salgare Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Robert Smith, I derailed the dna thread figuring it was dead and a good place to bury my nonsense. It seems to be getting back on track and so I hope you might continue part of the conversation here. You asked me some pointed questions about this "New Mormonism". I saw you bumped this thread right after I linked it in my answer to your questions. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66837-dna-vs-book-of-mormon-incredible-new-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=1209584207 I'd love to hear back on your thoughts, and if you are a New Mormon? The following is the content of my answer for convenience: "What is it, and what does it consist of? " I'm not sure, that is what I'm trying to figure out. It seems to me to be sourcing out of Mormon apologetics with Givens being the public figure championing it. I assume this is what it is: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/?page=1 I was somewhat shocked at concepts (again in my very limited knowledge) typically associated with atheism. I asked Mark if Givens would agree with his philosophies presented in the paper. He gave a couple quotes of Givens that supported this, indicating the answer was yes. I don't know why I had it in my head that you were more (I used the word orthodox) ... what, traditional? conservative? Simply that you would not agree with that article. Can you name a representative sample of them? Givens, Mark, and it seems you. Basically anyone that would hold to the concepts presented in Marks review of Givens book as their concepts of Mormonism. I assume Blair and others currently involved with MI? Once again, this is what I'm trying to figure out. No one seemed to want to touch that thread, including the OP. I assumed at the time no one from here but Mark and possibly volgadon was into it. Note my questions in trying to identify this group in this post from that thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/?do=findComment&comment=1209576926 Salgare asked: "I've bandied about the term "Nuanced Mormonism" that I'm heard elsewhere. I know that labels are often disliked, but they also tend to be as a picture telling a 1000 words to use them in the right context; Orthodox Mormon, New Order Mormon, Nuanced (Orthoprax?) Mormon (New for short). Is there a term you would prefer I use in this context? Based on this review I assume its fair for me to put that label on Givens?" No one offered anything different, nor opposed the suggestion. I'll gladly label it however those embracing it would prefer.
salgare Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Mark, The other night was a revelatory experience as I started to get a grasp of the language and concepts. I've reviewed all that Robert and you have shared over the last few days in these two threads with a bit different eyes. I'm intrigued with these concepts and cut and pasted many statements from these last few days into a ms word document I was going to try to use to summarize more questions. I realize it would be more productive if I did take the time to pick up some books on this. Amazon has several Rorty books spawning several decades. James has several different collections of "varieties of religious experience". Is there some foundation philosophy text and some order of progression of books I should consider? For some possible conversation from here, can you help me tie in another word to those I've just been introduced to (truth, perception, reality, objectivity, subjectivity), namely morality. When I first meet volgadon .. he said this: "In short, morals are universal, they are the minimum requirements. Holiness is particularistic" Here are a couple of yours: "This is humanism of the highest order. We are to strive to become the best possible humans and bring human culture with us. It appears that the belief is that this can make us gods. Well metaphorically at least of course. Amazing to contemplate." The following was in the later logical steps to your conversion and I'm wondering if there is some association/relationship to volgandon's example of movement from universalism to partiularistism. I did note several references to alma 32 association with James from the heathen site, and so now have a better feel of how that ties in here. "Is it possible? Never conceived of that. William James says yes it is possible. Religious experiences work to enable finding the right religious path. Of course it would be true in a religious context, like the host is the body of Christ. Transformation of ordinary reality into sacred reality. So I guess that could work." (I missed the host part above) Should I relate objectivity to noahide (universal) in relationship to morality? Can I say there is no objective truth, but morality is objective (and a fixed set)? Does the Jewish move from noahide law (morals) to particularistic law imply higher morality, or is it only a higher perceived truth, or what is this Holiness? And for the rebbe (Mark) who achieves this higher truth for the purpose of leavening the loaf for; "This is humanism of the highest order", which I assume is a cultural move from any/most subjectivity to objectivity? Anyway, just throwing some thoughts out there and trying to understand the James step you took to get past those gold plates. Edited January 28, 2016 by salgare
salgare Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Apparently Snuffer has somewhat surfaced ... http://janariess.religionnews.com/2016/01/26/8-questions-for-denver-snuffer-excommunicated-mormon-explains-growth-of-new-movement/ I throw this out there for consideration based on the concepts of no orthodoxy but orthopraxy as I've heard as a theme. "Heck no. There is no need for any of that nonsense. We are Mormons and we get flexibility in what we believe- the only test we have is a temple recommend interview. We need to be unified, not divided by silly names." Are Snufferites Mormon? The demand of TR orthopraxy being the line in the sand. Can we say that Snufferites are orthodox driven, even shying away from orthopraxy? I hope I'm using the words correctly here.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 2 hours ago, salgare said: Apparently Snuffer has somewhat surfaced ... http://janariess.religionnews.com/2016/01/26/8-questions-for-denver-snuffer-excommunicated-mormon-explains-growth-of-new-movement/ I throw this out there for consideration based on the concepts of no orthodoxy but orthopraxy as I've heard as a theme. "Heck no. There is no need for any of that nonsense. We are Mormons and we get flexibility in what we believe- the only test we have is a temple recommend interview. We need to be unified, not divided by silly names." Are Snufferites Mormon? The demand of TR orthopraxy being the line in the sand. Can we say that Snufferites are orthodox driven, even shying away from orthopraxy? I hope I'm using the words correctly here. Short on time, I will answer the last question first. I don't know much about Snuffer- from my perspective it is just nonsense and I do not concentrate on nuances of nonsense. I did not read the link- no time. I agree with the brown/red quote above- is that to be your reply or something?
salgare Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I agree with the brown/red quote above- is that to be your reply or something? smiling ... yea Seriously though, I quote you there along with my post for Robert still wanting to label some "cultures" and their perceived truths for purposes of discussion. I'm hoping to gather some more thoughts from my up-thread posts before I ask some more pointed questions on your vision. Which by the way is an amazing thought to me as well, of what this, shall I call it Zion could be. I suppose I'm getting abstract here again ... I'm referencing this quote from you: "This is humanism of the highest order. We are to strive to become the best possible humans and bring human culture with us. It appears that the belief is that this can make us gods. Well metaphorically at least of course. Amazing to contemplate." and just trying to tickle some of you guys thoughts as you respond. eta I think three cultures might be a good starting point for discussion: 1. The men you mentioned in your quorum with the puzzled look on their face the time or two you speak of New Culture Mormonism. 2. New Culture Mormonism 3. The Harmston/Snuffer Culture Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_and_Living_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Saints_of_the_Last_Days Edited January 28, 2016 by salgare
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, salgare said: Mark, The other night was a revelatory experience as I started to get a grasp of the language and concepts. I've reviewed all that Robert and you have shared over the last few days in these two threads with a bit different eyes. I'm intrigued with these concepts and cut and pasted many statements from these last few days into a ms word document I was going to try to use to summarize more questions. I realize it would be more productive if I did take the time to pick up some books on this. Amazon has several Rorty books spawning several decades. James has several different collections of "varieties of religious experience". Is there some foundation philosophy text and some order of progression of books I should consider? For some possible conversation from here, can you help me tie in another word to those I've just been introduced to (truth, perception, reality, objectivity, subjectivity), namely morality. When I first meet volgadon .. he said this: "In short, morals are universal, they are the minimum requirements. Holiness is particularistic" Here are a couple of yours: "This is humanism of the highest order. We are to strive to become the best possible humans and bring human culture with us. It appears that the belief is that this can make us gods. Well metaphorically at least of course. Amazing to contemplate." The following was in the later logical steps to your conversion and I'm wondering if there is some association/relationship to volgandon's example of movement from universalism to partiularistism. I did note several references to alma 32 association with James from the heathen site, and so now have a better feel of how that ties in here. "Is it possible? Never conceived of that. William James says yes it is possible. Religious experiences work to enable finding the right religious path. Of course it would be true in a religious context, like the host is the body of Christ. Transformation of ordinary reality into sacred reality. So I guess that could work." (I missed the host part above) Should I relate objectivity to noahide (universal) in relationship to morality? Can I say there is no objective truth, but morality is objective (and a fixed set)? Does the Jewish move from noahide law (morals) to particularistic law imply higher morality, or is it only a higher perceived truth, or what is this Holiness? And for the rebbe (Mark) who achieves this higher truth for the purpose of leavening the loaf for; "This is humanism of the highest order", which I assume is a cultural move from any/most subjectivity to objectivity? Anyway, just throwing some thoughts out there and trying to understand the James step you took to get past those gold plates. Quick answer to above- First read this and study it I am not making this up- this stuff I am teaching you are mainstream Mormon ideas, no need for labels. Regarding James, look at summaries/ cliff notes etc of "Varieties of Religious Experience" Wikipedia probably, Stanford dictionary of Philosophy THIS: https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html Paulsen is a brilliant Mormon philosopher This also: http://juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/ Ask volgadon about the universal stuff. Morals: Morals are what work to make people civilized. If you live the 10 commandments- and all did likewise- this would be an idea society. Golden rule is universal rule for civilization- perfect statement of universal values all cultures can agree on It works pragmatically for society AND it is a revelation through Christ. It works universally and for the individual in individual lives. It can be seen as a universal, yet pragmatic, foundation for a moral system. So yes, depending on your perspective morals can be seen as a universal religious revelation, a pragmatic rule for society, and even a principle which evolved which humans must believe strictly for survival value. It is all three of those, and can be seen as that for religious theists as well as atheists, pick your own description according to what "religion" gives your life value. If God is a "Human" as we uniquely believe he is, humanism becomes theology. We are the only faith that takes this as axiomatic. We are the only faith which can be fully humanist AND fully religious because our religion is glorified humanism Atheists who attack us do not understand this principle at all. None of their arguments apply to us. Anyway- short post with a lot of ideas, should hold you for a while Also- Bob may not see your post- like me, I think he only tends to respond to posts with notifications- which mean if the software sends him a message that you quoted him. If you want me to see a reply, "quote" me don't just type my name in a thread as a response Re Rorty, same advice regarding wikipedia and Stanford Dictionary, plus this: http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/MSU/P38.html Good luck, hope you can decipher these Edited January 28, 2016 by mfbukowski
salgare Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 off topic personal side note: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66939-im-a-softhead/
Recommended Posts