An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[rockpond]

I think you forgot to link to the blog post.  

 

Details, details.

 

Thank you!  I've added it now.

[CV75]

I think all three of you are touching on important points.  The Prophet Joseph did not doubt his faith in God but he certainly doubted the religious teachings of his upbringing.

 

This blog post might be of interest to you... it offers a different approach to this subject stepping away a bit from the doubt-faith paradigm to instead discuss the "productive edges".  I really enjoyed the perspective.

 

https://medium.com/@ungewissen/wetlands-the-future-of-mormonism-f1c1b3b62256

How is that different from this (I understand "this subject" to be progress in developing a spiritual perspective):

“You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/2013/08/move-forward-in-faith?lang=eng&clang=eng

This of course presumes keeping the light one already possesses in the anticipation of more light.

Spiritual knowledge is often counter-intuitive to the natural mind and so represents a threat to survival. This is why the natural mind eschews it (see the parable of the talents), and undertakes to blend light and darkness (as in camouflage or concealment) and uses this as an advantage in pursuing the further entrenchment of the natural mind.

Edited February 17, 2015 by CV75

[bluebell]

Details, details.

 

Thank you!  I've added it now.

 

For what it's worth i read that blog about an hour (give or take) before you mentioned it here and i liked it.  It's an interesting perspective.  I did think that he purposefully misunderstood the basic way that most people of religion use the term 'the edge' in order to make his point though, which annoyed me.

[rockpond]

How is that different from this (I understand "this subject" to be progress in developing a spiritual perspective):

“You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/2013/08/move-forward-in-faith?lang=eng&clang=eng

This of course presumes keeping the light one already possesses in the anticipation of more light.

Spiritual knowledge is often counter-intuitive to the natural mind and so represents a threat to survival. This is why the natural mind eschews it (see the parable of the talents), and undertakes to blend light and darkness (as in camouflage or concealment) and uses this as an advantage in pursuing the further entrenchment of the natural mind.

 

I don't think it's different... I think those ideas go hand in hand.  Thanks for sharing that.

[rockpond]

For what it's worth i read that blog about an hour (give or take) before you mentioned it here and i liked it.  It's an interesting perspective.  I did think that he purposefully misunderstood the basic way that most people of religion use the term 'the edge' in order to make his point though, which annoyed me.

 

Can you elaborate on that for me?  How did he misunderstand that way most religious people use "the edge" terminology?

[bluebell]

Can you elaborate on that for me?  How did he misunderstand that way most religious people use "the edge" terminology?

 

I'll just copy/paste what I said about it on Facebook-

 

I like what he says (at lot), but at the same time, i think he's purposefully misunderstanding the way most people use the word edge to make a point. When most people talk about staying away from 'the edge' they are using the analogy of a cliff edge or some other dangerous precipice. They aren't talking about 'the edge' as a place of transition, like the edge of the colors red and orange on the rainbow (because everyone knows that all the really cool colors come from color edges. ) or the edge of an ecosystem. As parents, we would probably be very comfortable with, and even encourage, our kids exploring the edge of two ecosystems, but we would be negligent to allow our kids to explore the edge of a 300 foot drop-off.  Though the word is the same the two ideas people use the word to describe are not. So while i really really do like what he says about edges, i'm not sure how applicable it is when someone is talking about the "other" kind of edge.

[rockpond]

 

I'll just copy/paste what I said about it on Facebook-

 

I like what he says (at lot), but at the same time, i think he's purposefully misunderstanding the way most people use the word edge to make a point. When most people talk about staying away from 'the edge' they are using the analogy of a cliff edge or some other dangerous precipice. They aren't talking about 'the edge' as a place of transition, like the edge of the colors red and orange on the rainbow (because everyone knows that all the really cool colors come from color edges. ) or the edge of an ecosystem. As parents, we would probably be very comfortable with, and even encourage, our kids exploring the edge of two ecosystems, but we would be negligent to allow our kids to explore the edge of a 300 foot drop-off.  Though the word is the same the two ideas people use the word to describe are not. So while i really really do like what he says about edges, i'm not sure how applicable it is when someone is talking about the "other" kind of edge.

 

Good point. 

[CV75]

I don't think it's different... I think those ideas go hand in hand.  Thanks for sharing that.

Great! Using the ecosystem analogy, I think the following is an ideal habitat for diversity as compared to that toxic cesspool you linked to (LOL):

http://www.mormon.org/

“While our backgrounds and experiences are diverse, Mormons are united by a commitment to Jesus Christ. This site features members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sharing their stories and telling what their faith means to them.”

On an institutional scale, this kind of diversity-in-action is a key component to the council approach where the Lord reveals His will in very practical ways in eh practice of “pure religion and undefiled” to “visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” and “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

[rockpond]

Great! Using the ecosystem analogy, I think the following is an ideal habitat for diversity as compared to that toxic cesspool you linked to (LOL):

http://www.mormon.org/

“While our backgrounds and experiences are diverse, Mormons are united by a commitment to Jesus Christ. This site features members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sharing their stories and telling what their faith means to them.”

On an institutional scale, this kind of diversity-in-action is a key component to the council approach where the Lord reveals His will in very practical ways in eh practice of “pure religion and undefiled” to “visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” and “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

 

I've never really noticed much diversity of thought on Mormon.org.  And it really isn't a place conducive to discussion.

[CV75]

I've never really noticed much diversity of thought on Mormon.org.  And it really isn't a place conducive to discussion.

You haven’t noticed? The diversity of thought on Mormon.org is seen in the life experiences and perspectives of the contributors (thinkers) themselves, whose individual wherewithal is channeled into serving the Lord and changing the lives of His children for the better in innumerable ways. The unity generates a lot of edification among the diverse members and the councils of the Church, and this is very evident on Mormon.org.

I noticed that the website you linked to is hardly conducive to discussion (it’s a blog for one thing, and has but one comment for another, LOL!); the only references to the Lord are two snide references to “Smith’s God”; and the only reference to change is a call to change the Church. Nothing going on there.

[rockpond]

You haven’t noticed? The diversity of thought on Mormon.org is seen in the life experiences and perspectives of the contributors (thinkers) themselves, whose individual wherewithal is channeled into serving the Lord and changing the lives of His children for the better in innumerable ways. The unity generates a lot of edification among the diverse members and the councils of the Church, and this is very evident on Mormon.org.

I noticed that the website you linked to is hardly conducive to discussion (it’s a blog for one thing, and has but one comment for another, LOL!); the only references to the Lord are two snide references to “Smith’s God”; and the only reference to change is a call to change the Church. Nothing going on there.

 

Yes there are a lot of different life experiences and backgrounds.  But there isn't discussion on different perspectives, interpretations, understandings of the gospel and how it works in our lives.

 

I wasn't suggesting that the blog I linked was a good place for discussion either.  I think these boards are, which is why I'm here and not elsewhere.

[CV75]

Yes there are a lot of different life experiences and backgrounds.  But there isn't discussion on different perspectives, interpretations, understandings of the gospel and how it works in our lives.

 

I wasn't suggesting that the blog I linked was a good place for discussion either.  I think these boards are, which is why I'm here and not elsewhere.

Then I'm glad I provided a far superior source of information regarding the principle of walking in faith as we progress and expand the edge of a constantly upgrading spiritual ecosystem:

“You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.”

https://www.lds.org/...g=eng&clang=eng

[rockpond]

Then I'm glad I provided a far superior source of information regarding the principle of walking in faith as we progress and expand the edge of a constantly upgrading spiritual ecosystem:

 

LOL

Edited February 18, 2015 by rockpond

[The Nehor]

Personally I don't think I ask people of faith not to have faith.  Perhaps I am poor at expressing myself in writing.  Really what I want the person of faith to do is stop telling me that my way of seeking for truth is less noble, special, valiant, righteous, pious or whatever.

But what if it is?

[Teancum]

But what if it is?

It isn't

and thank you. You just proved my point.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

It isn't

and thank you. You just proved my point.

CFR that it isn't.

[CV75]

LOL

You indicated in your post above that these ideas are no different, that the analogy with light (“You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.”) and the analogy with ecological “productive edges” go hand in hand in promoting functional diversity in terms of spiritual life.

 

If the two concepts are no different, where is the diversity in that? Why did you use a link that disparages the Lord to demonstrate the principle (the snide remark made about Jesus and "Smith's God")? Why would links to content of the words of multiple apostles and hundreds/thousands of LDS posts on this concept represent less diverse thinking than one blogger?

[rockpond]

You indicated in your post above that these ideas are no different, that the analogy with light (“You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.”) and the analogy with ecological “productive edges” go hand in hand in promoting functional diversity in terms of spiritual life.

 

If the two concepts are no different, where is the diversity in that? Why did you use a link that disparages the Lord to demonstrate the principle (the snide remark made about Jesus and "Smith's God")? Why would links to content of the words of multiple apostles and hundreds/thousands of LDS posts on this concept represent less diverse thinking than one blogger?

 

They don't represent less diverse thinking than the blogger.  I was LOL'ing at your "far superior source" comment.  While scripture is always a superior source, the diversity of thought that we were discussing requires that one venture outside of the confines of LDS.org.  But that isn't to disparage LDS.org.  I love studying the scriptures and words of the prophets and apostles.  While not perfectly consistent, it's my goal to dive deep into those words of life every morning.

[CV75]

They don't represent less diverse thinking than the blogger.  I was LOL'ing at your "far superior source" comment.  While scripture is always a superior source, the diversity of thought that we were discussing requires that one venture outside of the confines of LDS.org.  But that isn't to disparage LDS.org.  I love studying the scriptures and words of the prophets and apostles.  While not perfectly consistent, it's my goal to dive deep into those words of life every morning.

But we were talking about perspectives and approaches to developing spiritually beneficial knowledge and how “diversity of thought” plays into that. Any new experience introduces an element of diversity; some experience seemingly comes by chance, some by the Lord’s design, and some by His enemies; in any case most often we seek it out.

 

Of course the Lord speaks to us through diverse media (for example the scriptures and LDS.org), as does His adversary; His media shine through the adversary’s. How does the content of your link, which jokes about the Lord, fit into the requirement (your word) to expand one’s beneficial “diversity of thought” – by providing opposition? That is precisely why the Lord’s media are the superior sources!

[rockpond]

But we were talking about perspectives and approaches to developing spiritually beneficial knowledge and how “diversity of thought” plays into that. Any new experience introduces an element of diversity; some experience seemingly comes by chance, some by the Lord’s design, and some by His enemies; in any case most often we seek it out.

 

Of course the Lord speaks to us through diverse media (for example the scriptures and LDS.org), as does His adversary; His media shine through the adversary’s. How does the content of your link, which jokes about the Lord, fit into the requirement (your word) to expand one’s beneficial “diversity of thought” – by providing opposition? That is precisely why the Lord’s media are the superior sources!

 

I didn't say that the blog post I linked to was perfect.  I didn't even say that it was necessarily for spiritual edification.  I said that it was an interesting perspective.

 

If you were offended by it, I apologize.

[CV75]

I didn't say that the blog post I linked to was perfect.  I didn't even say that it was necessarily for spiritual edification.  I said that it was an interesting perspective.

 

If you were offended by it, I apologize.

I don't think "offended" would be the word, but no need to apologize for an otherwise negative reaction--my take on the discussion (at the point where I jumped in) was that it was about the role of diversity of thought in spiritual edification.

[Teancum]

CFR that it isn't.

 

 

Now you are simply trolling. If at some point mature intellectual and reasonable discourse is of interest to you instead of childish imbecilic posts are of interest to you let me know.

[rockpond]

I don't think "offended" would be the word, but no need to apologize for an otherwise negative reaction--my take on the discussion (at the point where I jumped in) was that it was about the role of diversity of thought in spiritual edification.

 

Yes, I did think it was about the role of diversity of thought in spiritual edification.

[The Nehor]

Now you are simply trolling. If at some point mature intellectual and reasonable discourse is of interest to you instead of childish imbecilic posts are of interest to you let me know.

Unless you are willing to answer my CFR I would ask you to withdraw the statement,

I have ant interest in both mature and intellectual discourse and childish imbecility. It is when one is masquerading as the other that I get snarky. Well.....one of reasons I get snarky. I have lots of them.