mfbukowski Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 That may well be a first, as I don't think you have ever agreed with me before. There was nothing to agree about,sorry. You accurately summarized the arguments, showing both sidesI was commending the summary.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Obviously, I disagreed with his assertions. Oh, definitely. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
jkwilliams Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 There was nothing to agree about,sorry. You accurately summarized the arguments, showing both sidesI was commending the summary.I knew it was too much to hope for. I guess I should be satisfied that you understood what I said. That in itself may be a first. Stop it. Get back on topic.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Bros! It pains me to see you this way. Hug it out?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Re-reading Nevo's post in relation to the previous post I think the problem is that Nevo got it wrong and we all bought into Nevo's interpretation. The only way England is saying "whatever God commands is right" is if that commandment is given to us in personal revelation- he says to "trust in our personal experiences with divinity must outweigh our rational morality". That is the opposite of the way Nevo took it- he is not talking about doing anything against our conscience at all, but always to follow it! At least in this passage In short, that is the opposite of what we might expect a jihadist to do!Whew!!
jkwilliams Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I think that too often behavior that seems to go against what we believe to be right or wrong is classified as an Abrahamic test. Excellent point. Sometimes we're just being asked to do something we think is wrong, no test necessary. The only time I remember being asked to do something I thought was a very bad idea was when the bishop told me (elders quorum president) that the stake president wanted me to assign these two Uruguayan brothers to be home teachers. Now, these guys were more than a little crazy. They had just been released from jail, where they had served a sentence for illegal possession of a machine gun. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/339613/SL-COUNTY-FACES-SUIT-OVER-RELIGIOUS-CLOTHING-AND-DIET.html?pg=all That's not the whole story, though. They were discovered hiding the machine gun in some bushes at Temple Square because they believed God had revealed to them that President Benson was being drugged and held against his will in his apartment, and they were to forcibly rescue him. I told the bishop I would absolutely not assign them as home teachers, as they were dangerous, and I wouldn't put any of the families in our ward in danger. I told him he could release me, if it was that important, but that I wasn't going to do it. He said, "Oh, good. I didn't want to tell the stake president no, but I knew you would." I've often wondered why he couldn't say no to the stake president over such an obvious decision. Who knows? What I am trying to say is that maybe there is among some a tendency to defer to church leaders, no matter how they feel about something personally. Edited November 5, 2015 by jkwilliams 3
theplains Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 This is what I mean about the check and balance between the individual revelation and priesthood authority. I think the key is never to do anything thoughtlessly, and when in doubt, make sure your personal revelation aligns with counsel of leaders. If it doesn't, it's a question of deciding which takes precedence. I'm not sure if my understanding of the LDS faith is correct, but I think that one's personal revelationcan never be used to say that the revelation or teaching of a bishop (or anyone serving in a higherposition than yourself) is false. It seems that in this case the bishop becomes the apologist and youbecome the antagonist. Regards,Jim
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Sure it can. I can refuse a calling based on my personal revelation and most of the bishops I have had (and possibly all of them) would accept my personal revelation about whether it was appropriate for me trumps theirs for seeing me worthy and appropriate for the calling.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm not sure if my understanding of the LDS faith is correct, but I think that one's personal revelationcan never be used to say that the revelation or teaching of a bishop (or anyone serving in a higherposition than yourself) is false. It seems that in this case the bishop becomes the apologist and youbecome the antagonist.Regards,JimWell, from this apostate's view, members are free to disregard counsel from a priesthood leader as long as they don't tell others to do the same.
Avatar4321 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Well, from this apostate's view, members are free to disregard counsel from a priesthood leader as long as they don't tell others to do the same.True but is that wise?
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 True but is that wise?It is if your church leader tells you to do something wrong. 4
Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 .........................................................I told the bishop I would absolutely not assign them as home teachers, as they were dangerous, and I wouldn't put any of the families in our ward in danger. I told him he could release me, if it was that important, but that I wasn't going to do it. He said, "Oh, good. I didn't want to tell the stake president no, but I knew you would." I've often wondered why he couldn't say no to the stake president over such an obvious decision. Who knows?........................................................ You're a stand up guy, John. You passed the test. Would that there were more like you. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm not sure if my understanding of the LDS faith is correct, but I think that one's personal revelationcan never be used to say that the revelation or teaching of a bishop (or anyone serving in a higherposition than yourself) is false. It seems that in this case the bishop becomes the apologist and youbecome the antagonist. Regards,JimI don't think so, Jim.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Perhaps we need to define "conscience" then. It seems to me that England's point was that God's command to sacrifice Isaac militated against Abraham's morality, his sense of right and wrong. But perhaps you are right that Abraham's "sense of right and wrong" is not the same thing as his conscience. Presumably Abraham felt morally justified in slaughtering his son (since God had commanded it) even though it went against his own feelings. Was he following his conscience then or going against it?The relationship between Abram and God was uniquely close. God was his Friend. Abe was being asked to do something archetypal, which would presage the blood sacrifice of the Son of God millennia later. Both sons were willing and fully trusting in their fathers. Us ordinary folk are never going to be asked to do something along those lines, because God knows that we would be too trusting and reckless in our obedience on the one hand, or because we simply wouldn't understand on the other. We would fail due to our incapacity for good judgment in such cases.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 You're a stand up guy, John. You passed the test. Would that there were more like you.Nah, then there would just be more apostates. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Nah, then there would just be more apostates.Huh-uh. A much healthier church with elders' quorum presidents who had some backbone. Indeed, there would be less apostasy. Think about it, John. Wards everywhere peopled by mavericks like Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, J. Golden Kimball, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Gene England. Think-for-themselves, stand-up guys, who are not afraid to speak their minds or to go to the Lord in humble prayer. Men who will take their licks, if need be. 2
Kyle Kenley Kopitke Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I feel an inner feeling, so to speak, to spend some time each month on defending the LDS Church on the web. I pray before I do, because, as we all know, it si The Spirit that teaches truth. We can reflect it, but true siring truth that touches the heart and opens the mind comes from The Spirit of The Lord. When I make comments or respond to negative comments, I strive to be repesectful, and am careful in the ords I use, as I do not want to push anyone away. About a wekk after I was Baptised, Bishop Larry Cox, gave me an assignment to go visit inactives and find out why they were not coming out. He was a great Bishop. 1
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Huh-uh. A much healthier church with elders' quorum presidents who had some backbone. Indeed, there would be less apostasy. Think about it, John. Wards everywhere peopled by mavericks like Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, J. Golden Kimball, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Gene England. Think-for-themselves, stand-up guys, who are not afraid to speak their minds or to go to the Lord in humble prayer. Men who will take their licks, if need be. More like Korihor. 1
Tacenda Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I feel an inner feeling, so to speak, to spend some time each month on defending the LDS Church on the web. I pray before I do, because, as we all know, it si The Spirit that teaches truth. We can reflect it, but true siring truth that touches the heart and opens the mind comes from The Spirit of The Lord. When I make comments or respond to negative comments, I strive to be repesectful, and am careful in the ords I use, as I do not want to push anyone away. About a wekk after I was Baptised, Bishop Larry Cox, gave me an assignment to go visit inactives and find out why they were not coming out. He was a great Bishop.What did you find out about the reason they were inactive? Curious about it.
Kenngo1969 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Yes you did. Here is your general statement. Here is my request for an example. Here is your rejection and insult. Why don't you attempt to do so and find out if that old saying is fulfilled. It might be that the pig is not who you think.Oh, Lord. How long have you been on this board or its predecessors, and you've never seen any of the arguments? DNA disproves the Book of Mormon"Jacob's" use of the word adieu disproves the Book of MormonThere were no horses in the Americas before ColumbusJoseph Smith was a lazy, shiftless, lying, womanizing charlatanOther animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist in the Americas before ColumbusPlants mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon timesThe witnesses recanted their testimoniesThe witnesses were unreliable otherwiseNo ancient civilization kept records on metal platesThere never were any platesThere's no such thing as Reformed EgyptianNo evidence for any of the places mentioned in the Book of Mormon has been shown to existBattles of the scale mentioned in the Book of Mormon could not have occurredJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from View of the HebrewsJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from the Spalding manuscriptJoseph Smith ordered German tapes from Rosetta Stone and plagiarized the Book of Mormon from Der Golden TopfJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from The Late WarShip-building plans and methods mentioned in the Book of Mormon are anachronisticAd infinitum, ad nauseam And, briefly, the reason why these sound-bite criticisms cannot be refuted by sound-bite responses is because groundwork to understand the underlying issue needs to be laid before the refutation can even begin. I've "Danced, Monkey, Danced!" for you, Thinking. I humbly hope this satisfies your demands. I'm sure you've never heard any of those criticisms. Edited November 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
Thinking Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Oh, Lord. How long have you been on this board or its predecessors, and you've never seen any of the arguments? I've seen the arguments. I wanted to know which of those you considered sound-bite criticisms. DNA disproves the Book of Mormon"Jacob's" use of the word adieu disproves the Book of MormonThere were no horses in the Americas before ColumbusJoseph Smith was a lazy, shiftless, lying, womanizing charlatanOther animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist in the Americas before ColumbusPlants mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon timesThe witnesses recanted their testimoniesThe witnesses were unreliable otherwiseNo ancient civilization kept records on metal platesThere never were any platesThere's no such thing as Reformed EgyptianNo evidence for any of the places mentioned in the Book of Mormon has been shown to existBattles of the scale mentioned in the Book of Mormon could not have occurredJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from View of the HebrewsJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from the Spalding manuscriptJoseph Smith ordered German tapes from Rosetta Stone and plagiarized the Book of Mormon from Der Golden TopfJoseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon from The Late WarShip-building plans and methods mentioned in the Book of Mormon are anachronisticAd infinitum, ad nauseam Apparently you consider all arguments to be sound-bite critisims. And, briefly, the reason why these sound-bite criticisms cannot be refuted by sound-bite responses is because groundwork to understand the underlying issue needs to be laid before the refutation can even begin. It's interesting that the first example you listed as a "sound-bite criticism" was DNA disproves the Book of Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this criticism came forth as a 288 page book by an author whose objective was to prove that Native Americans descended from the Jews. That's hardly a sound-bite. Many of the others in your list are also lengthy and detailed. I've "Danced, Monkey, Danced!" for you, Thinking. I humbly hope this satisfies your demands. I'm sure you've never heard any of those criticisms. Keep dancing. Edited November 7, 2015 by Thinking
Kenngo1969 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I've seen the arguments. I wanted to know which of those you considered sound-bite criticisms. Apparently you consider all arguments to be sound-bite critisims. It's interesting that the first example you listed as a "sound-bite criticism" was DNA disproves the Book of Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this criticism came forth as a 288 page book by an author whose objective was to prove that Native Americans descended from the Jews. That's hardly a sound-bite. Many of the others in your list are also lengthy and detailed. Keep dancing.Far, far more people have heard the sound bite "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" than have read the book, and that's the point. The same is true of any of the other criticisms I listed. As for your very kind invitation to keep dancing, I know this will come as an utter, complete, and total shock to you, but I do not exist solely for your amusement. Your apparent conclusion otherwise causes me to consider the prospect of engaging in further dialogue with you with extreme caution and skepticism, and verifies my initial hesitancy to do so at the outset of this exchange. Thank you for that. 1
Thinking Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Far, far more people have heard the sound bite "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" than have read the book, and that's the point. The same is true of any of the other criticisms I listed. So how much of the book needs to be quoted during a criticism in order for it to not be a sound-bite? As for your very kind invitation to keep dancing, I know this will come as an utter, complete, and total shock to you, but I do not exist solely for your amusement. Your apparent conclusion otherwise causes me to consider the prospect of engaging in further dialogue with you with extreme caution and skepticism, and verifies my initial hesitancy to do so at the outset of this exchange. Thank you for that. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Kenngo1969 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) So how much of the book needs to be quoted during a criticism in order for it to not be a sound-bite? Truly you have a dizzying intellect. [Comment removed at request of poster] Whatever you think of my intellect (or lack thereof, in your opinion) at least I'm not so insecure that I feel the need to flaunt my supposed intellect by making my screen name the centerpiece of it. Edited November 10, 2015 by Ares
Recommended Posts