mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Cannard, All revelation will be interpreted in the context of culture, bias, and personal experience. As people live in accordance with what they are given, humbly and honestly, regardless of how it is interpreted, they will be given more - line upon line. The fact that we may come to different conclusions is only evidence that we come from different backgrounds and experience. Until all of the variables of eternal truth are revealed to us, our understanding will evolve. As more is revealed, past revelations become more clear in the context of the whole. I have had revelations regarding eternal principles. As I am given new light, my understanding of previous truths evolve in the context of new light. Does this mean that those truths are unreliable because I interpret them differently over time? No, it means that my understanding of them is limited. Here is what I know. I am on the path that I am supposed to be on. God is pleased with my direction. People of other faiths have that same witness - I don't doubt their witness is from God. I don't have to. It works.Bravissimo!
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Until then, yes, we must label all phenomena non-spiritual.OR label them all spiritual.If matter is spirit and you are labelling ALL the same, it doesn't matter what term you use.Welcome to the church.
canard78 Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 Cannard,All revelation will be interpreted in the context of culture, bias, and personal experience. As people live in accordance with what they are given, humbly and honestly, regardless of how it is interpreted, they will be given more - line upon line. The fact that we may come to different conclusions is only evidence that we come from different backgrounds and experience. Until all of the variables of eternal truth are revealed to us, our understanding will evolve. As more is revealed, past revelations become more clear in the context of the whole. I have had revelations regarding eternal principles. As I am given new light, my understanding of previous truths evolve in the context of new light. Does this mean that those truths are unreliable because I interpret them differently over time? No, it means that my understanding of them is limited. Here is what I know. I am on the path that I am supposed to be on. God is pleased with my direction. People of other faiths have that same witness - I don't doubt their witness is from God. I don't have to. It works.I'll reply to this one, but also more generally to the thread. It seems I've been misunderstood. If so, that's my own fault for not communicating more clearly. I'm not saying spiritual experiences a useless. Quite the opposite. I think they are very useful. There is a difference between spiritual experiences being used to establish personal priorities, direction and values. Absolutely. I embrace the idea of God teaching and giving a personalised curriculum to 7billion people based on what is good and useful to them. But if that is the case, then it should be accepted that Mormonism is a part of that teaching kit. For example:Does God have a body, only a spirit or some other form that can't yet be conceived by the human mind.A spiritual witness of Mormonism being true might lead you to say that you know God lives and loves you. When you say that you might feel that this living and loving is done by male god, with a physical body, as described by Joseph Smith (who you also, by the way, know to be a true prophet). That spiritual witness and perspective of God might come from God (and I'm happy to believe that they do). But it doesn't mean that God really is a man, with a body. If God is behind all seven spiritual experiences mentioned above (and the millions others like them) then it shows that God teaches both that he has a body, and does not, that he is male, and is not, that infant baptism is required and it is not. While God might well be teaching both of these things, for whatever purpose these serve, this doesn't really establish whether he has a body or not. I'm not saying that knowing this is really what is important. We can't know it. We can have confidence in the beliefs we feel God has taught us. We can embrace and apply them and experience the joy it gives us. But... based on the reality that there is a vast diversity of spiritual experiences, all comparable in personal significance but vastly contradictory in certain aspects, we should accept and embrace the idea that Mormonism's fullness does not teach the history and future of the universe and the soul as they really are and will be and instead teaches things as a certain group of humans need to believe to assist them in what God wants them to be. Maybe God has neither a body not a spirit and no gender at all. Believing otherwise might be important or useful to the individual but doesn't make it actually so.
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Does it bother you when someone says they "know" something religious in nature? I know you did not ask me but I will respond. It does not bother me per say. I understand that they really don't know it the same way they know is say they dropped an anvil on their foot that is would fall and crush it. The thing that does bother me is they may THINK they know in that same way. But it does not bother me that much. Lide is tough. If it helps someone to think they know the this or that is the absolute truth so be it. Just as longs is it does not harm them or others.
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 I just wondered. I couldn't figure out another reason you would want to try to convince people who claim to know spiritual things that they don't really know them. Because those who claim to know really don't at least in the sense most people understand the phrase.
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 I think there is more than one reliable source of obtaining knowledge. Data, hard facts, tangible evidence are very valid ways, but have their limitations. Spiritual experiences and witness of the Spirit is another. I don't claim to know anything. I have faith in a lot of things. Having said that I think it would be very presumptuous of me or anyone else to discount others' testimony of "I know" simply because my own testimony is in the I strongly believe camp. In fact, there are people I know who I believe know not only that there is a God, but that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that Jesus is the Christ, that Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece today, etc. They didn't gain this testimony from hard facts, scientific analysis, data, or any other evidence that can be measured. We are supposed to have faith. But knowledge that relates to things beyond any "logical" measurement is also possible in my opinion. To discount it because we (general we) have not yet achieved it is arrogant. So if people claim to know and you dismiss it, that is pretty stupid and short-sided. Strong faith and relying on personal spiritual or metephysical experiences to strengthen that faith is fine. But it is not knowing and it is competely subjective to the individual and cannot be imparted to another. Feelings are not a reliable method for determining truth.
canard78 Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 Strong faith and relying on personal spiritual or metephysical experiences to strengthen that faith is fine. But it is not knowing and it is competely subjective to the individual and cannot be imparted to another. Feelings are not a reliable method for determining truth.Indeed. As mentioned in my post above, I'm not saying that spiritual feelings/intuition/gut instinct (call it what you will) are not useful. I'm saying they're not reliable.
pogi Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Cannard, Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good. We see dots on a screen (some have more than others) and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. That's how our minds work. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them. God is not giving us conflicting dots or puzzle pieces, we simply interpret then differently because of our limited perspective. There is a difference between spiritual experiences being used to establish personal priorities, direction and values. Absolutely. I embrace the idea of God teaching and giving a personalised curriculum to 7billion people based on what is good and useful to them.But if that is the case, then it should be accepted that Mormonism is a part of that teaching kit. Mormonism is more than just a part of the teaching kit, it is the great unifying factor of truth. If there is any truth in the world, we claim it. It is the glue which is attempting to connect all truth together into one great whole. Joseph Smith talked about this as a "welding" in the D&C. The remarkable and unparalleled vision of mormonism is completely comforting and edifying to know that I don't need to reject other peoples spiritual experiences. It acknowledges that divinity and truth can be seen everywhere, but also acknowledges that the reconciliation of all truth is a process. Our canon and doctrine is non-stagnant and we are a progressive church putting together all of the puzzle pieces out there. We will not stop until it is all complete, both in terms of truth and ordinance work. There is no church out there quite as ambitious and grand in scope as ours. It is all encompassing. There is nothing like it on earth. But... based on the reality that there is a vast diversity of spiritual experiences, all comparable in personal significance but vastly contradictory in certain aspects, we should accept and embrace the idea that Mormonism's fullness does not teach the history and future of the universe and the soul as they really are and will be and instead teaches things as a certain group of humans need to believe to assist them in what God wants them to be. "Mormonism's fullness" has yet to be seen. 1
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Indeed. As mentioned in my post above, I'm not saying that spiritual feelings/intuition/gut instinct (call it what you will) are not useful. I'm saying they're not reliable. Canard Thank you for this thread. You put many of my thoughts into words much better than I am able. I enjoy your participation here.
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Cannard, Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good. We see dots on a screen (some have more than others) and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. That's how our minds work. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them. God is not giving us conflicting dots or puzzle pieces, we simply interpret then differently because of our limited perspective. Mormonism is more than just a part of the teaching kit, it is the great unifying factor of truth. If there is any truth in the world, we claim it. It is the glue which is attempting to connect all truth together into one great whole. Joseph Smith talked about this as a "welding" in the D&C. The remarkable and unparalleled vision of mormonism is completely comforting and edifying to know that I don't need to reject other peoples spiritual experiences. It acknowledges that divinity and truth can be seen everywhere, but also acknowledges that the reconciliation of all truth is a process. Our canon and doctrine is non-stagnant and we are a progressive church putting together all of the puzzle pieces out there. We will not stop until it is all complete, both in terms of truth and ordinance work. There is no church out there quite as ambitious and grand in scope as ours. It is all encompassing. There is nothing like it on earth. "Mormonism's fullness" has yet to be seen. Yet this begs a question as to if God is really there why does he/she/it make it so very hard to really know what he/she/it wants and expects of us? Why some many variations most of which claim to the be God's best truth?
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Maybe God has neither a body not a spirit and no gender at all. Believing otherwise might be important or useful to the individual but doesn't make it actually so.What we need to realize is that there IS no "actually so" out there somewhere outside what God has revealed to us, THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW, THEREFORE THE QUEST FOR THE "ACTUALLY SO" IS FRUITLESS. It makes no difference in our lives. But this parallels astronomy for example. All we have for astronomical "observations" is what we THINK might have happened HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. All we get is light and radio waves etc which are in many cases, thousands or millions of years old. WE HAVE NO "ACTUALLY SO" IN ASTRONOMY. Many of the "stars" we think are there could have gone supernova hundreds of thousands of years ago. THIS IS A MODEL FOR ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. We can only know what we interpret the "data" to be- THERE IS NO MORE. So we are humans, and God reveals himself as a human. We worship the Most Ideal Being we can imagine, so we can become the absolute best Human Divine Beings we can. I think it's really pretty simple. But the key to understanding this is that indeed this is the best belief for humanity. We cannot do better, by definition. Edit: And we worry about the length of an Egyptian scroll?? Edited November 27, 2014 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Canard Thank you for this thread. You put many of my thoughts into words much better than I am able. I enjoy your participation here.Indeed- seconded!
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Yet this begs a question as to if God is really there why does he/she/it make it so very hard to really know what he/she/it wants and expects of us? Why some many variations most of which claim to the be God's best truth? What could you possibly mean by "really there"?? Is a given star "really there"? Is the pain in your toe or the love for your wife "really there"?
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Does God have a body, only a spirit or some other form that can't yet be conceived by the human mind. The point is that if he does we will never know it, so the idea becomes irrelevant. We need to deal with what is real, and what is real is all we can know, and put together the best interpretation we can put together. The best interpretation we can put together is that God is like us and we can become better- each of us can become infinitely better beings. THAT is the most useful belief we can have for our lives, and for our civilization. We cannot imagine a better belief than this- all humans in perfection, living in peace and love. The very concept DEFINES what we mean by "GOOD" In a sense Plato wins the ultimate prize. God IS the "IDEA" of Good after all. We define God by the way we define "good". He is the best Human we can imagine. Is He "real" then? Of course!!
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Indeed. As mentioned in my post above, I'm not saying that spiritual feelings/intuition/gut instinct (call it what you will) are not useful. I'm saying they're not reliable.For what?
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Because those who claim to know really don't at least in the sense most people understand the phrase.I agree.But the problem here is the way most people "understand the phrase" That is the tragedy of the educational system. People are uneducated in philosophy
canard78 Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 Cannard, It's one 'n' - as in French for Duck (not the English definition, which also has one 'n'). But anyway... Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good.We see dots on a screen (some have more than others) and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. That's how our minds work. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them. God is not giving us conflicting dots or puzzle pieces, we simply interpret then differently because of our limited perspective.We agree. Nicely articulated. Mormonism is more than just a part of the teaching kit, it is the great unifying factor of truth. If there is any truth in the world, we claim it. It is the glue which is attempting to connect all truth together into one great whole. Joseph Smith talked about this as a "welding" in the D&C. The remarkable and unparalleled vision of mormonism is completely comforting and edifying to know that I don't need to reject other peoples spiritual experiences. It acknowledges that divinity and truth can be seen everywhere, but also acknowledges that the reconciliation of all truth is a process. Our canon and doctrine is non-stagnant and we are a progressive church putting together all of the puzzle pieces out there. We will not stop until it is all complete, both in terms of truth and ordinance work. There is no church out there quite as ambitious and grand in scope as ours. It is all encompassing. There is nothing like it on earth. We disagree. If Mormonism embraced all spiritual experiences then is would be a funny beast indeed. Do you embrace the truth discovered in example 1 (see the full quotes on page 1)? He discovered the truth that infant baptism is divinely mandated. Mormonism teaches that Example 1, as a result of that thought, is going to hell:14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.Moroni 8:14http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=engSo did "example 1" get a witness from the spirit? Why would the spirit teach someone something that is going to cause them bitterness and damnation?In case you missed it:One day, I was sitting under a tree, thinking deeply. I was trying to recall some Bible verses on baptism and praying about a doubt that I had. Suddenly, a miracle happened to me. It was like a light that I could not exactly figure out. It shone on me and took away the doubt in my mind. It seemed that the darkness in my mind was lifted. The doctrine on infant baptism, which I could not at first accept, suddenly became very clear me. I could then accept it with my mind and heart. Since that incident, each time I read the Bible, that former opinion to oppose and the refusal to believe and accept were gone. Today I believe that infants must be baptized in order to be saved....Now I know and am confident that this is the end of my search for the whole truth. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for answering my prayer and giving me a sign. I have found the whole truth of my salvation. Glory be given to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!!"http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfHow is this experience more or less valid than this one:4) "I will never forget putting Moroni's challenge to the test. At 17 I read the Book of Mormon. But not only did I read it I thought about it's beautiful teachings of the Savior. I then prayed sincerely to my Heavenly Father. I asked him for that confirmation that the Book of Mormon was true. I will never forget the sweet, humbling answer that came. I knew my Heavenly Father loved me and I knew that Yes I can live with my family forever. ...I have a Savior. Forgiveness is real, it's tangible. It' for everyone! ...My testimony is real. It's mine, I have forged it out of the fire. It makes me really happy!!"http://mormon.org/clarkSo did Clark apply Moroni's promise and get a witness of the Book of Mormon that was a true witness? Was the verse (a few chapters earlier) about infant baptism the truth?Or perhaps it's option 3. God does not actually mind whether infants are baptised or not. Perhaps he recognises that some people live and love more effectively when they believe "paradigm A" and another when they believe "paradigm B." Neither are the reality but both are useful to the individual. How else do you reconcile this person being taught something by the spirit that Mormonism teaches is an evil principle. "Mormonism's fullness" has yet to be seen.Hmmm, indeed.
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 Cannard, Imagine God as a puzzle, with each piece representing a fruit of the spirit or manifestation of him. We each may hold different puzzle pieces at times, and thus have unique experiences and different perspectives of God. Thus, our overall experience of Him will differ from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. The problem is, we don't experience God as a whole, rather, line upon line, or piece by piece to fit my analogy. We fill in the gaps with the traditions of man. And so, call him by different names, use different rituals of worship, or claim contrasting doctrines, or deny him altogether. Yet, we all hold fundamental pieces in common that we recognize as good. We see dots on a screen (some have more than others) and fill in the spaces with something that makes sense to us, something that is familiar to us. That's how our minds work. In relation to God, we may misunderstand what the dots are really trying to show us and thus misunderstand them. God is not giving us conflicting dots or puzzle pieces, we simply interpret then differently because of our limited perspective. Mormonism is more than just a part of the teaching kit, it is the great unifying factor of truth. If there is any truth in the world, we claim it. It is the glue which is attempting to connect all truth together into one great whole. Joseph Smith talked about this as a "welding" in the D&C. The remarkable and unparalleled vision of mormonism is completely comforting and edifying to know that I don't need to reject other peoples spiritual experiences. It acknowledges that divinity and truth can be seen everywhere, but also acknowledges that the reconciliation of all truth is a process. Our canon and doctrine is non-stagnant and we are a progressive church putting together all of the puzzle pieces out there. We will not stop until it is all complete, both in terms of truth and ordinance work. There is no church out there quite as ambitious and grand in scope as ours. It is all encompassing. There is nothing like it on earth. "Mormonism's fullness" has yet to be seen.Absolutely the best post of the year, possibly the decade. This one needs to go up in lights, but the best I can do is give you a rep point. Pretty sad.
canard78 Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 Absolutely the best post of the year, possibly the decade. This one needs to go up in lights, but the best I can do is give you a rep point. Pretty sad. I thought the first half was brilliant. Given you want to argue that we can't know anything "as they really are" I'm not sure how you believe that Mormonism is the glue that holds it a together. We can't be any more sure of that than the question of infant baptism. If Mormonism is the glue and embraces all truth, why does it also teach that a certain belief consigns you to hell.
bluebell Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 I know you did not ask me but I will respond. It does not bother me per say. I understand that they really don't know it the same way they know is say they dropped an anvil on their foot that is would fall and crush it. The thing that does bother me is they may THINK they know in that same way. But it does not bother me that much. Lide is tough. If it helps someone to think they know the this or that is the absolute truth so be it. Just as longs is it does not harm them or others.I think I understand what you are saying. If I'm understanding correctly, it bothers me when someone has the attitude that "since I don't know something then obviously it can't be known."
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 It's one 'n' - as in French for Duck (not the English definition, which also has one 'n'). But anyway...We agree. Nicely articulated.We disagree.If Mormonism embraced all spiritual experiences then is would be a funny beast indeed.Do you embrace the truth discovered in example 1 (see the full quotes on page 1)? He discovered the truth that infant baptism is divinely mandated.Mormonism teaches that Example 1, as a result of that thought, is going to hell:Moroni 8:14http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=engSo did "example 1" get a witness from the spirit? Why would the spirit teach someone something that is going to cause them bitterness and damnation?In case you missed it:http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfHow is this experience more or less valid than this one:http://mormon.org/clarkSo did Clark apply Moroni's promise and get a witness of the Book of Mormon that was a true witness? Was the verse (a few chapters earlier) about infant baptism the truth?Or perhaps it's option 3. God does not actually mind whether infants are baptised or not. Perhaps he recognises that some people live and love more effectively when they believe "paradigm A" and another when they believe "paradigm B." Neither are the reality but both are useful to the individual.How else do you reconcile this person being taught something by the spirit that Mormonism teaches is an evil principle.Hmmm, indeed.Your assumption is that human experience "corresponds" to some realm outside of human experience which is "correct", so if experiences differ, one must be "right" and the other is not. That is not the case. The only reality we can know is human experience. Some experiences, we can all agree upon. If I look at a star chart, it predicts that a certain "star" (experienced by perhaps a radio signature or a blip of light) will appear at a certain point in the sky. That is a prediction of human experience we can all experience. It is cultural and linguistic. It has been written down in human culture and can be "verified" by all humanity, at least in principle. We call such communal experiences "objective" Those are the kind of experiences Additionally we all have private experiences We each individually cobble together line upon line, our own conceptions and interpretation not ABOUT the "facts" of the world, but how we INTERPRET those facts and create our own stories of how it all works and why we are here etc. We use our individual private experiences to weave that private world view. This includes how we were raised as children, what values we have, what culture we were born in, and what "makes sense" to us, all based upon individual learning. Your world view is unique to you- based on the accumulation of all the experiences you have had in your life, that THAT is the "filter" through which YOU perceive all your experiences. We say that "God teaches each of us the way we need to learn"- and indeed that is another way to say the above. So each of us gets the spiritual experience we need to get to enable us to move forward toward the lessons that all humanity eventually needs to learn, to become "better humans" or to become like God- same thing. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORAL OR RELIGIOUS STANDARDS because those "truths" are not objective truths. THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE TRUTHS for us individually to figure out for ourselves. There ARE standards which society has defined- or society will put you in jail because it cannot tolerate certain behaviors. But of course that is not the case for beliefs. EACH DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE BRINGS EACH INDIVIDUAL CLOSER to what THEY need to learn. If you have multiple kids, you know that each learns their own way and at their own pace, but eventually they reach adulthood, and if they are not what we call "sociopaths" they have learned pretty much the same stuff. Remember the old saying that "everything I needed to learn I learned in Kindergarten?" How to cooperate, not hit people, be nice, obey the rules, etc... Those rules, individually learned, eventually bring us closer to being a civilized being. Same with religious rules and explanations. We all learn at our own pace the rules we need One may need to learn that Ordinances or rituals are essential to us learning. So perhaps they get hung up a bit on Baptism. It must be done. That is rule number one. God teaches them that. Someone else already knows that, so God teaches them a modified point about baptism, to bring them farther down the path to Christ- that perhaps the MODE of baptism is not quite as important as the SPIRIT. etc The teachings appear contradictory, but each brings that particular individual closer to God. Is it "wrong" to kill other people? Yes. We all agree But how about wars? How about self- defense? How about stopping a murderer from killing someone else? How about capital punishment? Is abortion murder? Everyone has their own opinions about these. We are all "at" different points in learning on all these topics. There is no reason to believe it should be otherwise. We all learn at different rates and by our own experience about right and wrong. There is no objective standard from which we can judge this. Of course we would all have different impressions about this! Why is it a surprise?
bluebell Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Because those who claim to know really don't at least in the sense most people understand the phrase.I'm going to assume that you don't actually know this the way you claim you do. Edited November 27, 2014 by bluebell 1
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 I am quoting this so that I have it in front of me to answer each of your points My answer is of course my opinion on how I resolve my understanding of what I think causes you dissonance and why none of this bothers me one iota.Do you embrace the truth discovered in example 1 (see the full quotes on page 1)? He discovered the truth that infant baptism is divinely mandated.Mormonism teaches that Example 1, as a result of that thought, is going to hell:Moroni 8:14http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=engSo did "example 1" get a witness from the spirit? Why would the spirit teach someone something that is going to cause them bitterness and damnation?In case you missed it:http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfHow is this experience more or less valid than this one:http://mormon.org/clarkSo did Clark apply Moroni's promise and get a witness of the Book of Mormon that was a true witness? Was the verse (a few chapters earlier) about infant baptism the truth?Or perhaps it's option 3. God does not actually mind whether infants are baptised or not. Perhaps he recognises that some people live and love more effectively when they believe "paradigm A" and another when they believe "paradigm B." Neither are the reality but both are useful to the individual.How else do you reconcile this person being taught something by the spirit that Mormonism teaches is an evil principle.The individual had a problem reconciling Bible verses.That is a main clue for me. How could the Bible be teaching that all need baptism, yet so many do not receive baptism?That is a genuine conflict in the bible.God knew that he needed resolution. If he did not resolve the dissonance, he might stop believing all together. Your child is having trouble learning division, but shows a definite aptitude for math. The teacher's method is not working, You tach the child another method which works, but keeps the child on track toward wanting to learn more math.By resolving this one issue, his belief in Christ is saved, and gives him the opportunity to learn more.The BOM passage is a classic example of interpretations of the BOM which seem to validate Protestantism. That is a separate issue, but I have no problem with that, I ascribe that to Joseph's cultural heritage of Protestantism confusing his "translation" or revelation of the BOM. I have no problem with cultural factors influencing revelation- of course it does. We cannot separate ourselves from our culture. Today, it is pretty well know that Mormons do not believe in a "hell" of fire and brimstone, so I take that whole BOM passage as we see it today- not as what it literally says in a Protestant context. I see it as saying that those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs. No big deal. Clark's testimony? Pretty standard stuff to me. I like most of what Clark writes but he is too literalistic for me. We don't need machines to become superhumans but that is just my view.Or perhaps it's option 3. God does not actually mind whether infants are baptised or not. Perhaps he recognises that some people live and love more effectively when they believe "paradigm A" and another when they believe "paradigm B." Neither are the reality but both are useful to the individual.Yep I pretty much think that's it and guess what ? THAT'S MORMON DOCTRINE! If infants don't get baptized here, they get it in the next life. Eventually every knee will bow and tongue confess. We have eternities to grow into one view of the "truth" according to our faith. So pogi is right- ultimately Mormonism resolves all these questions in one view.
mfbukowski Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 If you are a drunk on skid row, The Salvation Army might be the "true church" you need now. If you are a philosophical Pragmatist, the COJCLDS is definitely the church for you. That's about all I know. But I do KNOW that is true.
Teancum Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 What could you possibly mean by "really there"?? Is a given star "really there"? Is the pain in your toe or the love for your wife "really there"? 1: By really there I mean is there a God? 2: Yes there is scientific evidence a star is really there. Yes the pain in my toe is real if I drop an anvil on it. Yes as a human we know that our emotions are real and love can be seen as activity in our brains on a brain scan.
Recommended Posts