jkwilliams Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I tried to look at my past posts but it only goes back to when I started posting a few weeks ago. I don't recall a history with you. If I was rude, unkind, etc. then I sincerely apologize. I'm not the person I was 6 years ago. Just out of curiosity, I looked back at your earlier posts. You certainly were kind of bold in your promotion of the Community of Christ 6 years ago, but I didn't see anything rude or unkind.
Saint Sinner Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Just out of curiosity, I looked back at your earlier posts. You certainly were kind of bold in your promotion of the Community of Christ 6 years ago, but I didn't see anything rude or unkind.I was of the opinion that Community of Christ was a more theologically and sociologically adequate choice. I'm not of that opinion any longer as I find Community of Christ to be more like Emergent Christianity. It's just not my thing.The more I learn, the more I am drawn to Buddhism (philosophically speaking) and Judaism (theologically speaking). 1
jkwilliams Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I was of the opinion that Community of Christ was a more theologically and sociologically adequate choice. I'm not of that opinion any longer as I find Community of Christ to be more like Emergent Christianity. It's just not my thing.The more I learn, the more I am drawn to Buddhism (philosophically speaking) and Judaism (theologically speaking). My sister converted from Mormonism to Judaism. She feels quite at home there. Sounds like you're still figuring out where you want to be, as am I.
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I was of the opinion that Community of Christ was a more theologically and sociologically adequate choice. I'm not of that opinion any longer as I find Community of Christ to be more like Emergent Christianity. It's just not my thing.The more I learn, the more I am drawn to Buddhism (philosophically speaking) and Judaism (theologically speaking).Buddhism is often seen more as a philosophy than a religion and I have found Zen practice useful in understanding the interaction between the mind and spirit. There really are not Buddhist "doctrines" other than a generalized belief in reincarnation; Buddhism really teaches a point of view. a way of being, really a lifestyle which is quite compatible with Mormonism as a lifestyle and a religious paradigm. I practiced Zen for a while before I found the church. I am firmly convinced it would be very easy to be a Zen Mormon since Mormonism at its core is about unity with God through revelation or "The Spirit" as Mormons say, coupled with a humanistic description of God. and Mormon theology is more about that humanistic description which I am convinced works better than any other I have ever seen. The distinction between mind and spirit defies logical description but I am convinced meditation can reveal those differences. I see it almost like what we in California call a "frontage road"- a business road parallel to a freeway going the same direction but serving a different purpose. The spirit is the freeway, meditation is the frontage road. Meditation trains the mind for the fast lane and lets you get on and off the path easily, stopping here and there to get your chores done, while the freeway always awaits when you are ready to jump on and get to where you want to be. There's a koan in there somewhere I am sure. So for me seeking the spirit and revelation is the direct channel to God while Mormonism is the verbal/rational model which describes God in the most humanistic way possible. History becomes irrelevant to me, what others have said about Mormonism is irrelevant to me, it is all irrelevant to me as if someone said that some Zen teacher was corrupt or whatever. People are imperfect- we need to get over that. What is important is the message and how we use it in our lives. For me it is a philosophical question- "What is the best philosophical path to becoming the best human I can possibly become?" Zen comes up with a pretty good answer to part of the question but involves vague metaphysics which are hopelessly confusing, as do most creedal christian religions. For me Mormonism is the perfect balance between a spiritual lifestyle which leads toward human perfection mixed with a logical explanation for the purpose of mankind. In a sense it is Zen plus humanism - a kind of humanistic Zen really as a Westerner would teach it. I am pretty sold. I ain't goin nowhere else 1
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I suppose I could have picked Judaism also but I really needed some redemption. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I was of the opinion that Community of Christ was a more theologically and sociologically adequate choice. I'm not of that opinion any longer as I find Community of Christ to be more like Emergent Christianity. It's just not my thing.The more I learn, the more I am drawn to Buddhism (philosophically speaking) and Judaism (theologically speaking).For me, I regard most of history as fables and don't worry about it. It is his-story and my story may be different if I had live through the same events. God gave us a mind and spirit to figure these things out for ourselves, and I think that is what Christ teaches as well when you look at what we have as "his words" (Who knows really) in the NT. His gospel is really very simple and direct and not very doctrinal. It's basically seek the kingdom of God which lies within you, and be kind to all. This process I think is described verbally in the Mormon idea of "creating a world from matter unorganized". So my path has been to grab a chunk of this and put it here and a chunk of that and put it.......right.....there, as it were in my world. 1
theplains Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 This volume is seldom used as a source today. Since you are a non-member perhaps you should allow those who are, to answer so as not to confuse the issue about what is considered authoritative or not If you read the volume set, it gives no doubt as to whether it is authoritative or not.But I can understand why it is seldom used as a source. Regards,Jim
theplains Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 And does that require you to believe him? I am not talking generically but to you specifically. Do you accept him as a prophet because of his style of writing? I don't believe all of what he wrote. Some things he wrote I would consider false anddeceptive. Regards,Jim
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) If the volume is not authoritative, neither is its claim to be. That should be obvious Edited August 17, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Recommended Posts