Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that the BOM is authentic.

RESPONSE

I have absolutely no interest in proving anything to you.  That is something between you and God.  Now if you want to convince ME that is is false, let's see what you got.  You need to be able to explain etc etc

Edited September 5, 2016 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/2/2016 at 0:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

Here is a quote from a NEW talk I urge you to read or listen to, from Elder Holland.  Yes, that old "fogie" Elder Holland who nails it in this talk:

Elder Holland can give 5000 more talks like this and it will change nothing, the reason for his late agitation is He sees the writing on the wall, clearly and knows it is irreversible. Sad thing is, instead of acknowledging they have have a huge problem in their hands they dig the trenches even deeper, hoping the people will come back to them obediently.... Just the opposite is happening; New generation has all the information at their fingertips.

Before being excommunicated John Dehlin desperately tried to build a Bridge with the Church and dissenters, not only he was snubbed but he was excommunicated, here was John's answer....Dissent will not be tolerated. 

[cdowis]

45 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Before being excommunicated John Dehlin desperately tried to build a Bridge with the Church and dissenters, not only he was snubbed but he was excommunicated, here was John's answer....Dissent will not be tolerated. 

I am disappointed in you.  Statement from the church:

....attempts have been made to create the impression that the disciplinary council convened on Sunday, February 8, 2015, and which has resulted in a loss of Church membership or excommunication of Mr. Dehlin arose largely because of his views on same-sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women.  Although his stated positions on those subjects are not consistent with the Church’s teachings, they were not cited in the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, which spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision, as follows:

• Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
• Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction. 
• Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.

n his letter the local leader stated, “I want you to know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause.  Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions.  But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”  

[Bobbieaware]

13 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Elder Holland can give 5000 more talks like this and it will change nothing, the reason for his late agitation is He sees the writing on the wall, clearly and knows it is irreversible. Sad thing is, instead of acknowledging they have have a huge problem in their hands they dig the trenches even deeper, hoping the people will come back to them obediently.... Just the opposite is happening; New generation has all the information at their fingertips.

Before being excommunicated John Dehlin desperately tried to build a Bridge with the Church and dissenters, not only he was snubbed but he was excommunicated, here was John's answer....Dissent will not be tolerated. 

For testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints, there is no surprise that the members of the Church are now passing through -- and will continue to pass through -- times and circumstances that will test the strength of their testimonies. We have been repeatedly warned that prior to the Lord's Second Coming the testimonies of even the very elect (those with the strongest faith and testimonies) would be tested in the buffeting winds of extremely strong contradiction and adversity. But the prophecies are sure and will surely come to pass: Though many members of the Church will eventually succumb and fall away because they were unable to withstand the jeering taunts of the the worldly-wiise, the apostates and the wolves in sheep's clothing who stand at the wimdows at the great and spacious building of Lehi's vision, there will also be a great many who will successfully pass through the refine's fire and keep the faith unto the inheriting of eternal life. Those who do keep the faith, in spite of the most intense and seemingly-convincing opposition, will triumph without the so-called "help" from the likes of John Dehlin.

Again, there is no surprise at all in the fact that the testimonies of the saints of the latter-days would be tested to the utmost because the apostles and prophets of the rRestored Church have, from the beginning, been warning the members that the great days of testing and tribulation would come.  The following is from apostle Exra Taft Benson's October 1963 General Comference address...

Those of us who think “. . . all is well in Zion . . .” (2 Nephi 28:21) in spite of Book of Mormon warning might ponder the words of Heber C. Kimball when he said, “Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills . . . but I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, AND MANY WIL FALL. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming.” (Heber C. Kimball, 1856. Quoted by J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1930, pp. 59-60.)

Because of the immutable law of the necessity of there being opposition in all things, there have always been the faithless ark-steaders in all dispensations of the Gospel who have run around in panic saying the Church and kingdom will fall unless the Church conforms to the rudiments of the world But these ark-steadiers have been -- and still are -- only partially fight.  For while it is true there will be many who will fall during the refiner's fire testing of the latter-days, not all will fall and they will be the ones who have not been deceived by anything and everything the beguiling power of the devil could throw at them, and for this reason this faithful and triumphant host will be the ones who inherit the fullness of celestial glory.

 

 

 

[Atheist Mormon]

28 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I am disappointed in you.  Statement from the church:

....attempts have been made to create the impression that the disciplinary council convened on Sunday, February 8, 2015, and which has resulted in a loss of Church membership or excommunication of Mr. Dehlin arose largely because of his views on same-sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women.  Although his stated positions on those subjects are not consistent with the Church’s teachings, they were not cited in the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, which spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision, as follows:

• Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
• Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction. 
• Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.

n his letter the local leader stated, “I want you to know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause.  Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions.  But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”  

Yes, this is the other side of the coin...I can't disagree what you are writing.....

However one of this days it must be downed on things are nat the same way they used to be.......

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Elder Holland can give 5000 more talks like this and it will change nothing, the reason for his late agitation is He sees the writing on the wall, clearly and knows it is irreversible. Sad thing is, instead of acknowledging they have have a huge problem in their hands they dig the trenches even deeper, hoping the people will come back to them obediently.... Just the opposite is happening; New generation has all the information at their fingertips.

Before being excommunicated John Dehlin desperately tried to build a Bridge with the Church and dissenters, not only he was snubbed but he was excommunicated, here was John's answer....Dissent will not be tolerated. 

I don't see the "huge problem."

People will follow their own desires as pertaining to whether to affiliate with the Church.

The Church is obligated by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel and extend a loving invitation to everyone, but not at the cost of forsaking its doctrines, beliefs and standards (see the first three quotes in my signature below). At the end of the day, each has his own moral agency, and if some use that agency unwisely, that is not the Church's problem, "huge" or otherwise.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes, this is the other side of the coin...I can't disagree what you are writing.....

However one of this days it must be downed on things are nat the same way they used to be.......

The vision seen by Nephi indicated that in the last days the Church of Jesus Christ would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan. I have every expectation we will continue to see that prophecy fulfilled. If that means fluctuating or even declining membership numbers, well, we can't say we weren't forewarned by scripture (see the first three quotes in my signature).

Edited September 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

No I didn't say that.  It it applies to you fine, if not fine.  I really don't care.

This is what I actually said.  Try to read the words instead of what you think I said:

I said "I hope it works for you"

I don't know where you got what you said I said.   I generally mean exactly what I say.  I cannot imagine that working for me.  God speaks to me, I have no doubt he is "real".  I cannot explain it.

If that doesn't work for you, find your own explanation.  That is what i did when everyone around me was an atheist ridiculing my feelings.  If the Hubble works for you, go for it.

It sounds to me like you're trying to have this both ways.  You want to affirm that you agree with Holland, and he's very clearly pointing a finger at the secular and saying that its never going to satisfy the yearnings of the soul.  His application is a universal one.  Then you say that he got it right and you state your agreement with him.  Next you say that you hope my experiences work for me, and maybe its just the limitations of the written word, but it came across as condescending. Its as if you personally doubt the efficacy of anything other than religious experience to be able to work in the lives of people but you hold out some faint hope that somehow if people are faced with the serious challenges of life, that they can find a way to keep from killing themselves?  Sorry, but this doesn't sound like you hold much respect for other ways of thinking.  

[Gray]

On 9/4/2016 at 0:22 PM, Glenn101 said:

What is more nonsensical. to say that there is one true church, or to say that all Christian churches are true? 

If "true" is being used as a synonym for "good", then it makes perfect sense to say all Christian churches are true, or at least most. If "true" means accurate or in accordance with reality, then it doesn't make sense either way. 

[Gray]

On 9/4/2016 at 0:40 PM, cdowis said:

You are so very clever to point out that an allegory is not true to  reality.  Wow.

What allegory are you referring to? 

[Gray]

On 9/4/2016 at 4:29 PM, mfbukowski said:

I would like you to document that phrase "one true church" in any church talk.

"The only true and living church" is another question.  THAT latter phrase combines the idea of "true church" with "living church" which means one which receives revelation today.

All churches have truth to one degree or another.   The church says that. The church claim is that we are the only church which has truth- as much as is necessary for salvation, AND is also a living church, able to receive ongoing revelation to keep it "true"

Here is how some Catholics explain they are the "one true church":

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it’s-the-true-church

"One true church" is a phrase that pops up many times at LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="one+true+church"

All churches receive revelation, though. We're not special there. 

 

 

 

[Gray]

On 9/4/2016 at 7:43 PM, mfbukowski said:

And another thing

"Goodness" is not "subjective" any more than badness is.

Is goodness objective? Can we measure it in a beaker? Of course not. Just because it's subjective does not mean it's not defensible.

 

Quote

I suggest first you go out and set up a home for abused mothers and children and run it successfully for 10 years.

Then go out and randomly kill 15 people.

See which act is seen as "subjectively good" and which is seen as "subjectively bad".   That will be a nice scientific experiment!  I predict that no one will call the murders "good" and the home "bad"

If you get the subjective opinions of a million human beings, does that turn the subjective into something objective? I thought there were no facts, only interpretations?

 

Quote

Science is the ability to predict what we will experience.  So I just maintained there is a way to objectively test what is good and bad.  Ask people.

And I would say that that those same judgments would maintain the same for all civilized societies.  In those cases we have "absolute truth" because what we call good and bad in those situations does not change.

So how is that different from absolute "objective truth"?   The term "absolute truth" is usually used to say that absolute truth corresponds to some eternal law out there some where in the universe.  I am not saying that

I am that all members of civilized societies, who are not sociopaths, mentally ill, etc, would say that setting up a home for abused mothers and children is a good thing and that murdering 15 random people for no reason is a bad thing

Each of those opinions is based on a subjective feeling we might call the "light of Christ".  

So though in some sense "goodness" is still "subjective" in that it is felt individually in our hearts and cannot be defined, but "we know it when we see it" but yet it is virtually universally agreed on.

In a sense then goodness and badness is both subjectively felt and yet universally agreed on.   It is almost like color sense- the color blue is subjectively experienced, yet universally agreed upon- everyone knows what "blue" is.  (except in silly instances of terminology or optical illusions http://qz.com/352479/this-dress-of-disputed-colors-is-driving-china-crazy-too/)

Yes, I agree that we can all agree that some things are very very good and some things are very very bad. I just don't agree that agreement makes that determination objective.

100% of saltwater crocodiles agree that humans make a tasty treat and should be snacked upon whenever possible.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Gray

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/4/2016 at 6:48 PM, mfbukowski said:

Agreed- of course!

And there ARE statements that we are the "one true church" but they were all made 40 years ago or more.  That phrase now just doesn't work for our day.

Some quote others testimonies like "I was looking for the one true church" or "I am glad I found the one true church" which is of course NOT "The Church" claiming TO BE "one true church".   There is a quote by President Lee saying we are the "one true church" and a few statements in manuals quoting those statements etc

Those are old and few and far between.  I think Wilford Woodruff said it.

But clearly we have moved away from that usage, to "the only true and living church" which is far different than "the one true church"

D&C 1 as a whole is a formal statement of "mine authority" and the "authority of my servants" (v6) so a close and careful reading strikes me as more reliable than either a paraphrase or even extracting a few words. 

Quote

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹ The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

All too often, I have seen members, even commentaries on D&C 1, refer to what they think or expect or want the verse to say, and yet never giving a close reading.  However, it also turns out that there are unavoidable reasons for that, developmental issues, as neatly laid out in the Perry Scheme, and which therefore ought to be seen as inevitable in a community.

Quote

Of course, it’s easy to object that many LDS think and behave as though D&C 1 says exactly what it does not say. There happens to be a very good reason for the common misreading that goes beyond repetition and commonplace thinking. Brigham Young commented that “there is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.”⁵² One of the ways that has helped me better understand “men and women as they are” has been the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. The Perry Scheme is based on a study of the way students develop during their college years in moving from provincial communities to a diverse university environment.⁵³ Here are Positions 1 and 2 of 9:

Position 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms—Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will [Page 136]teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.⁵⁴

The point here is that the attitude toward a group’s authorities that Riskas sees as a distinctive Mormon claim applies to a position of human development that everyone faces regardless of their cultural background. Because Mormons are human, these positions will always be found among Mormons. But it is not a binding Mormon doctrine, simply an expected expression of human attitude toward their chosen society at a particular level of personal growth. As I have shown, D&C 1 expressly contradicts the assumptions of these initial positions and thereby encourages further growth.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

"One true church" is a phrase that pops up many times at LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="one+true+church"

All churches receive revelation, though. We're not special there. 

 

 

 

I already answered those. I can actually google too, and did before you posted that!

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

All churches receive revelation, though. We're not special there. 

 

 

 

Do you have some examples of revelation that other churches have or are receiving?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

D&C 1 as a whole is a formal statement of "mine authority" and the "authority of my servants" (v6) so a close and careful reading strikes me as more reliable than either a paraphrase or even extracting a few words. 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

All too often, I have seen members, even commentaries on D&C 1, refer to what they think or expect or want the verse to say, and yet never giving a close reading.  However, it also turns out that there are unavoidable reasons for that, developmental issues, as neatly laid out in the Perry Scheme, and which therefore ought to be seen as inevitable in a community.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin. I love that essay against Riskas, and find it a definitive refutation.

I actually have a copy of Riskas' book, and your arguments against it parallel those of professional philosophers. Riskas' positions are similar to those of Boghossian in a book called "Fear of Knowledge", which denounces all forms of relativism and constructionism, which of course was roundly criticized in the constructivist community and your arguments parallel those raised in that community against Boghossian.

We relativists of course know that relativism itself is only relatively true and only works until another relative paradigm appears.

Edited September 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Is goodness objective? Can we measure it in a beaker? Of course not. Just because it's subjective does not mean it's not defensible.

 

If you get the subjective opinions of a million human beings, does that turn the subjective into something objective? I thought there were no facts, only interpretations?

 

Yes, I agree that we can all agree that some things are very very good and some things are very very bad. I just don't agree that agreement makes that determination objective.

100% of saltwater crocodiles agree that humans make a tasty treat and should be snacked upon whenever possible.

 

I agree with the first sentence.  Of course I agree with it and I am surprised you would bring it up.  My whole reason for being here is to defend the "reality" of what you call "the subjective" here

Yes indeed the opinions of a million human beings "turn the subjective into the objective".  That is precisely what science is.  Replication by others and getting the same results = "science".  Galileo first saw a blurry image of the rings of Saturn through his primitive telescope.  THAT was a subjective experience. He is the only one who ever had that experience at that moment.  He published it and soon everyone turned their telescopes on Saturn and got the same results.  The subjective became objective through construction IN LANGUAGE.  Without language, he would have gone to bed and it would be another Helen Keller experience, subjective but unable to be communicated.

The experience would be as "real" as Moroni appearing to Joseph, meaning, would anyone consider it "real" at all?  That is the point of the defense of the subjective.  All experiences ARE subjective- but if we agree on them we call them "objective".  No one else agrees on seeing Moroni under those conditions and so the experience remains "subjective" to Joseph alone.  But what does that do to its "reality"?   Is that even an intelligible question?

So now we also look through a telescope and see something out there - to be interpreted.  What is the interpretation of the experience as now socially constructed?   We have learned through language where to find the experience called "Saturn".  We take the prescribed instrument with the prescribed lenses and turn it in the direction of the prescribed and defined experience of "Saturn" in the "sky" on a defined night when the experience is available- we know that because even those nights have been described.  We point the device at the potentially described experience- and lo and behold!! There is around experience surrounded by circular experiences!   We have been taught to interpret this private experience as the word "Saturn"!!   YAY!   Saturn is yet again confirmed to be an interpretation of experience which is "objective" and therefore a "fact"!!   We can now make that interpretation within our own brains- it is not just a lumpy odd-shaped light in the night sky- it IS "Saturn"!

Please define another possible meaning of "objective" if you can.  Coyly saying "it doesn't make that determination objective" becomes a meaningless phrase in context.  What does make it objective then?  "Correspondence" to a world no human can experience??

I doubt that saltwater crocodiles have a language that can express their agreement, thereby presenting a bit of a problem with that statement   but I suppose that if they did, it would express their understanding of ONE form of the deflationary theory of truth which maintains that saying a proposition is true is the same as saying "I agree with that"

But I suppose I should discuss that further with a saltwater crocodile philosopher.

Oh wait- maybe I am.

Edited September 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/5/2016 at 8:22 AM, cdowis said:

CRITIC

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that the BOM is authentic.

RESPONSE

I have absolutely no interest in proving anything to you.  That is something between you and God.  Now if you want to convince ME that is is false, let's see what you got.  You need to be able to explain etc etc

By all means, suit yourself.....

PS: I'm not the one who is proselytizing BoM to the world.....you better hope the missionaries do not take the same attitude. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Atheist Mormon
typo

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I already answered those. I can actually google too, and did before you posted that!

Sorry, I didn't get much chance to read the new responsesover the three day weekend.  

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have some examples of revelation that other churches have or are receiving?

Several examples:

http://time.com/3748485/same-sex-marriage-presbyterian-church-vote-redefine-protestant/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-denominations-on-revelation/

http://www.wheatandtares.org/20989/new-revelation-in-the-community-of-christ/

And of course, any time leaders of any churches or synagogues council together to seek the will of God on any issue, that is revelation. Usually such revelations don't make it into the news media. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to have this both ways.  You want to affirm that you agree with Holland, and he's very clearly pointing a finger at the secular and saying that its never going to satisfy the yearnings of the soul.  His application is a universal one.  Then you say that he got it right and you state your agreement with him.  Next you say that you hope my experiences work for me, and maybe its just the limitations of the written word, but it came across as condescending. Its as if you personally doubt the efficacy of anything other than religious experience to be able to work in the lives of people but you hold out some faint hope that somehow if people are faced with the serious challenges of life, that they can find a way to keep from killing themselves?  Sorry, but this doesn't sound like you hold much respect for other ways of thinking.  

Only sentences or propositions- linguistic statements can be true or false.   The world is not true or false, reality as we know it is not true or false- see Rorty below, yet again.

Elder Holland made statements- uttered statements- which I can consider to be "true" and with which I fully agree.  So did President Kimball in saying that certain moral statements are "absolutely true".  I agree that certain moral statements will always work for all humanity and are therefore "universally true" in MY WAY of interpreting those words.

Whether or not that is the way President Kimball or Elder Holland interpreted those same statements the same way I do is unknowable.  I am not in their heads.  It would take hours of chatting probably to establish that, and I have not had that opportunity.

I believe the "golden rule" or Kant's "Categorical Imperative" are functionally equivalent statements.   One is phrased for philosophers, and the other is phrased for the rest of humanity.  Same "truth"- different language, different descriptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Even Kant himself expressed the "Categorical Imperative" in many ways using different language for different contexts.  

Here are two different expressions of what he considered virtually the "same":

Quote

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

This is like your mom saying "What if EVERYBODY did that?  What kind of world would this be?"Here is another formulation:

Quote

Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends.

 

Kant held those two statements to be equivalent, but obviously the second statement quoted here was after many BOOKS written explaining EVERY WORD of the first formulation.

So once you know the theory of Kant, you can also see that these statements can be seen as "equivalent".   Without understanding the theory behind every word, they look like they have nothing to do with each other.

Was Kant trying to have it "both ways"?  No, just that he understood both to be equivalent.

I have tried some ways to show you that what Elder Holland was saying is the "same thing" as what I am saying, but obviously that has not yet sunk in and I have not been able to develop a way to explain that to you.   I suppose that is not a very satisfying reply, but it is the best I can do.

I agree that there are maxims which are universally true for all humans, meaning that our survival as a culture depends on them.  Elder Holland agrees with that.

I think that perhaps God gave us those maxims, or perhaps they evolved.  It doesn't matter to me how we got them, but I believe, like Elder Holland that we must believe and live by them.

Perhaps Elder Holland and I would disagree on "how we got them" or perhaps not, but I don't see that as relevant to the fact that we both try to live our lives by those maxims.  I aspire to be half as adept as Elder Holland is in feeling the spirit and following it.  My disagreeing with where he puts the commas and what words he uses on occasion has nothing to do with that.

I don't see that at all as "trying to have it both ways" and even IF I WAS "trying to have it both ways" why that in itself is a "bad thing"

I can speak English and German- one much better than the other, but saying "the same thing" is not "having it both ways.  If you want to CALL speaking English and German as "having it both ways" then fine- I have no argument.

And regarding respect for a way of thought, it is EARNED by how how well it explains life.   I have not found much here that in my opinion does it well.  I keep looking though.

Part of being an "apologist" I think is the constant search for an argument which I cannot solve.  It's like looking for a game I cannot master.   So far I think my track record is pretty good.   That is because I had studied the problem 30 years before I even came here.

I suggest you study it for 30 years too, but you are probably smarter than me and will get it faster.

[ksfisher]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

Several examples:

http://time.com/3748485/same-sex-marriage-presbyterian-church-vote-redefine-protestant/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-denominations-on-revelation/

http://www.wheatandtares.org/20989/new-revelation-in-the-community-of-christ/

And of course, any time leaders of any churches or synagogues council together to seek the will of God on any issue, that is revelation. Usually such revelations don't make it into the news media. 

I'm thinking that your definition of revelation and mine differ.  Your definition also leaves out God's role as the giver of said revelation.

Why was there a need for a restoration if all these churches are also receiving revelation? 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

By all means, suit yourself.....

PS: I'm not the one who is proselytizing BoM to the world.....you better hope the missionaries do not take the same attitude. 

So the missionaries prove the the BOM thru archaeology, science, debates of evidence, is that correct?  Or do they quote Moroni 10:4-5 and encourage the investigators to read and pray.

The way of Christ is ==>>

Matt 16  [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The way of Christ is for each of us personally to take on the responsibility to read, and pray to God.  Not to have missionaries use  clever arguments and sales techniques to sell Christ and the church.  That suits me very well, thank you.

Edited September 6, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I'm thinking that your definition of revelation and mine differ.  Your definition also leaves out God's role as the giver of said revelation.

Why was there a need for a restoration if all these churches are also receiving revelation? 

I think it's more common today to have churches that have revelations that work very similarly to the way ours works today. That is to say, many church leaders prayerfully seek the will of God on important questions, but mainly stick closely to the traditions and canon agreed upon decades or centuries previously. Under this model God makes His will known mainly through prayerfully considered policy changes. 

For the types of revelations had in the early days of the LDS church, you have to go outside of the LDS church for current examples (one being the Community of Christ). 

The restoration was a movement among many different religious denominations, not just the LDS Church. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to have this both ways.  You want to affirm that you agree with Holland, and he's very clearly pointing a finger at the secular and saying that its never going to satisfy the yearnings of the soul.  His application is a universal one.  Then you say that he got it right and you state your agreement with him.  Next you say that you hope my experiences work for me, and maybe its just the limitations of the written word, but it came across as condescending. Its as if you personally doubt the efficacy of anything other than religious experience to be able to work in the lives of people but you hold out some faint hope that somehow if people are faced with the serious challenges of life, that they can find a way to keep from killing themselves?  Sorry, but this doesn't sound like you hold much respect for other ways of thinking.  

I was thinking about your misunderstanding about me wanting to have it "both ways" when i was writing this post.

There are many ways of expressing the "same belief" in a number of ways.  Here we see how both the Chinese and LDS have some of the "same beliefs" in totally different contexts, not unlike statements I have made and Elder Holland has made.  I hope this clarifies