pogi Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) PogiBased on the historical track record of people relying on absolutes from their god that they think is universal, unchanging and omniscient I have no confidence in basing morals on the many Gods of the religions of the world. I wouldn't place too much confidence in mortals either. They are too inconsistent. I do give some confidence to those mortals (prophets) who's morals are more consistently aligned with what God has shown me personally, but I don't expect perfection on y part or theirs. There,is no such thing in the human religions of the world as an unchanging God. Based on my example above Jospeh Smith did not believe in such a god, You cannot say that there is no such thing as an unchanging God. You can only say that there is no such thing as an unchanging human or religion - which says nothing of God. Your example does not speak for God, it only speaks for Joseph. I never judge God by judging the actions of man. Not even the actions of the prophets. Here is how I view it:There is absolute truth, but no man can know it absolutely in this life, or define it in its wholeness. Imagine that absolute truth is a puzzle with nearly an infinite number of puzzle pieces. Each person has been given a few puzzle pieces and tries to interpret them. They fill in the gaps with culture etc. until they come up with a picture in their mind that makes sense to them. Their explanations will always fall short until they can perceive of the big picture and see how each piece corresponds and relates to each other piece. We will be judged based on what we have done with what we have been given. When we do our best with what we have, we will be given more and our perceptions will change and our perspective will be enhanced. Line upon line, and precept upon precept we progress until we see and know the puzzle absolutely. Edited March 22, 2015 by pogi
Sleeper Cell Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 PogiBased on the historical track record of people relying on absolutes from their god that they think is universal, unchanging and omniscient I have no confidence in basing morals on the many Gods of the religions of the world.There,is no such thing in the human religions of the world as an unchanging God. Based on my example above Jospeh Smith did not believe in such a god,Why wouldn’t your same argument apply to basing morals on societal norms or the philosophies of men? The historical track record of people relying on absolutes from those source is, to put it mildly, somewhat spotty.
rodheadlee Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 People make such determinisms based on societal norms.Who gets to define them when God says so? Unless he is here telling us you have to trust some untrustworthy human.Which society? The one in French Polynesia or the one in Saudi Arabia? 1
Stargazer Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 My absolute is this: God Lives, and He Created the Universe.
Teancum Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 My absolute is this: God Lives, and He Created the Universe. Doyou have any evidence of this?
Ahab Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 My absolute is this: God Lives, and He Created the Universe.Define "created" as you understand that term, please.
Thinking Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I believe absolutely that I will never receive as many reputation points as JLHPROF. 4
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 I believe absolutely that I will never receive as many reputation points as JLHPROF. I gave you one...you know, considering how much people disagree with me, both the TBM's and the NOM's, I am surprised to have any at all. 2
Gray Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I gave you one...you know, considering how much people disagree with me, both the TBM's and the NOM's, I am surprised to have any at all. But you're a gentleman, which counts for a lot
Tsuzuki Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) i do have this sinking feeling that Tsuzki, might like this thread. Oh, no. I'll lock it before it goes down that rabbit hole... And be careful - I hear if you say his name too many times he'll appear. :diablo: Tsuzki, Tsuzki, Tsuzki. I always enjoy his posts. as zanny as he is, he does bring up interesting points of view. and zanny is an understatement with him. So here is my question:What elements of your testimony and the teachings you believe and accept do you believe are absolute, not open for interpretation and unchangeable? "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." - D&C 93:30 Also this:"The distinguishing characteristic of a person is the possession of will, the power to accept or reject, to move or to stand still, to obey or to disobey. From the very beginning the being now known as man possessed a will, and by the operation of his will has reached his present condition. Above all other things, man is a will. If that be so, the training and use of the will is man's first concern."- Elder John A. Widtsoe, "Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" As a bit of trivia, the number 93 is Thelemic shorthand for "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Fitting that that section in the Doctrine and Covenants covers free agency. Edited June 7, 2015 by Tsuzuki
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) What does "absolute" mean? Does that word appear in all languages known to man, with its exact meaning? Can anyone describe anything which means the "same thing" in different cultures, considering distance in time and language and culture? Is it possible to translate anything perfectly? Is any human utterance perfect in every way? Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture.It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] However, Boas did not coin the term.The first use of the term recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary was by philosopher and social theorist Alain Locke in 1924 to describe Robert Lowie's "extreme cultural relativism", found in the latter's 1917 book Culture and Ethnology.[2] The term became common among anthropologists after Boas' death in 1942, to express their synthesis of a number of ideas Boas had developed. Boas believed that the sweep of cultures, to be found in connection with any sub species, is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between cultures and races.[3] Cultural relativism involves specific epistemological and methodological claims. Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. This principle should not be confused with moral relativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism That said, I believe 1+1=2 and A=A to be true in all cultures. Unfortunately they are trivial propositions. Edited June 8, 2015 by mfbukowski
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 My #1 absolute truth- I exist! Boy, are you in for a surprise.
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 If truth is unchanging, why do we have an open canon?Didn't we get it right the first time? 1
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 If truth is unchanging, why do we have an open canon?Didn't we get it right the first time? Because God is smart enough not to give us the answers to everything all at once.But that doesn't negate anything he has already revealed as being absolutely true. There are absolutes in the gospel. It is getting people to agree on them that is impossible. That's why this thread was created.
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Because God is smart enough not to give us the answers to everything all at once. But that doesn't negate anything he has already revealed as being absolutely true. There are absolutes in the gospel. It is getting people to agree on them that is impossible. That's why this thread was created. Fewf! how this gets complex, though. We have to accept all that has been revealed..."but be cautioned because that which is said to have been revealed might not have been revealed per se, it was included in scriptural writing as a mistake of man. But rest assured the ideas and teachings presented are true and from God." What ideas and teachings? All of that which is in scripture? "Well, no...probably not...there are probably some mistakes." Where does it end? How do we know which from scripture is good and useful, or true, and that which is not? "Spirit" And when someone deems the opposite of other via the Spirit? "rely on what's in scripture to guide you" Oh boy.
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Because God is smart enough not to give us the answers to everything all at once.But that doesn't negate anything he has already revealed as being absolutely true. There are absolutes in the gospel. It is getting people to agree on them that is impossible. That's why this thread was created.So why is it productive to do this exercise if no one can agree?Why is this better than a video game to be played over and over?
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 Fewf! how this gets complex, though. We have to accept all that has been revealed..."but be cautioned because that which is said to have been revealed might not have been revealed per se, it was included in scriptural writing as a mistake of man. But rest assured the ideas and teachings presented are true and from God." Which is why I'm more of a literalist than many on this board. That which God has revealed is true because God cannot lie. Unfortunately not everything attributed to God actually came from him. What ideas and teachings? All of that which is in scripture?"Well, no...probably not...there are probably some mistakes."Where does it end? How do we know which from scripture is good and useful, or true, and that which is not?I find nothing in scripture that is not good/useful/true. What I mean by that is where are these huge scriptural mistakes that lead us away from God and into false beliefs? I have never found any in the scriptures. "Spirit"And when someone deems the opposite of other via the Spirit?"rely on what's in scripture to guide you"Oh boy. Faith. Didn't realize faith was a bad thing to have. Other people's testimony (or lack of testimony, or anti-testimony) mean nothing to me. All that matters is what the spirit reveals to me. If others believe the spirit reveals the opposite to them that's their business.
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Polygamy?Blacks and the priesthood?Evolution?The Morality of mountain meadows?Alma 32? Moroni 10? Different answers?Where are the absolutes? 1
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Which is why I'm more of a literalist than many on this board. That which God has revealed is true because God cannot lie. Unfortunately not everything attributed to God actually came from him. I find nothing in scripture that is not good/useful/true. What I mean by that is where are these huge scriptural mistakes that lead us away from God and into false beliefs? I have never found any in the scriptures. Faith. Didn't realize faith was a bad thing to have. Other people's testimony (or lack of testimony, or anti-testimony) mean nothing to me. All that matters is what the spirit reveals to me. If others believe the spirit reveals the opposite to them that's their business.So then no absolutes, right??
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 So why is it productive to do this exercise if no one can agree?Why is this better than a video game to be played over and over? It's not "productive" - not supposed to produce any result other than discussion. It's interesting, and possibly educational.Every person on this board, (even the non-absolutists ), sticks to their way of thinking about the gospel and their approach and usually firmly defends it. They all have their beliefs as to what is true and what cannot be known as truth and what can be changed. Since religion is a system of theological beliefs expressing what you believe is true is bearing testimony. If you don't believe anything can be completely true you have no testimony of anything (except perhaps that nothing is true). I have many elements of the gospel I absolutely believe to be true and unchangeable. Curiosity about others beliefs breeds discussion. Is that productive? You get to decide if it is for you or not.
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 So how do you know what comes from God if testimony doesn't do it?
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 Polygamy?Blacks and the priesthood?Evolution?The Morality of mountain meadows?Alma 32? Moroni 10? Different answers?Where are the absolutes? So then no absolutes, right?? Of course there are. For me.Aren't there any for you? Isn't there a God and nothing can ever show there isn't?Didn't Christ die to pay the price for your sins and no future revelation could ever convince you otherwise? For me I absolutely believe polygamy and its connected revelation came from God and would not believe any claimed revelation or witness to the contrary.Others disagree, but they have their own absolutes.
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 So how do you know what comes from God if testimony doesn't do it?AND you believe in absolutes? That's not consistent!Is that important, or an absolute?
mfbukowski Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) OK so absolutes are relative.OK then never mind. Edited June 8, 2015 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts