mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Thanks, mfbukowsi. That is my point. My *only* point (I'm looking at you Mr. Avatar!). Also, I understand how the use of language needs to change to meet the times. But as this thread illustrates, there are disparate views on this question and if we still publish the words of Joseph and JSF, I'm sure we can find an appropriate place to make things more clear. We Mormons are weird. Let's own it!!Yeah, I agree with that as well. We don't know what we have and are afraid to go ____ to the wall if you catch my subtle drift. Imagine if we could convince humanists that the idea that a perfected human runs this world is tremendously beneficial, and that those looking for secular religion are believers in Alma 32! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/opinion/religion-without-god.html?_r=0 Moreover, these rituals work, if by “work” we mean that they change people’s sense of their lives. It turns out that saying that you are grateful makes you feel grateful. Saying that you are thankful makes you feel thankful. To a world so familiar with the general unreliability of language, that may seem strange. But it is true.In a study in which undergraduates were assigned to write weekly either about things they were grateful or thankful for; hassles; or “events or circumstances that affected you in the past week,” those who wrote about gratitude felt better about their lives as a whole, and were more optimistic about the coming week. There have now been many such studies.Religion is fundamentally a practice that helps people to look at the world as it is and yet to experience it — to some extent, in some way — as it should be. Much of what people actually do in church — finding fellowship, celebrating birth and marriage, remembering those we have lost, affirming the values we cherish — can be accomplished with a sense of God as metaphor, as story, or even without any mention of God at all.Yet religion without God may be more poignant. Atheists trust in human relations, not supernatural ones, and humans are not so good at delivering the world as it should be. Perhaps that is why we are moved by Christmas carols, which conjure up the world as it can be and not the world we know. Suppose these atheists who "trust in human relations" would actually pray and find that God is a glorified Human and that human relations ARE relationships with God. In other words, let them get a testimony! NOW THAT would be getting somewhere!! Edited June 17, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Oh and just to make sure that my TBM credentials are up to date, the reason "the belief that a glorified human runs this world is beneficial" is that the said glorified Human is indeed God, who wants us as his children, to believe this. Just in case.
sethpayne Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Are you talking about publishing it or just talking about it? Q directed at me? I think there would be appropriate ways to do respectfully and appropriately within both venues.
Duncan Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 One thing to remember is this scripture DC 63:64 "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." 3
Stargazer Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 I heard you say that. I'm just wondering what you think the statement that speaks for itself is saying. Because to me, it's as vague and clouded as most statements from LDS authorities when ti comes to the question of whether they have seen Christ. Matthew 26:62-64:62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Now, Stemelbow, is "Thou hast said" vague or clear? Elder Packer, in his last, and possibly very last general conference address, made a statement about his witness of the Lord, and he was just about as vague. So, did he see the Lord, or not? The thing that I note, is that in Elder Packer's April 1971 conference talk he in fact echoes what those of you who are complaining he's being vague, when he indicates that some will ask "Cannot the Apostles say more?" If the Spirit doesn't bear record to you on the subject, then there we are. What else is there to say? 2
maxrep12 Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 i've never claimed Elder Nelson saw or claimed to see Jesus, just that his autobiography suggests he had the 2A. Maybe he has or hasn't. I can't say that I have ever talked to anyone outside the church about who has seen Christ.This is the second time you have made statements that only allow the option that people do see Christ. You feel comfortable doing that here. Try that with your peers. Let us know how it goes.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Matthew 26:62-64: Now, Stemelbow, is "Thou hast said" vague or clear? Elder Packer, in his last, and possibly very last general conference address, made a statement about his witness of the Lord, and he was just about as vague. So, did he see the Lord, or not? The thing that I note, is that in Elder Packer's April 1971 conference talk he in fact echoes what those of you who are complaining he's being vague, when he indicates that some will ask "Cannot the Apostles say more?" If the Spirit doesn't bear record to you on the subject, then there we are. What else is there to say?Absolutely right! And even if he BELIEVES he saw the savior- did he "really" or was it wishful thinking or a hallucination, dream etc? There is no end to ways of doubting personal testimonies and only one way to confirm them, as you have said so well. 1
stemelbow Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Matthew 26:62-64: Now, Stemelbow, is "Thou hast said" vague or clear? Elder Packer, in his last, and possibly very last general conference address, made a statement about his witness of the Lord, and he was just about as vague. So, did he see the Lord, or not? The thing that I note, is that in Elder Packer's April 1971 conference talk he in fact echoes what those of you who are complaining he's being vague, when he indicates that some will ask "Cannot the Apostles say more?" If the Spirit doesn't bear record to you on the subject, then there we are. What else is there to say? If he had said, in his last conference talk, Their words are my words, I too have seen the Lord, then we'd have something definitive. As of now, we have personal subjective opinion on the matter. Along with MfBukowski suggested it could be that his witness that which he's experienced is as good as seeing the Lord.
Stargazer Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 If he had said, in his last conference talk, Their words are my words, I too have seen the Lord, then we'd have something definitive. As of now, we have personal subjective opinion on the matter. Along with MfBukowski suggested it could be that his witness that which he's experienced is as good as seeing the Lord. Not very good at discerning irony when you see it, are you?
ERayR Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 What difference would it make to hear them affirm they had talked with the Savior face to face? You would still have to receive your own assurance of their word. 2
stemelbow Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 What difference would it make to hear them affirm they had talked with the Savior face to face? You would still have to receive your own assurance of their word.Sure. Makes ya wonder why, if they have seen Him, what the big deal is about telling people they have.
ERayR Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Sure. Makes ya wonder why, if they have seen Him, what the big deal is about telling people they have.Not me. I recognize it as being a deeply personal experience. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Not me. I recognize it as being a deeply personal experience.That answer is a cop-out. It may be a personal experience for most people but as one called to testify of Christ throughout the entire world it seems counterproductive for a special witness not to witness because it's "just too personal."
MiserereNobis Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 It's interesting that in Catholic history, there are many many many stories of Jesus and Mary and saints visited people. We don't see it as something sacred to be held back, but something faith promoting to be put forward. Sometimes the visitations are for a personal purpose and sometimes they are to announce something to the world (Fatima, for example). Sometimes they are to start new orders (Jesus speaking to St. Francis). No one sees the Pope has having had to receive a visitation to be Pope. 2
Tacenda Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 That answer is a cop-out.It may be a personal experience for most people but as one called to testify of Christ throughout the entire world it seems counterproductive for a special witness not to witness because it's "just too personal."I sure could use some concrete witnessing, something more then just feeling the spirit..from apostles.
Sanpitch Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Has anyone mentioned the witnessing of the gold plates, I haven't read the thread? The plates seemed to have been too precious to actually have been seen other than with their spiritual eyes, or the plates being covered with a cloth. Or maybe some having claimed to have seen a few plates that had been translated. But I don't think anyone picked them up and closely examined them, they were too sacred. That does not fit well with me.
Duncan Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Has anyone mentioned the witnessing of the gold plates, I haven't read the thread? The plates seemed to have been too precious to actually have been seen other than with their spiritual eyes, or the plates being covered with a cloth. Or maybe some having claimed to have seen a few plates that had been translated. But I don't think anyone picked them up and closely examined them, they were too sacred. That does not fit well with me. yeah, the 8 witnesses handled them, in addition to some others
Sanpitch Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Yes they handled them. ".....as many plates as the said Smith had translated......
Duncan Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Yes they handled them. ".....as many plates as the said Smith had translated...... what?
Calm Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Since they witnessed after the end of the translation, that would have amounted to all of the plates relating to the Book of Mormon, but would not have included the portion that was sealed...because of course it was sealed.Nor were the plates handled separated from the bulk of the plates given the rings binding them all together. Edited June 19, 2015 by calmoriah
Sanpitch Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Duncan: "What?" Just read the eight witnesses statements in the front of the BoM. I don't know what your questioning.
Sanpitch Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Calmoriah: My 1981 BoM says the eight witnesses handled and looked at as many pages as the said Smith has translated. Does a newer BoM say anything different? I think of it just being a few pages that leaves me with the question, did Smith just make his own brass plates and write on them. Ed: But I do see your point. They could be referring to all the unsealed portion. I have never looked at it that way. Edited June 19, 2015 by Sanpitch
Duncan Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Duncan: "What?" Just read the eight witnesses statements in the front of the BoM. I don't know what your questioning. I asked that because I didn't get your question, if you knew that they handled the plates then why would you ask previously that it doesn't fit well with you, they saw the whole canolli and not just something under wraps
Sanpitch Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 I asked that because I didn't get your question, if you knew that they handled the plates then why would you ask previously that it doesn't fit well with you, they saw the whole canolli and not just something under wraps Because it sounded to me like there were just a few pages that had been translated and those are the ones they saw. As I said to Calmoriah, if someone wanted to make some fake plates it would not be hard to produce a few pages and write on them something strange. OK, I'm a skeptic, but that has saved me from many false claims of other religious faiths and of get rich quick schemes. The plates were never that I know of plainly displayed in their entirety for anyone to see.
Recommended Posts