Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But what if the time frame in which these things are to occur is understood to mean not just up to the beginning of the millennium but on through to the end of Christ's thousand-year reign?

Does that make a difference in how we are to understand the speaker?

That would make a difference, but I didn't get any kind of hint from his talk that that was what he had in mind. He seemed to be focusing on the present and the near future. At least that's my reading of his talk.

 

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose I were to assert flatly that the devil will triumph over Christ in the end and that all humankind will end up subject to the devil and that there is nothing anybody or anything can do about it. I think one would be hard-pressed to find a prophecy of the scriptures that could even be reasonably spun to suggest such a thing.

That's kind of an extreme example, but sure. Matt 12:

Quote

43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

Not that I believe this interpretation, but I could say, "Jesus is saying that the devil will ultimately triumph. The forces of good may enjoy a short-lived victory, but evil will win in the end." 

 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

are you referring to John Dehlin or are you assuming I have been excommunicated?  Which I have not by the way.  So far no local leader or GA has asked me to be silent.  I keep my Bishop and Stake president aware of what I do with the podcast ( they each have listened to my work) and I have been in contact with seventies and apostles regarding my thoughts and approach as well.  I am not saying they are comfortable or approve though they haven't said they uncomfortable or disapprove.  Just that no one with stewardship has told me I am wrong and inaccurate or that I need to cease for some other reason.  And other than one leader higher than me, they haven't high fived me or told me good job either.  They are aware and have stayed essentially out of it one way or another. nothing has been said....  zilch.  And last I checked folks here who are critical are big on respecting those who hold stewardship and have the mantle of authority for that which they have been given keys.

Time will tell, though, Bill. I wouldn't parade the "absence of evidence as evidence of absence" as it relates to your priesthood leaders. As with Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, et. al., they tend to be very patient and forbearing and to allow people plenty of rope beforehand. 

You are very reminiscent to me of John Dehlin (especially with your constant need to get attention via podcasting, and your iconoclastic/"progressive" approach to the Church). As with John, if you continue to vie for attention via social media, you will be on a collision course that will eventually result in a collision. I hope that day doesn't come, but if it does, I hope that you won't be of the "candlelight vigil" or "ex-mo support press conference" variety. And, I sincerely hope that you will handle your council with class and dignity and not record it and release it on the internet. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Prophesy can be interpreted any way you like (for instance, the "whore" referenced in this prophesy was once understood to refer to the Catholic church, but is now interpreted differently). But the Daniel prophesy was interpreted to mean that the church (aka the kingdom of God) would grow and grow and grow until it filled the earth. It wasn't that long ago - I think given the average age on this board most of us probably remember that, right?

Heck, this interpretation and others like it were given only five years ago in GC:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

None of what you have posted contradicts or enhances Nephi's prophecy. It doesn't matter who the whore is. Our leaders celebrating the presence of the Church all over the earth does not mean there are billions of members. They are saying exactly what Nephi prophesied. He simply points out that that 

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

 

 

 

 

 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Prophesy can be interpreted any way you like (for instance, the "whore" referenced in this prophesy was once understood to refer to the Catholic church, but is now interpreted differently). But the Daniel prophesy was interpreted to mean that the church (aka the kingdom of God) would grow and grow and grow until it filled the earth. It wasn't that long ago - I think given the average age on this board most of us probably remember that, right?

Heck, this interpretation and others like it were given only five years ago in GC:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/the-time-shall-come?lang=eng

 

 

A verse in the Book of Mormon provides a key to the miraculous growth of the Church today: “And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”7

 

  Quote

There are 23 stakes of Zion in Buenos Aires today, with dozens of stakes and tens of thousands of Church members in cities and towns across Argentina. Now there are well over 600 stakes and several million Church members throughout South America. While we watch, the kingdom of God is filling the continent, and the name of Joseph Smith is being published both by us and by his detractors in countries he may never even have heard of during his lifetime.

There are nearly 3,000 stakes in the worldwide Church today, from Boston to Bangkok and from Mexico City to Moscow. We are approaching 29,000 wards and branches. In many countries there are mature stakes, with members whose ancestors were converts. In others, small groups of new members meet as tiny Church branches in rented houses. Every year the Church spreads farther and farther across the globe.

These prophecies about filling the world and being known world over: Preposterous? Perhaps. Unlikely? Undoubtedly. Impossible? Emphatically no. It is happening before our eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

Your Daniel prophecies and these other prophecies will not be fulfilled until after Christ returns.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

I personally think that it is likely the flood was a local phenomenon.

When whoever first wrote the account, I don't think that when they said "earth", they were referring to a planet, or that they had an idea about lands they did not see or did not trade with.

I think Nibley makes sense. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=997&index=1

he points out that Noah couldn't have seen the whole earth, because why would he have need to send the birds out if he could already see everything?

The story of the flood takes a few paragraphs in the scriptures.   There is no way such an event could be completely described in so few words.  I know that there has to be more to the story. I also know that I am not likely to get the whole story in this life.  I am OK with this.  The exact nature of the events described in Genisis do not seem to me to be important.  I can see the hand of God in a global or a local flood.  I have seen the hand of God in much smaller events.  It isn't really the size of the event that makes a "miracle".

For me personally, it doesn't really matter if it was Global or Local. I see it is Local, because that is the way the story, as written, makes the most sense to me.  If I get more knowledge, I may change my mind.  

 

I can see why you think a global flood is beyond your experience but why don't you believe in a local flood?   They happen all of the time (around where I live). There is plenty of evidence of very large floods in the not too distant past as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and Moses 1:27-29 would support this, each land is called earth.

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and ^abeheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, ^bdiscerning it by the ^cspirit of God.

  28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a ^asoul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

  29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called ^aearth, and there were ^binhabitants on the face thereof.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I served starting in 2002. I definitely got the impression that we were supposed to become a major force on the religious stage. As far as individual denominations go, I suppose we're pretty big, but as far as a religious category, we're pretty tiny. 

You know, I think the newer narrative is probably better anyway. Jesus talked about his followers as being the "leaven" (bits of yeasty dough) that would raise the whole "lump". I think he definitely saw his movement as a small part of the whole. 

What religious category would that be?

Christians who believe in the pre-existence and that the fall was fortunate in order to give us choice, and who are materialists who believe that God is as we personally can become and in prophets and continuring personal revelation that can tell you the gospel is true, and that even if we do not hear the true gospel we can find it in the after life, Christians who understand the Melchizadek priesthood and have no paid ministry and whose members willingly pay tithing AND also do ministry work on Sundays and run the church themselves?

I would say we are about the only game in town in that category.  That's why I joined up!  I know it's odd, but I actually believe this stuff!!

[Bob Crockett]

17 hours ago, DBMormon said:

are you referring to John Dehlin or are you assuming I have been excommunicated?  Which I have not by the way.  So far no local leader or GA has asked me to be silent.  I keep my Bishop and Stake president aware of what I do with the podcast ( they each have listened to my work) and I have been in contact with seventies and apostles regarding my thoughts and approach as well.  I am not saying they are comfortable or approve though they haven't said they uncomfortable or disapprove.  Just that no one with stewardship has told me I am wrong and inaccurate or that I need to cease for some other reason.  And other than one leader higher than me, they haven't high fived me or told me good job either.  They are aware and have stayed essentially out of it one way or another. nothing has been said....  zilch.  And last I checked folks here who are critical are big on respecting those who hold stewardship and have the mantle of authority for that which they have been given keys.

 

 

 

 

 

No I didn't.  I'm more interested in your response to my comment that the essence of the Gospel is having a metaphysical relationship with the Holy Spirit.  Without that I would find a story of an axe head floating on the water rather unbelievable.

Another problem with your philosophy, at least as I see it, is that it univeralism and in direct conflict with Church teachings.  You reason that since God's grace is sufficient for all, and that everybody in the world is going to be saved anyway given that priesthood ordinances will be provided for all, Mormonism is irrelevant.  This philosophy denies the concept of free will.  As long as there is no free will and salvation is universal, there is no need for the Gospel.  I would therefore agree with the premise if those two conditions are true.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited October 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Since I am quite unaware of philosophy and knowing such a field would fix everything.... I have begun an intro course into philosophy and will see what happens after that (I guess the un-examined life isn't worth living).  That said I still feel compelled to hold the ground I am holding as I don't see philosophy solving my conundrum.  let me explain.

Surely God if he is real and he is the Christian God as the scriptures and our faith describe him, then he is capable of miracles.  So I am not arguing that a global flood is out of the possibility for such a God.  The issue for me is it is so unreasonable and absurd as to not be believable to me.   When I take several issues all pointing to "truth" in something say for instance If the Book of Mormon is historical, then when I see all roads leading to Rome (leading to the conclusion that it is not historical) then I personally feel compelled to not hold ground I see as deeply problematic and unreasonable. Let me list why.  So lets just work with the Flood.  People above are building straw men in terms of what I am arguing or what I am unaware of in terms of ways to reconcile such.

#1 miracles of supernatural type seem only to occur before there was verifiable history (video footage, reporters at the scene who are unconnected to perpetuating the event and other forms of media and evidence.   God talking to his prophet and raining down fire, sending she bears to eat his critics, striking another dumb or deaf, healing paraplegics and giving them their limbs back - these simply do not occur as verifiable miracles.  Again you may argue this all you want but this simply doesn't happen in ways the world could verify so we are left with a different kind of miracles (for the believer these are suffcient, for the doubter he is unable to reconcile this as he sees examples of miracles today as not miracles at all in the supernatural sense)  

#2 the logistical problems of the Flood - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html   - This link explains way better than I could but the miracle of a global flood is far bigger than having water cover the earth.  

#3 once you engage "higher criticism" of the bible (not my words but what the field is labeled), you come realize most biblical scholars and most "experts" share the view that these are just fictional myths with perhaps some crumb of truth but so embellished and exaggerated as to be unreconizeable from the truth.  And at worst completely made up.

#4 geologists and other scientists are almost completely agreed that a global flood is contrary to the evidence - earth's crust, fossil record, etc....

When you add these up a global flood is so improbable that one would (in my mind) either have to have blind faith (believe in spite of evidence), ignorant faith (unaware of the evidence), or believe differently (local flood or believe it is a fictional myth but reconcile that as to allow belief in the restoration).

For those who take the last option, a local flood also has its deep theological problems (in my mind) (cinepro has named these before in another thread). one of which is that Jesus himself in 3rd Nephi mentions the flood (3rd Nephi 22:9).

So in my mind, I have little choice but to believe the global flood is a fictional myth.  That a local flood does not solve the problem.  And connecting this with a handful of other issues (tower of babel and others I mentioned) am left to hold the Book of Mormon as scripture but not as historical.  

So for mfbukowski and others please rather than leveraging a philosophical answer that never addresses the question (Which I honor may solve the issue for you) would you please answer the following.

1.) Do you believe in a literal global flood? if yes than stop here as that is enough for me to know where you stand.... though if you wish you can tell me why you find the evidence against as lacking and what evidence you see in favor of a global flood. (I will say the reasoning of God said so holds little weight with me as I just don't see scripture as the literal words of God though it does contain the word of God... aka: Christ)

2.) If No then Do you believe in a local Flood perhaps of the greatest local flood size ever seen.  That is fine and lets me know where you stand.  Speaking for myself this simply doesn't work for me.

3.) If some other way... figurative or another paradigm and perhaps you have some philosophical answer for this, could you write it out in Layman's terms how you make this work.  Act like I am your friend and you want to kindly walk me through how you make this work.

Thank You.  I am trying here to be kind and respectful myself.  We can argue that I am wrong.  That is fine.  I am not saying I am right, only that this is the only way at present my mind can process this and other issues.  I welcome a dialogue where folks walk me through how their reconciliation is more reasonable or if they believe in-spite of contradictory evidence being stronger, or saying the evidence against is stronger but their spiritual experience trumps such secular evidence.

thanks

Bill

Well thanks for the response

I would love to sit down with you and talk and that might be what it takes, but that has not worked in the past.  We could do it just as people by phone or whatever- forget the complications that have ensued before.

Frankly without some background I am not sure that would work, though,  and it would call for some homework.

Let's start with the Rorty quote below and see if that makes any sense to you.  There should be a particular type of philosophy you should study - and that would be phenomenology or pragmatism.  Mason and Faulconer are phenomenologists and Paulsen is a pragmatist.

Two terms are essential- "truth" and "real".   What is real when all you can know is what is "in your head"?  Both of these two major philosophies of the 20th century start with that idea and in my mind are the only approaches which are compatible with and justify a belief in God.   Besides that, no other major theories have held up- the idea that one must have "evidence" for every proposition is largely dead in philosophy and lives on only in fundamentalism, religious or otherwise.

This is why these other approaches are so important both as philosophies and theology.

Here's a start on Pragmatism- which I personally find most useful.   You will believe these essays because you are coming from the idea that all depends on interpretation of texts and that is what is being said

https://www.mnsu.edu/philosophy/THE WILL TO BELIEVE .pdf

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

The second is the REAL place to start- written by a BYU philosophy professor who is one of my idols.  Yes this is compatible with being LDS - completely.  I recommended the first article as a background- because the second article comments heavily on the first.   So if you want to start with the LDS philosopher, start there.   If you want to jump into a more academic description of the philosophy itself, read the first first!   

If you like Mason et al, this is in the ballpark of where they get their stuff.  Phenomenology is not popular in the US because all its serious practitioners write in European languages- mostly French and German and then you have translation issues.  Pragmatism is easier for us dummies in the US.  Rorty is the leading pragmatist in the US or was until his death.

Let me start with a quote from the BYU prof's article, the quote in the quote is from William James:

Quote

 

James’s pragmatic philosophy is grounded on his conception of a human being as a goal-positing, interest-fulfilling organism, whose rational activities are subservient to her practical and emotional aspects:

Quote

 

The mind [is] an essentially teleological mechanism. I mean by this that the conceiving or theorizing faculty . . . functions exclusively for the sake of ends that . . . are set by our emotional and practical subjectivity altogether. It is a transformer of the world of our impressions into a totally different world—the world of our conception; and the transformation is effected in the interests of our volitional nature, and for no other purpose whatsoever.

(James 1979b, 94–95; emphasis in original)

 

James thus sees our cognitive activities—concept formation, belief acquisition, theory construction, and so on—as instruments molded by our desires and interests whose natural endpoint is action or conduct. Their role is to redirect us into experience better prepared to overcome obstacles to what we will. Based on these assumptions, our beliefs, theories, and concepts are pragmatically meaningful to the extent that they contribute to the achievement of our concrete or practical ends (Suckiel 1982, chaps. 2–3). 6

In seeking to formulate James’s criterion of pragmatic meaning more precisely, Suckiel begins with A. O. Lovejoy’s classic critique of it (Lovejoy 1963). According to Lovejoy, though James presumably intends to provide only a single criterion of meaning, he actually ends up with two. In some passages, James seems to hold that a belief’s pragmatic meaning is restricted to its “predictive import”—the future experiential consequences that ipso facto expectedly flow from it. Yet, in other texts, he apparently takes a belief’s meaning to consist entirely in the future consequences ofbelieving it, regardless of whether the belief itself has experiential consequences. [End Page 115]

 

Let me put this into ordinary language and see if it rings a bell.  I will try to match it as a "translation" going sentence by sentence.

James thinks that all ideas are made up to fill a practical purpose. Some of those purposes can be emotional.  We might want to believe things just because they give us comfort.

To achieve these ends, we transform or interpret our sensory data into meanings, according to our will and what the purpose is for our wanting to believe what we believe.  There is no such thing as an "objective" standpoint on these ideas- all possible standpoints or points of view are generated by our purposes and are more interpretation than hard "fact"

At some points, James talks about "predictive import".  What does that mean? This applies mostly to science.  

Chemistry teaches us that if I combine chemicals xyz with chemicals abc- we will be able in advance to PREDICT the results.  You will have a predictable chemical reaction that always happens.   That is VERY useful- or "pragmatic" because it makes rockets fly to the moon, your computer work etc etc.   So scientific statements are "true" if they successfully and PREDICT some useful end.   Put the widgets in one end, turn the crank, and something useful pops out on the other side (figuratively)

But THEN there are other kinds of propositions/statements NOT about science.  They are about religion and art and the humanities.

These propositions can only be justified intellectually as "true" IF "a belief’s meaning to consist entirely in the future consequences of believing it,"

So belief in God has the practical consequence of making us happy, giving us comfort, defining our place in the universe etc- and CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE "TRUE" in any other way.   We may have confirmation in our hearts, knowable only to us individually spiritually, but scientific data cannot help us prove God's existence.

Now let's apply this to the Flood

What is the purpose of belief in the Flood?   It is based on the erroneous confusion of scientific truth- ideas which predict useful things- with ideas which make us comfortable in our understanding of God.

Believing the flood "actually happened" confuses the pragmatic reasons for science with the pragmatic reasons for religion.

Can we prove that it did not happen?  Well pretty much- but that proof relies on science.   

So today with this pragmatic/phenomenological perspective, we speak of "paradigms" of belief- that is what Kevin is always talking about.  Truth operates in "spheres" (D&C 93) or as Kuhn put it- "paradigms" which are defined by their purpose.  Science is to make things go and work and do practical things in the world.  Religion does practical things for us in our understanding of our place in the universe and in what we feel in our hearts

We should not expect scientific theories about the flood- pro or con- to have anything to do with religion.  We SHOULD expect the Noah story to teach us that God never abandons the faithful, and that he can buoy us up in the flood of adversity and lead us safely to a peaceful "shore"

So if you read that second article you will see how that works.

We can go over this as much as you would like and then we can get to Rorty.

But know this- THIS represents the path you are already on, but is a further step you have not yet reached, but eventually will.

Now let me apply this directly to your post- I will choose one paragraph because they all seem to come from the same point of view pretty much

Quote

 

Surely God if he is real and he is the Christian God as the scriptures and our faith describe him, then he is capable of miracles.  So I am not arguing that a global flood is out of the possibility for such a God.  The issue for me is it is so unreasonable and absurd as to not be believable to me.   When I take several issues all pointing to "truth" in something say for instance If the Book of Mormon is historical, then when I see all roads leading to Rome (leading to the conclusion that it is not historical) then I personally feel compelled to not hold ground I see as deeply problematic and unreasonable. Let me list why.  So lets just work with the Flood.  People above are building straw men in terms of what I am arguing or what I am unaware of in terms of ways to reconcile such.

I am also not arguing that a global flood is impossible.  That is a question for science, not religion.

 

But still you look at it from a scientific pov. YES, SCIENTIFICALLY it is "unreasonable" because science simply cannot prove that such a flood is even possible.

But what about the story's RELIGIOUS value?  THAT is what we should be looking at and reading about- why?  BECAUSE of our new knowledge about philosophy according to 20th century philosophy!!  We are not talking medieval stuff here- but contemporary philosophy justifying religious belief!!!  Can you see the strength in that??

So what is the pragmatic value in believing in a literal flood?   None.  It has no predictive value and cannot be "true" for the Pragmatist.

What is the pragmatic value in believing in a religious interpretation of the flood?   I have already named some!

So we have used ONE philosophical THEORY (remember there are only theories and interpretations - it's all relative) to show how the flood cannot be "scientifically true" but yet CAN be "true" in the same way the statement "I know the church is true"  IS true

What does that mean?   It means that:

"I have found that the BELIEFS of the church have had invaluable pragmatic value in my spiritual life by giving my life meaning and comfort, by letting me understand my place in the universe, the nature of spiritual impressions, etc and these have had a profound effect on my life"

To prove to you that this is a philosophical view that is genuine and widely held, you can look up the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and read serious academic discussions of these views

The nature of truth is hotly debated.  One of the main statements is that there is no way to prove ANYTHING "true"- and that it is a meaningless word as is "reality".  the problem because what we know or can know about truth or reality, so your statements often depend highly on these terms which are part of the "unexamined life".

I hope that helps a little, thanks for asking

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by mfbukowski
formatting. phew. done.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

No I didn't.  I'm more interested in your response to my comment that the essence of the Gospel is having a metaphysical relationship with the Holy Spirit.  Without that I would find a story of an axe head floating on the water rather unbelievable.

I agree but I might also put it this way- a metaphysical belief in the Holy Spirit which allows you to see the world in an entirely different way that Bill was seeing it at that time.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

I'm not sure the author had the 2 Nephi prophesy in mind. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Your Daniel prophecies and these other prophecies will not be fulfilled until after Christ returns.

At one time it was understood that these prophesies were underway, thus explaining the amazing growth of the church (which was probably always overstated given activity rates). Sure, they might culminate in the millennium, but the were also in progress today. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What religious category would that be?

Christians who believe in the pre-existence and that the fall was fortunate in order to give us choice, and who are materialists who believe that God is as we personally can become and in prophets and continuring personal revelation that can tell you the gospel is true, and that even if we do not hear the true gospel we can find it in the after life, Christians who understand the Melchizadek priesthood and have no paid ministry and whose members willingly pay tithing AND also do ministry work on Sundays and run the church themselves?

What I had in mind was denominations that take the Book of Mormon to be scripture. But sure, those things too. 

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would say we are about the only game in town in that category.  That's why I joined up!  I know it's odd, but I actually believe this stuff!!

 Probably not the only game in town, but one of the few

[rodheadlee]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

At one time it was understood that these prophesies were underway, thus explaining the amazing growth of the church (which was probably always overstated given activity rates). Sure, they might culminate in the millennium, but the were also in progress today. 

Yes I agree to a certain point. There will be a falling away first. A separation of the wheat from the chaff.

Matthew 24:

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

  23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

  24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes I agree to a certain point. There will be a falling away first. A separation of the wheat from the chaff.

Matthew 24:

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

  23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

  24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Sure. Of course the context of this prophesy was the first-century destruction of the temple.

 

Quote

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

 

Quote

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

 

[DBMormon]

17 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

I personally think that it is likely the flood was a local phenomenon.

Local flood is believable as far as Noah but it doesn't seem to fit into how Jesus frames it in the Book of Mormon.  It also seems odd for God to promise not to locally flood the earth again in light of local floods happening regularly.  While a local flood for Noah is believable it is less reasonable when placed within theology and historicity.  again.... maybe you can reconcile it but it seems the much less reasonable paradigm.

[DBMormon]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the purpose of belief in the Flood?  

But what about the story's RELIGIOUS value? 

What is the pragmatic value in believing in a religious interpretation of the flood?  

"I have found that the BELIEFS of the church have had invaluable pragmatic value in my spiritual life by giving my life meaning and comfort, by letting me understand my place in the universe, the nature of spiritual impressions, etc and these have had a profound effect on my life"

The nature of truth is hotly debated.  One of the main statements is that there is no way to prove ANYTHING "true"- and that it is a meaningless word as is "reality".  the problem because what we know or can know about truth or reality, so your statements often depend highly on these terms which are part of the "unexamined life".

First thanks for the kind response.  That means a lot to me.  Let me state that I am sure I don't understand this as well as you or as well as I think I do.  But let me say I think I get this and have been using this approach in my life.  That something may not be historically true (who is to know as much of what we claim in history is not completely knowable), but still offer value.  George Washington and the Cherry tree.  Likely not historically true but useful as a way to help children and youth approach honesty and other values.  The story is told as a way to confer "spiritual" truth in spite of its historical shortcomings.  

I get this.  Much of why I stay is due to this approach.  I intellectually doubt its historicity while emotionally loving Mormonism and having faith in my heart that it still has something good to give me and my family.   In fact I think I approach this method in a recent blog post - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/10/post-faith-journey-taught/ .  I know many here will be bothered by my pointing out the Church's flaws but I also am trying to help doubters see that it is those very flaws that placed them on the narrow path and it is a tension they need for development.  I know this this is a very different positive than your likely getting at but I think it is a similar approach of method.  

Some things I know.  Of those who lose faith over historicity and social issues........ none of them go back to the simple faith they had and if they leave, most of them never come back.  Telling them what they think is a problem really isn't only works in early disenchantment and does not work after they have gotten to a certain point in their search.  Those who leave literalism........  never go back.   While the apologist tries to offer this group plausible reconciliations, it doesn't work.  These folks simply do not have their faith needs met by plausible answers that are less reasonable than others.  The only approach that works is to validate it is a mess and the Church and its leaders have over reached a ton and serious errors have occurred because of their human frailties.    I say this because People here are deeply at odds with my validating the problems doubters see.  And you seem to be proposing an acceptance of those problems for the greater pragmatic good of Mormonism... that in essence not to tamper with the story-line of Mormonism so as to allow it to maintain a hold for good on its members.  While I can see that view and validate it may be the better route for the whole, I simply can not.  as I feel compelled to reach those on the margins to "strengthen the feeble knees and to lift the hands that hang down".  Again no one here need agree that such is working but only know that I believe it works better than doing nothing or throwing apologetics that are not helping at them.

Does that make sense?

I think you see me as missing the point when perhaps I am using the same method though in very different ways that rubs against your senses.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Local flood is believable as far as Noah but it doesn't seem to fit into how Jesus frames it in the Book of Mormon.  It also seems odd for God to promise not to locally flood the earth again in light of local floods happening regularly.  While a local flood for Noah is believable it is less reasonable when placed within theology and historicity.  again.... maybe you can reconcile it but it seems the much less reasonable paradigm.

“Reason” can only go so far. It is only an “attention-getter” to help us arrive at those conclusions we cannot comprehend while constrained by mortal limitations. This is explained in D&C 50: “Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.” That which is to be understood transcends reason alone: “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.”

Where theology and historicity are inventions of mortal reason, and “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,” God may still in His condescension refer to our defective tools up to a point, to bring us to a point He wishes to make.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would love to sit down with you and talk and that might be what it takes, but that has not worked in the past.  We could do it just as people by phone or whatever- forget the complications that have ensued before.

I have been studying in this MDDB online philosophical class that MFB has been teaching for a few months now, and let me say firstly that I'm a poor student, slow to learn, and frustrating to the teacher, but I have gained a lot of good from what I have learned so far.  And I'm grateful for what he's been teaching me.  

Its hard to train my brain to think differently, but some of the most valuable things I've done in life have been hard.  Let me just say, that if you get together with Bill sometime to discuss in person, I want the chance to attend as well!  I'm not famous like either of you, but I'll pay for the meal if you wanted to meet up for dinner or something.  

[Rain]

59 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

First thanks for the kind response.  That means a lot to me.  Let me state that I am sure I don't understand this as well as you or as well as I think I do.  But let me say I think I get this and have been using this approach in my life.  That something may not be historically true (who is to know as much of what we claim in history is not completely knowable), but still offer value.  George Washington and the Cherry tree.  Likely not historically true but useful as a way to help children and youth approach honesty and other values.  The story is told as a way to confer "spiritual" truth in spite of its historical shortcomings.  

I get this.  Much of why I stay is due to this approach.  I intellectually doubt its historicity while emotionally loving Mormonism and having faith in my heart that it still has something good to give me and my family.   In fact I think I approach this method in a recent blog post - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/10/post-faith-journey-taught/ .  I know many here will be bothered by my pointing out the Church's flaws but I also am trying to help doubters see that it is those very flaws that placed them on the narrow path and it is a tension they need for development.  I know this this is a very different positive than your likely getting at but I think it is a similar approach of method.  

Some things I know.  Of those who lose faith over historicity and social issues........ none of them go back to the simple faith they had and if they leave, most of them never come back.  Telling them what they think is a problem really isn't only works in early disenchantment and does not work after they have gotten to a certain point in their search.  Those who leave literalism........  never go back.   While the apologist tries to offer this group plausible reconciliations, it doesn't work.  These folks simply do not have their faith needs met by plausible answers that are less reasonable than others.  The only approach that works is to validate it is a mess and the Church and its leaders have over reached a ton and serious errors have occurred because of their human frailties.    I say this because People here are deeply at odds with my validating the problems doubters see.  And you seem to be proposing an acceptance of those problems for the greater pragmatic good of Mormonism... that in essence not to tamper with the story-line of Mormonism so as to allow it to maintain a hold for good on its members.  While I can see that view and validate it may be the better route for the whole, I simply can not.  as I feel compelled to reach those on the margins to "strengthen the feeble knees and to lift the hands that hang down".  Again no one here need agree that such is working but only know that I believe it works better than doing nothing or throwing apologetics that are not helping at them.

Does that make sense?

I think you see me as missing the point when perhaps I am using the same method though in very different ways that rubs against your senses.

I think it is very important to acknowledge problems. When I have come across things in my life it had been helpful to me.  It is especially helpful if others acknowledge the problem instead of just telling me that everything will be ok. Much better to say, "yes. I can see why that is a problem. What should we do about it?"

I think though that things can go too far. Some people see everything as a problem. They want to change everything.  Others refuse to listen to why it might not actually be a problem or they want to toss everything because of one simple thing. 

Somehow we need to acknowledge problems without making everything a problem. Sometimes there won't be a solution, at least in this life,  and we just need to have faith that it will work out. 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Telling them what they think is a problem really isn't only works in early disenchantment and does not work after they have gotten to a certain point in their search.  Those who leave literalism........  never go back.   While the apologist tries to offer this group plausible reconciliations, it doesn't work.  These folks simply do not have their faith needs met by plausible answers that are less reasonable than others. 

 

 

 

 

 

Untrue.  The problem is that you're in a group of friends and acquaintances who are circling the drain and you can't see the successes of people climbing out of the sink. 

Apologia has been a means since the middle ages to help people resolve conflicts in the church and religion.  Why is that Bishop in Mesopotamia a convicted murderer and yet here I am a struggling Catholic who has never done wrong?  Similarly, in terms of the Restoration, apologia is a means to answer questions.    I had an entire family, I was teaching, which had strong doubts about the Church based on reading websites like Dehlin's.  The family joined the Church after going to a talk given by Dr. Dan Peterson.  I had another couple of friends decide to leave the church over the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Their decision was reversed with a single one-hour meeting where some answers were provided.  We've witnessed here some prominent apostates who have come back and embraced the gospel and the Church.  LDS apologia has a great value.

One major problem with LDS apologia, unlike Catholic apologia, is that any ordinary member can become an apologist.  It can be a person without a university education, without leadership experience and perhaps without even a written library of source material.  So, the quality of LDS apologia is grossly inconsistent.  I have been on record on this board thumbing my nose at some of the more ridiculous efforts, some which deny the historical account of the Bible or which create a false science so as to make the shoe fit.   But, entities like FAIR and Mormoninterpreter have done a great job systemizing and filtering apologia and making it readable for the average bishop or seminary teacher.  These two entities, and Maxwell Institute material, have gone a long way to help people obtain a rational faith and overlook the sins of that Bishop in Mesopotamia.  I serve on the Mormon Studies board at Claremont where Patrick Mason is the sitting professor.  Although not strictly apologetic, Dr. Mason's output helps people develop a rational faith in the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, and atonement.  

But, certainly, LDS apologia won't satisfy some people.  And, indeed, apologists become a lightning rod for abuse and ridicule by apostates and other enemies of the Church.   Apologia thus becomes the whipping boy and the excuse of lack of faith.  In large part, the average bishop or stake president is simply ill-equipped to explain the Church's position on excluding from baptism the children of married homosexuals, much less even know that that policy has been in place for polygamists for 70 years.  The average stake president and bishop can't answer the question, but the apologist can and takes the abuse.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

“Reason” can only go so far. It is only an “attention-getter” to help us arrive at those conclusions we cannot comprehend while constrained by mortal limitations. This is explained in D&C 50: “Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.” That which is to be understood transcends reason alone: “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.”

 

Where theology and historicity are inventions of mortal reason, and “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,” God may still in His condescension refer to our defective tools up to a point, to bring us to a point He wishes to make.

sure but this kind of reasoning allows one to justify any belief.  It allows Scientologists to "know" the critics argument is flawed and they are right.  It allows the Jehovah witness, the Muslim extremist and any other person the same.  While reason and logic are certainly flawed at times, I find them to be much more dependable and not willing to just write them off.  I feel this is the argument we fall back on when in our minds we recognize the critic has a better argument.  It allows us to dismiss the problems and cling to our belief in spite of them.  Which is fine, just unfair to ask others to do the same.

[DBMormon]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have been studying in this MDDB online philosophical class that MFB has been teaching for a few months now, and let me say firstly that I'm a poor student, slow to learn, and frustrating to the teacher, but I have gained a lot of good from what I have learned so far.  And I'm grateful for what he's been teaching me.  

Its hard to train my brain to think differently, but some of the most valuable things I've done in life have been hard.  Let me just say, that if you get together with Bill sometime to discuss in person, I want the chance to attend as well!  I'm not famous like either of you, but I'll pay for the meal if you wanted to meet up for dinner or something.  

would love that.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But what if the time frame in which these things are to occur is understood to mean not just up to the beginning of the millennium but on through to the end of Christ's thousand-year reign?

Does that make a difference in how we are to understand the speaker?

 

 

19 hours ago, Gray said:

That would make a difference, but I didn't get any kind of hint from his talk that that was what he had in mind. He seemed to be focusing on the present and the near future. At least that's my reading of his talk.

 

 

With respect, I submit that your reading might be colored by entrenched assumptions.

I'm afraid some among us have supposed that the end of the world will occur at the time of Christ's Second Coming, with the destruction of the wicked transpiring just before then.

Not so!

After that, there will be at least a thousand more years in the earth's temporal existence, during which Christ will reign personally on the earth from two great world capitals: Jerusalem, the Holy City, in the eastern hemisphere and Zion, the New Jerusalem, on the American continent.

We've been taught that at the beginning of the Millennium, there will still be non-members of the Church on the earth. In fact, my hunch is that, even with only the righteous remaining after the destruction of the wicked, the vast bulk of the earth's inhabitants will have not yet heard or received the message of the restored gospel. My belief is that, with Satan bound and unable to influence or hinder them, these righteous souls will readily receive the gospel when it is preached to them. This is when we will see the unfolding of the dramatic events implied in Daniel's prophecy about the kingdom of God rolling forth until it fills the whole earth.

Those who thus receive the gospel will, in turn, preach it to others, and we will then see geometric growth in the Church of Jesus Christ. They will also search out records of their kindred dead, which will become accessible in unheard of ways, and temples throughout the earth will be open night and day to carry forth the vicarious ordinances for the dead that are performed therein.

All this will happen through the thousand years of Christ's reign, and then the end will come.

When Church leaders and others talk about the kingdom rolling forth and marvel at the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ since the beginning of the restoration of the gospel in 1830, they have good reason to do so. In a sense, it is part of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, and it is no small feat to establish stakes of Zion, construct temples and maintain a missionary force throughout the world in spite of Satan's opposition. But as marvelous as it is, this is only prelude to the grand and glorious work that will transpire on the earth after Christ comes in glory to reign on the earth.

From time to time we see people, depending on their disposition, either chortling or engaging in hand wringing over a recent slowing in the rate of convert baptisms. Such people lack understanding. Things are transpiring according to prophecy. This is the day when the Church of Jesus Christ is establishing a global presence, even as its growth is hindered by the influence of Satan in the earth. This is the day when, according to prophecy, we are seeing some of the very elect being deceived. Right now, the occasion of that deception is largely over the widespread rejection of the law of chastity and the attempt to redefine marriage and the family. But there are other tools or occasions of  deception, and there will continue to be. My sense is that things will get worse before they get better.

But it remains for the disciples of Christ to stand in holy places and do what they can to continue to prepare for the coming of Christ in glory. I look toward that with faith and anticipation.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

35 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Untrue.  The problem is that you're in a group of friends and acquaintances who are circling the drain and you can't see the successes of people climbing out of the sink. 

Apologia has been a means since the middle ages to help people resolve conflicts in the church and religion.  Why is that Bishop in Mesopotamia a convicted murderer and yet here I am a struggling Catholic who has never done wrong?  Similarly, in terms of the Restoration, apologia is a means to answer questions.    I had an entire family, I was teaching, which had strong doubts about the Church based on reading websites like Dehlin's.  The family joined the Church after going to a talk given by Dr. Dan Peterson.  I had another couple of friends decide to leave the church over the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Their decision was reversed with a single one-hour meeting where some answers were provided.  We've witnessed here some prominent apostates who have come back and embraced the gospel and the Church.  LDS apologia has a great value.

One major problem with LDS apologia, unlike Catholic apologia, is that any ordinary member can become an apologist.  It can be a person without a university education, without leadership experience and perhaps without even a written library of source material.  So, the quality of LDS apologia is grossly inconsistent.  I have been on record on this board thumbing my nose at some of the more ridiculous efforts, some which deny the historical account of the Bible or which create a false science so as to make the shoe fit.   But, entities like FAIR and Mormoninterpreter have done a great job systemizing and filtering apologia and making it readable for the average bishop or seminary teacher.  These two entities, and Maxwell Institute material, have gone a long way to help people obtain a rational faith and overlook the sins of that Bishop in Mesopotamia.  I serve on the Mormon Studies board at Claremont where Patrick Mason is the sitting professor.  Although not strictly apologetic, Dr. Mason's output helps people develop a rational faith in the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, and atonement.  

But, certainly, LDS apologia won't satisfy some people.  And, indeed, apologists become a lightning rod for abuse and ridicule by apostates and other enemies of the Church.   Apologia thus becomes the whipping boy and the excuse of lack of faith.  In large part, the average bishop or stake president is simply ill-equipped to explain the Church's position on excluding from baptism the children of married homosexuals, much less even know that that policy has been in place for polygamists for 70 years.  The average stake president and bishop can't answer the question, but the apologist can and takes the abuse.

again.  Please show me mystics who have become literalists?  show me people who were in a deep faith crisis over history and social issues and moved back to a solid surety or even knowing?  Also one has to comprehend the difference between one who has a crisis while staying in binary thinking and outer authority and those who handle nuance and locate their authority within themselves.  for every one you show me I will list 100 and likely could list a thousand.  

LDS Apologetics can work great for those in a fowler stage 3 or those who are not delving deep into the issues.  I sadly don't think they work well for people deeper into a faith crisis.  If you take 100 people and put an informed critic and an informed apologist into the room and explain the issues inside and out and give both sides the chance to argue for their side, I can almost assure you the majority of people in that room would have a faith decrease and not increase.  

Jehovah witness, evangelical, or catholic apologists could say the same thing that their stuff "sure it won't satisfy some" but by and large it is satisfactory to those who are true seekers.  Many people who visit the site enter their deeper crisis upon their visiting FairMormon's site which seems to dent just how helpful it may be.  It is simply naive to think Mormonism has no serious flaws that can't be resolved with LDS apologetics.  This view is just as naive as any other religious group that feels the same.  

• William Lane Craig
• John Lennox
• Ravi Zacharias
• Lee Strobel
• Josh Mcdowell
• Gary Habermas

all believe their belief system and paradigm has no serious flaws that can't be addressed by apologia.  They would use the same reasoning you do and same kinds of examples and also agree that are faith is deeply flawed (though their arguments would be different then mine and I would agree likely weak to you and I)    

Feel free to hold your ground but I welcome any apologist who wishes to go toe to toe on the podcast hashing out the issues.  Mormon apologetics help some and hurt some but by and far don't provide reasonable answers to the majority of folks who have left binary thinking and have ability to view things outside their paradigm.

There is not hate here.  No anger.  Just my perspective.  Please know that I also don't believe all evidence leads to loss of faith.  I see some evidence for.  I just see the critic having the stronger more reasonable argument.  And I believe the majority of folks who swim in this would agree.  

feel free to disagree.  I never expected to convince you and a few others here and elsewhere.  

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by DBMormon