mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 34 minutes ago, salgare said: Is "evidence" the wrong word here? When Christ instructs "by their fruits ye shall know them", what would you call this? Is Christ not instructing us to examine something? Like I said. yes the "Alma" evidence. See if the "fruit" is "sweet" to your spirit. Quote 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me..... 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life. 42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst. 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you. No soup kitchens. Movie stars can go to soup kitchens too- does that make them prophets? The fruit is within YOU and YOUR knowing not in soup kitchens for all to see. Seeing someone in a soup kitchen will not change your life. This season especially these images are a dime a dozen. Direct communication with the spirit WILL change your life. THAT is what it is about. 3
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Like I said. yes the "Alma" evidence. See if the "fruit" is "sweet" to your spirit. No soup kitchens. Movie stars can go to soup kitchens too- does that make them prophets? The fruit is within YOU and YOUR knowing not in soup kitchens for all to see. Seeing someone in a soup kitchen will not change your life. This season especially these images are a dime a dozen. Direct communication with the spirit WILL change your life. THAT is what it is about. I think we hit enter about the same time. Please see my previous post ... specifically the quoted portion of the talk from lds.org. You are saying that your experience with: "Alma teaches the poor whose afflictions had humbled them—Faith is a hope in that which is not seen which is true—Alma testifies that angels minister to men, women, and children—Alma compares the word unto a seed—It must be planted and nourished—Then it grows into a tree from which the fruit of eternal life is picked. About 74 B.C." Has left you with an Oak Tree sized faith, and hence TMS is a true Messenger of God and the Corporation of the First Presidency is a tree that produces good fruit. Do I understand this correctly?
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 The lighting on the tray is inconsistent with the ambient lighting. It is coming from the left and casts a bright reflection, but the lighting in the room is diffused. Though the tray is brightly illuminated, there is no shadow on the people below the tray The bottom of the tray is "jagged" - the line that forms the bottom is not straight, it wiggles around a bit. Definitely photo shopped but I don't think that is of any importance. 3
volgadon Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Like I said. yes the "Alma" evidence. See if the "fruit" is "sweet" to your spirit. No soup kitchens. Movie stars can go to soup kitchens too- does that make them prophets? The fruit is within YOU and YOUR knowing not in soup kitchens for all to see. Seeing someone in a soup kitchen will not change your life. This season especially these images are a dime a dozen. Direct communication with the spirit WILL change your life. THAT is what it is about. Arguably, the symbol of serving in a soup kitchen is at the very least not even a living or potent symbol in this case as it does not seem to have led Salgare to do the same. 2
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 That's ok (Mark? might I ask) We can leave it a rhetorical question.
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, salgare said: I think we hit enter about the same time. Please see my previous post ... specifically the quoted portion of the talk from lds.org. You are saying that your experience with: "Alma teaches the poor whose afflictions had humbled them—Faith is a hope in that which is not seen which is true—Alma testifies that angels minister to men, women, and children—Alma compares the word unto a seed—It must be planted and nourished—Then it grows into a tree from which the fruit of eternal life is picked. About 74 B.C." Has left you with an Oak Tree sized faith, and hence TMS is a true Messenger of God and the Corporation of the First Presidency is a tree that produces good fruit. Do I understand this correctly? Nope. I have no clue what you are saying. I did not quote that Alma heading and it has nothing to do with my argument. The verses I quoted say that the "fruits" being spoken of are the spiritual fruits of testimony. By saying "by their fruits shall you know them" means by your testimony you shall know them. I do not know who or what TMS is. Full declarative sentences are useful for a reason. Prophets are not necessarily "messengers of God"- they are men who are inspired and give you advice which convinces you that they are inspired. I do not have an Oak Tree sized faith, and I do not know what that would mean. I said nothing about the Corporation and fail to see how a corporation could give me spiritual advice. I said nothing like any of these things. Please just read what I say and don't add to it. 1
volgadon Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 34 minutes ago, salgare said: hmm, enough have noted this ... so the problem is with me here somehow .... Let's try this, I searched lds.org for "by their fruits" ... this talk pops up first https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them?lang=eng type "<cntrl-f> fruit" and way lower left hit the re-search a couple times read up down and around this area for full context: "In any case, the Lord’s test is the only one that will stand with the passage of time and reveal the truth about those who claim to do his work. The Savior acknowledged that there would be imposters who would attempt to pass themselves off as his authorized representatives. He warned of false prophets who would come in sheep’s clothing but who would have their own selfish motives to fulfill. “Ye shall know them by their fruits,” he said. “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruits; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. 7:15–20.)" Now ... I'm hearing all over MDDB that people are relying on their own personal inspiration as the only way they need and use for a sure determination of true messengers from God. I'm suggesting that we give our own leaders the test. Does this clear up what I'm driving at? The three keys thing still doesn't make sense in this context, but at any rate, why are you dismissing personal inspiration? Isn't that part of one's appraisal of a prophet's "fruit"? 2
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 He or she who gives life changing insights into religion is a "prophet" It's as simple as that, imo. 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, salgare said: JW, I'm starting to see why others complain that you have nothing to add to a discussion. Seems you do nothing but parrot the company line with no bother of even reading what others are posting. Where's waldo? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572951 10 hours ago, salgare said: What .... still disbelief? Maybe if Salgare photoshopped it, then that will prove he is a deceiver, thus all this knee jerk talk about foreign concepts can be dismissed out of hand? Try this; 1. Right click on the image I posted upthread. 2. click "email image" (I find this the best way to capture the smallest url's) 3. contact the source and demand an appology for them photoshopping the picture. http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=G96kNlWy9P7j1YN2FFYY7s$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvuwt9zNcmRBaypGUqt_m9HWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg Can we get back to the OP now? Disbelief in what? I think the three that commented allbelieve it was a poorly constructed photo, so poorly constructed it has the weird distortions that are seen in photoshopping though not just those, but beyond that only you seem to find great meaning in our esthetic taste/sense of balance. You are the one who made people's reaction to the weird/awkward/odd photo into a measure of openness, bias, rigidness in religious thought. We didn't see the photo as a well made one, whether real or photoshopped and suddenly you are drawing conclusions about what we think about prophets, critics, whatever. The drama you created out of wholecloth and a poor photo is all yours. No need to bother anyone else. If the Trib or DN is using this on their site,though, they may have more troubles than one lousy photo if this isn't a fluke.. They may need to look for a new art director/editor or whoever approves of this stuff. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm 2
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 36 minutes ago, salgare said: That's ok (Mark? might I ask) We can leave it a rhetorical question. I am sorry again. What is this referring to? What's supposed to be ok? What was the rhetorical question? Full sentences are appreciated.
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What can you expect from the Trib anyway? the photo wasn't even in the ten posted with the article you gave us a link to...many of which had weird angles and setups and perhaps that weirdestwas in the group that got discarded. I think the photographer was trying to include too much or too 'interesting' photos. You can play tricks with art photos, not so much telling a story. That was the DN paper. That photograher wasn't as good as the trib's but at least hers weren't looking like it was photoshopped it was so off. The Trib's set had better, but still a few I would have past on for putting in the paper to avoid making people look weird. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Nope. I have no clue what you are saying. I did not quote that Alma heading and it has nothing to do with my argument. You mentioned Alma 32 and fruit, no direct reference The verses I quoted say that the "fruits" being spoken of are the spiritual fruits of testimony. your personal fruits By saying "by their fruits shall you know them" means by your testimony you shall know them. I disagree. I do not believe the quoted talk refers to it in this matter either. Its all about their fruits with a history of Christlike acts which they do i.e. “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Prophets are not necessarily "messengers of God"- they are men who are inspired and give you advice which convinces you that they are inspired. once again the quoted talk refers to men who present themselves as "authorized representatives" and says nothing about personal inspiration to identify them. Please just read what I say and don't add to it. Snapping to attention ... Yes Sir! (this is why I repeated what I heard and asked if it was right, some consider this good form)
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) On December 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM, salgare said: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37900239&nid=148 BTW, that is not the article that has the picture you gave, here is the article that goes with the picture: http://www.sltrib.com/home/3344566-155/christmas-dinner-served-to-utah-homeless Kind of confusing when you don't send us to the right article to demonstrate the picture is an actual one. The one you sent us to was: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865644414/Needy-Utahns-enjoy-steak-dinner-on-Christmas.html?pg=all (using this url so you can see the newspapers and titles are different. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 58 minutes ago, volgadon said: why are you dismissing personal inspiration? Isn't that part of one's appraisal of a prophet's "fruit"? Because it is not how we are instructed to identify them per the talk
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am sorry again. What is this referring to? What's supposed to be ok? What was the rhetorical question? Full sentences are appreciated. I made the foolish assumption that you were joking by once again posting about the photoshopped image, which I've spent several posts declaring a derail and trying to get it back on topic. Apparently you did not care about this after all.
volgadon Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: He or she who gives life changing insights into religion is a "prophet" It's as simple as that, imo. Have you read Aimé Palliére's "The Unknown Sanctuary"? There is much of interest in his journey from Catholicism to a sort of universalism on Jewish lines because he reflects on life-changing events resulting from seemingly mundane occurrences and statements uttered by others along his path. It goes along with what i think you are saying, but even there particularism is important. Both universalism and particularism are needed since each addresses needs that the other does not. We need a universalist role of prophet, but can we forget the priest who has taken on particularistic restrictions in order to serve as the bridge between what is open to all and what all may become by imitating God? 1
volgadon Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 Salgare, are you sure that you weren't being even slightly disingenuous when quoting from the conference talk? "The attempts by the Savior’s enemies to destroy his work by discrediting him were futile. All he said and did has stood the test of time and has borne good fruit in the lives of millions of people. In addition to the record of the good works performed by the Savior, we are given the personal affirmation and testimony of the Eternal Father regarding Jesus’ divine nature and calling." 1
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, salgare said: You mentioned Alma 32 and fruit, no direct reference your personal fruits I disagree. I do not believe the quoted talk refers to it in this matter either. Its all about their fruits with a history of Christlike acts which they do i.e. “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” once again the quoted talk refers to men who present themselves as "authorized representatives" and says nothing about personal inspiration to identify them. Snapping to attention ... Yes Sir! (this is why I repeated what I heard and asked if it was right, some consider this good form) Bye.
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) volgadon, thank you for this post. I will need to spend some time with it and some web searches to try and understand what you have given me here. I'm an uneducated simple man, my spelling and English grammar suck. The chemo has done some permanent damage, leaving me with phantom smells, short term memory and other issues. I apologize for all that as it relates to my posting here and can only ask for others patience. I will always be an easy target for those so inclined. I do understand how it truly annoys some. Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 28 minutes ago, salgare said: I made the foolish assumption that you were joking by once again posting about the photoshopped image, which I've spent several posts declaring a derail and trying to get it back on topic. Apparently you did not care about this after all. I did not intend any offense, and I am sorry it seems that I did offend you.
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 26 minutes ago, volgadon said: Have you read Aimé Palliére's "The Unknown Sanctuary"? There is much of interest in his journey from Catholicism to a sort of universalism on Jewish lines because he reflects on life-changing events resulting from seemingly mundane occurrences and statements uttered by others along his path. It goes along with what i think you are saying, but even there particularism is important. Both universalism and particularism are needed since each addresses needs that the other does not. We need a universalist role of prophet, but can we forget the priest who has taken on particularistic restrictions in order to serve as the bridge between what is open to all and what all may become by imitating God? I have not read it but it sounds very interesting! I will have to get a copy. These are certainly two poles - the yin and yang of social interaction. It would be interesting to examine these poles as you suggest here from the point of view of religious leadership and ministry. THAT is where the balance is required and most difficult. And yes, I think that is the source of the tension in this discussion. In my experience in that regard, that is where the rubber meets the road when one is trying to give religious advice. One must somehow phrase very focused and practical in terms of the universal. As a bishop one is trained to always "teach the doctrine" to solve problems. We are not trained as social workers and yet are called on to give very personal counseling and the only tools we have are "universal" doctrine- the scriptures. But I have seen marriages on the rocks actually be restored by teaching from the scriptures alone, so I know for a fact that it can be done but that balance is not easy. But what I was attempting to explain was more the epistemology of how each of us must define for ourselves who is a prophet and essentially what religious leader to follow. I read some of Bahá'u'lláh's "revelations" before I joined the church, and they left me flat. They did not even convince me a little- I felt nothing. But in reading Joseph Smith, I instantly felt affinity. I have read a lot of writings by a lot of alleged "prophets" or just founders of religions and none communicated to me like the revelations of Smith. It reminds me of what was said of Christ in the NT, that he spoke with "authority", as a prophet and not as a theologian or religious teacher. There is an authenticity in his attitude that communicates directly. Alma 32 is pure brilliance as is Moroni. Then we have the church. We have the writings of Smith's followers, and to me, there are the writings of followers, quite honestly. Good stuff but none of the fire of Smith. Very little of that perfect blend of universalism and particularism you mentioned, not much that could change an individual life and yet have universal import- very little of that life-changing fire I felt with Joseph. But some. It seems most were still much better than Bahá'u'lláh. And there are some contemporary writers I would also count as "prophets" in that sense- I don't want to mention them here because I know it will be misunderstood, but really I think Smith's stuff at times rivals and excells the NT. It is probably because we are closer culturally than I am certainly to that ancient Jewish culture. On the other hand, you have such a great grasp of that era and culture that I would love to crawl into your head and see some of that the way you do. Thanks for the tip. I will have to check out that book! 4
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 18 minutes ago, volgadon said: Salgare, are you sure that you weren't being even slightly disingenuous when quoting from the conference talk? "The attempts by the Savior’s enemies to destroy his work by discrediting him were futile. All he said and did has stood the test of time and has borne good fruit in the lives of millions of people. In addition to the record of the good works performed by the Savior, we are given the personal affirmation and testimony of the Eternal Father regarding Jesus’ divine nature and calling." I have also reviewed my individual posts in this thread several times. Early on, I assumed that even the mention of "by their fruits" would be as a picture being worth a 1000 words to a Mormon community. In my years of a diligent pursuit of a gift of personal revelation (years ago now) I found that isolating my thoughts from the still small voice, and even other voices was a tough thing. From basic Temple teachings concerning this very concept I also assumed that a brief mention of them as well as a simple mention of D&C 129 would also be as a picture worth a 100 words to a Mormon community. As things went on ... much lost in a derail of my own making, futher explanations still failed. I do not believe there is even slight indigenous emotions, feelings, intent etc at all ... I turned to lds.org in total frustration wondering how/why this huge disconnect. And even here I'm confused by your words. Are you saying you see disingenuous speech/actions because I've taken a swat at the Savior? Attempt at full sentences follow: I've found personal revelation to be a very error prone, big learning curve experience. I've found personal inspiration to be even more error prone, but with a much smaller learning curve. I believe D&C 129 and the Temple validate this error prone tendency and have given "the Lord’s test is the only one that will stand with the passage of time and reveal the truth about those who claim to do his work." I'm hearing people insist this is no so.
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I did not intend any offense, and I am sorry it seems that I did offend you. I kept inviting you to the thread because I value input that I have received from you before. Thank you for this and no worries about any offense.
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, salgare said: Attempt at full sentences follow: I've found personal revelation to be a very error prone, big learning curve experience. I've found personal inspiration to be even more error prone, but with a much smaller learning curve. I believe D&C 129 and the Temple validate this error prone tendency and have given "the Lord’s test is the only one that will stand with the passage of time and reveal the truth about those who claim to do his work." I'm hearing people insist this is no so. Ahhh. Clarity. How is it "error prone"? For one to know truth from error, one must have a standard of truth. To discern a wiggly line one must know what a straight line is. How do you know your inspirations were "errors"? How do you know how it would have gone had you not followed them?
Recommended Posts