A Different God?

[Calm]

I think I have already explained my position with regards to labels well enough.

PS:  rep ppoints don't always mean agreement, I may simply be thanking someone for putting careful thought into a post that I find interesting among other nonagreement reasons I have.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Still astonishing how different people see the same thing when it is right in front of us.

Shouldn't surprise anyone we end up seeing God so differently.

I know. I have to ask. Am I the only one that sees Genesis 1: 26 and 27 as God being Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as being the "Our" in Our image?

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Vance]

31 minutes ago, salgare said:

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

Nope.  And I am not worried about it either.

2. Do you believe there is no absolute or external Truth?

Nope.  I don't think the MFB is claiming that either.  I think what he is saying is that in our current condition there is no way to know what they are.

3. Are you familiar with relativism and pragmatism?

Nope.

4. Do you believe there is NO doctrine or orthodoxy in the Church?

Define "doctrine". 

We believe in orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.

5. Do you believe that all that is involved in the above questions is being reviled by God to the FP to be distributed to the members?  If so, why are these concepts not taught at GC?

God hasn't revealed to me what He has reviled or is currently reviling or what He will yet revile.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Vance

[Vance]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

I know. I have to ask. Am I the only one that sees Genesis 1: 26 and 27 as God being Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as being the "Our" in Our image?

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

MFB has often described "God" as family. I think it makes sense.  So I have no problem with your interpretation.  

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Vance said:

my comments embedded in blue

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

Nope.  And I am not worried about it either.

2. Do you believe there is no absolute or external Truth?

Nope.  I don't think the MFB is claiming that either.  I think what he is saying is that in our current condition there is no way to know what they are.

Take the time to read the threads linked upthread for Steve to see that you are mistaken here.

3. Are you familiar with relativism and pragmatism?

Nope.

Take the time to read the threads linked upthread for Steve to see that you might want to rethink your answer to question 1.

4. Do you believe there is NO doctrine or orthodoxy in the Church?

Define "doctrine". 

Fundamentalism as JLHPROP would teach.

We believe in orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.

Please be specific on who exactly is "we".

5. Do you believe that all that is involved in the above questions is being reviled by God to the FP to be distributed to the members?  If so, why are these concepts not taught at GC?

God hasn't revealed to me what He has reviled or is currently reviling or what He will yet revile.

I'm confused by your answer.  Declarations of doctrine, orthodoxy, orthopraxy etc. for the Church would be expected to come through the Prophet not you, right?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, salgare said:

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

Salgare, oh oh

Cantare, oh oh oh oh!

What is it that you think "MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?"

[Stargazer]

On 4/8/2016 at 7:58 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

 

[salgare]

17 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Salgare, oh oh

Cantare, oh oh oh oh!

What is it that you think "MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?"

You would have to actually read the linked threads to be able to offer anything more than a statement of denial here Russell.  But please feel free to actually answer and give explanation to ALL of the given questions.

Btw, I'm on limited status and not likely to waste anymore of my limited replies to you unless you actually have something to contribute. 

[Stargazer]

I am growing to really dislike the current iteration of the board software.

I started by quoting something Russell had written, decided I didn't care after all, but the software wouldn't let me cancel the post.  Wouldn't let me edit the body of my post, wouldn't let me remove the quote (though it let me delete the contents of the quote).  So I posted the mostly blank post.  I then tried to edit it, but ran into the same problem.

It was very frustrating, especially since I wanted to post something completely different in response to someone else, but the software kept bringing back the old Russell empty quote!!!  Although in this post  I did finally manage to delete the empty quote.

Someone needs to track down the idiot who coded this monstrosity and beat him or her with a wet noodle.

This isn't the first time the board software as currently constituted has driven me over the edge.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stargazer

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, salgare said:

You would have to actually read the linked threads to be able to offer anything more than a statement of denial here Russell.  But please feel free to actually answer and give explanation to ALL of the given questions.

Btw, I'm on limited status and not likely to waste anymore of my limited replies to you unless you actually have something to contribute. 

If you bother to read before responding, you'll notice that I'm not offering "a statement of denial." I'm asking what you think he's up to.

Since you're on limited status, you might like to actually come out and say what you're trying to say instead of relying upon hints and insinuations.

 

[salgare]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am growing to really dislike the current iteration of the board software.

I started by quoting something Russell had written, decided I didn't care after all, but the software wouldn't let me cancel the post.  Wouldn't let me edit the body of my post, wouldn't let me remove the quote (though it let me delete the contents of the quote).  So I posted the mostly blank post.  I then tried to edit it, but ran into the same problem.

It was very frustrating, especially since I wanted to post something completely different in response to someone else, but the software kept bringing back the old Russell empty quote!!!  Although in this post  I did finally manage to delete the empty quote.

Someone needs to track down the idiot who coded this monstrosity and beat him or her with a wet noodle.

This isn't the first time the board software as currently constituted has driven me over the edge.

Hey my coding friend ... it's kind of like you need to hold your tongue just the right way.

To clean up a quoting mess, highlight everything in the quote, backing off at least one character and hit the delete key.  Delete the remaining character of two so that quote box is totally empty.  Hit the down arrow one time to get out of the quote box, then hit the backspace key and it will delete the quote box.

Russel, I could look for the specifics, but its not worth my time for you.  The answer is in Marks statements in the threads I have linked.  Do your own homework.  Besides I've asked the question, if you feel your are clear on it, feel free to explain.

Edited April 11, 2016 by salgare

[rodheadlee]

54 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am growing to really dislike the current iteration of the board software.

I started by quoting something Russell had written, decided I didn't care after all, but the software wouldn't let me cancel the post.  Wouldn't let me edit the body of my post, wouldn't let me remove the quote (though it let me delete the contents of the quote).  So I posted the mostly blank post.  I then tried to edit it, but ran into the same problem.

It was very frustrating, especially since I wanted to post something completely different in response to someone else, but the software kept bringing back the old Russell empty quote!!!  Although in this post  I did finally manage to delete the empty quote.

Someone needs to track down the idiot who coded this monstrosity and beat him or her with a wet noodle.

This isn't the first time the board software as currently constituted has driven me over the edge.

It's the same for me and I hate not having numbered posts to refer back to.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I know I have encountered something called "New Order Mormonism" somewhere online. Couldn't sort out: are these LDS folk with a rarified understanding of Mormonism? Or apostates?

I assumed salgare is coining or employing the term "Nuanced Mormonism" to reflect the sort of otherwise-faithfilled Latter-Day Saint conversant prevalent on this forum: which is markedly different from ANYTHING ever experienced in a Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School or Melchizedek Priesthood Meeting.

Perhaps if salgare presented his categories as signposts along a spectrum rather than as system of mutually exclusive paradigms at war with each other, the conversation could move forward with less animus?

I understand your point, but the fact is even the suggestion of different types of Mormons misses the point. We are defined by a common lifestyle and common beliefs- quite simple beliefs actually. We are all God's children, Christ as son of God, savior and redeemer, prophets, Joseph Smith,  virtual universal salvation, and the potential to continue individual progression forever.

Temple recommend stuff.

How we put that all together is our individual business. 

Separating us into divisions denies our actual unity. We are to be, and are, one people. As one family, we have some differences, but are always one family.

There are not more "nuanced" members of a family as a category within the family. Some may have different understandings, different politics etc, but that does not interfere with the family AS a family. 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

Russel, I could look for the specifics, but its not worth my time for you.  The answer is in Marks statements in the threads I have linked.  Do your own homework.  Besides I've asked the question, if you feel your are clear on it, feel free to explain.

So, just to make it clear:

You are accusing Mfbukowski of being up to something.

You refuse to specify what it is, and order me to chase down a rabbit trail of links from somewhere back in this 9-page thread in order to find the support you refuse to provide.

Well, I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for.

OTOH, your rather shabby and manipulative attempt to shift the burden of proof is evidence that you don't have anything to support your insinuations.

So I conclude that you have no good-faith basis for your insinuations.

 

[mfbukowski]

Nuanced Humanity!  A new race of humanity !

Only ironists and strong poets allowed!

I am issuing memberships and accepting tithes. Apply now or lose your salvation!  

[flameburns623]

Is salgare a Latter-Day Saint who is simply arguing for a different apologetic than is employed by MFBukowski, Teryl Givens, Mason, et. al.? Is he merely concerned that the "Nuanced Mormon" approach is a Trojan Horse for humanism?

Or is he a non-Mormon who is engaged in tearing down all variants of LDS apologetics?

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, salgare said:

I believe the linked threads are still open.  Feel free to share some actual dialog and discussion.  Commit yourself to either naming and describing this endpoint or denying its very existence.  Commit yourself as to where you stand in this spectrum.  Commit yourself as to how you can maintain the difference does not matter and hence there is no spectrum.

thesometimesaint was not willing to commit. he said:

"Salgare:

I'm a GI and a Baby Boomer. Joined the Church when I was 20. If someone is uncomfortable with change the Church probably isn't for them.

Articles of Faith #9 We believe  all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67384-wishing-for-answers/?do=findComment&comment=1209612450

Perhaps instead of you continually rubber stamping a thumbs up on Mark and Robert's posts, you comment on how and why you agree with them in the linked threads.

Or perhaps answer these questions which sometime would not.

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

2. Do you believe there is no absolute or external Truth?

3. Are you familiar with relativism and pragmatism?

4. Do you believe there is NO doctrine or orthodoxy in the Church?

5. Do you believe that all that is involved in the above questions is being reviled by God to the FP to be distributed to the members?  If so, why are these concepts not taught at GC?

Stop berating posters. If you don't like board policies please find another forum you are comfortable with.

Mods: I'm a big boy and can take care of myself. But thank you.

Salgare:

1. I don't know what you mean by MFB. Please explain.

2. I believe there is. Not too sure that some mortals know it however.

3. Yes I am familiar with those terms. In the context of this discussion I tend towards relativism, but that is not an absolute position. 

4. I believe there is doctrine in the Church. It is contained in the Standard Works of the Church. As to the question of Orthodoxy not as much, as I am one for Orthopraxy. IE; Show me what you do, and I'll know what you believe.

5. No I don't believe they are "reviled" by God. Revealed is a different question. There has been only one perfect person to have ever lived on this world, and we ain't him. Further we mortals have been debating what he said for the last some 2000 years. I am appreciative of the times when God talks to man, including me.

 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Is salgare a Latter-Day Saint who is simply arguing for a different apologetic than is employed by MFBukowski, Teryl Givens, Mason, et. al.? Is he merely concerned that the "Nuanced Mormon" approach is a Trojan Horse for humanism?

Or is he a non-Mormon who is engaged in tearing down all variants of LDS apologetics?

I can't speak for his motives, but he's a non-mormon.  

[flameburns623]

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 . . . Separating us into divisions denies our actual unity. We are to be, and are, one people. As one family, we have some differences, but are always one family.

There are not more "nuanced" members of a family as a category within the family. Some may have different understandings, different politics etc, but that does not interfere with the family AS a family. 

 Mr MFBukowski:

With all due respect:

This is the same bucket of farm compost that we see on the Catholic board, where it is denied that there are distinctions between Progressive Catholics, Conservative Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics.

It is clear: those three groups (at a minimum) clearly exist, clearly profess the name of "Catholic", clearly do some or many of the things which Roman Catholics do. 

Yet they "read" Catholicism differently in many respects, live it differently, talk about it differently. and in distinctive and pretty distingishable ways.

Language is the tool we use to apprehend those distinctions, labels are the broad categories we use to help us sift through those distictive groups. 

Using labels is not inherently a bad strategy to conduct such work.

Those labels can be too specific or too broad to be useful, they can be misapplied, they can be wrong or irrelevant: but they can also be true,  germaine, a fair approximation,  accurate, useful: and provide thereby an increase of clarity.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by flameburns623
Typo

[flameburns623]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't speak for his motives, but he's a non-mormon.  

Thanks! Much obliged! 

[thesometimesaint]

All this "More Christian Than Thee" is off putting after a while. If you claim to be a Christian, and at least try to do what he says you're a Christian in my book.

[salgare]

5 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Is salgare a Latter-Day Saint who is simply arguing for a different apologetic than is employed by MFBukowski, Teryl Givens, Mason, et. al.? Is he merely concerned that the "Nuanced Mormon" approach is a Trojan Horse for humanism?

Or is he a non-Mormon who is engaged in tearing down all variants of LDS apologetics?

I know first hand the price involved in having a crisis of faith, living a mixed belief marriage, the tensions of extended family, etc.  I raised my children up at the Fundamentalist extreme of the spectrum.  They are starting to bring up my very young grandchildren in the current correlated gospel with whatever leanings they may carry forward from my fundamentalism.

Salgare's agenda is to get my children and especially my grandhchildren out of the Mormon Church before they are indoctrinated into yet another generation controlled by the corporate (apostate) Church.  I am super interested in the Givens movement as it is my adult children who will take the brunt of the pain and damage that this transition will challenge them with.  If the transition is successful it has a higher possibility of ensnaring my grandchildren.

If the Church is not capital T, the only True Church on the face of the Earth, i.e. Given's movement of, well lets see how we can get this to work for you, then what value does it hold for my grandchildren (1/2 of which are girls) which many other organizations can fulfill for them without all the SERIOUS drawbacks of the Church?

I have written a letter of apology to my children for what I indoctrinated them into.  I've sent them several issues of a "know your religion" which I would compose from information gleaned from these sites.  After my cancer hit, I was very intent on doing what I might to try and make things right with them.  I now feel at piece with having done what I can.  The two times I have returned here, I have felt the spirit, and felt there was a reason for doing so.  My posting at MDB has fallen way off and my interest in the critic/apologetic world fades.  Possibly I have provided something of worth to someone along these lines.

 

[salgare]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can't speak for his motives, but he's a non-mormon.  

Actually I'm a member of the Church still officially.  I was a Fundamentalist Mormon doctrinally (still am by heart), realized I rightfully claim myself a Cultural Mormon (buried in multi-generational extended family, wife and) and after being introduced to some philosophy, realize my spiritual journey continues.

I've mentioned your avatar before (yea creepy old guy), I have a granddaughter with attributes I see in that photo.  There is something familiar there that brings a smile.  I wish you the best bluebell.  

[salgare]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mods: I'm a big boy and can take care of myself. But thank you.

Salgare:

1. I don't know what you mean by MFB. Please explain.

2. I believe there is. Not too sure that some mortals know it however.

3. Yes I am familiar with those terms. In the context of this discussion I tend towards relativism, but that is not an absolute position. 

4. I believe there is doctrine in the Church. It is contained in the Standard Works of the Church. As to the question of Orthodoxy not as much, as I am one for Orthopraxy. IE; Show me what you do, and I'll know what you believe.

5. No I don't believe they are "reviled" by God. Revealed is a different question. There has been only one perfect person to have ever lived on this world, and we ain't him. Further we mortals have been debating what he said for the last some 2000 years. I am appreciative of the times when God talks to man, including me.

 

I assumed the warning was for Mark F. Bukowski (MFB) and Calm.

I would like to change the subject of question one to Terryl Givens (per warning).

In question one I'm asking if you are clear on exactly what it is which Julliann called " We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment "

2.  IMO and in my limited understanding your answer here contradicts your answers to 3 and 4.

5. This list started because you quoted Articles of Faith #9.  Using Julliann's label, and since we are talking about the whole Church, who are those "accommodations" going to be granted by, and would you expect that the Givens would be the ones presenting this "modern enlightenment" to the Church?

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by salgare

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

Actually I'm a member of the Church still officially.  I was a Fundamentalist Mormon doctrinally (still am by heart), realized I rightfully claim myself a Cultural Mormon (buried in multi-generational extended family, wife and) and after being introduced to some philosophy, realize my spiritual journey continues.

I've mentioned your avatar before (yea creepy old guy), I have a granddaughter with attributes I see in that photo.  There is something familiar there that brings a smile.  I wish you the best bluebell.  

Thank you.