you want to include him "currently ruler/rolemodel of those who give into their worst natures" or something like that.

Well Teilhard de Chardin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin invented the idea of an "omega point" - and the idea became popular in movies like The Omega Man, etc that the universe itself was a conscious entity which is evolving toward a kind of perfection which is really close to our idea of exaltation, or more like the idea that the Celestial Kingdom will be a perfected earth which is an urimm and thummim along with OUR version of the earth being a spiritual entity which needed to be baptized etc on the way to its perfection.

 

But that is just a step away from the idea that mankind is "evolving" / progressing/ becoming/transforming toward becoming Gods, at least for those who take on the task of perfecting themselves.

 

So for evolutionists, I think it would be easy to convey this idea of an "omega point", and certainly for intelligent design folks to see that of course as well.  A design implies a designer and therefore a purpose.

 

There is even an interesting book I am now reading by Thomas Nagel called "Mind and Cosmos" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos which relates directly to this point as well.  Here you have an atheist arguing against BOTH Darwinian evolution AND intelligent design who provides us with secular arguments in favor of our position, or something so close the differences can be seen as strictly semantic.

 

Nagel is fascinating because he is an atheist of sorts whose arguments are all used by theists, much to his chagrin.  He has a totally philosophical understanding of consciousness, and like Rorty, in my opinion is about as close as one can be to a Mormon position without getting dunked. 

 

It's really kind of a shame to see all these folks so close to us, and not even seeing the parallels, or at least not willing to admit them.