Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[Jeanne]

 Scott, if I am misunderstanding..let me know or clarify..but it would not be justice or fair to have Satan bound and have others readily accept the gospel when in mortality that wasn't an option.  Can you explain?

Edited October 18, 2016 by Jeanne

[Bob Crockett]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Please show me mystics who have become literalists?  . . . fowler stage 3 . . .

 Jehovah witness apologists could say the same thing that "sure it won't satisfy some" but by and large it is satisfactory.  

Many people enter their deeper crisis upon visiting FairMormon's site.  

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.

 

 

 

2

Please, enough with the jargon and your personal artificial dichotomies (mystic/literalist).  To me a fowler is somebody who runs hawking.  

I'm not talking about Jehovah's witnesses.  

As to your claim about FairMormon, I think you're just making my point about swimming with nobody except those circling the drain.

As far as "go[ing] toe to toe on the podcast," I don't consider myself a qualified apologist but I'd accept your invitation to go toe to toe on your podcast.  You are welcome to surprise me with your hobby topics.   Note above I said I'd like to interview you on your podcast to demonstrate just how poor a medium a podcast is.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Does it matter? The prophecy stands and it describes exactly what is happening.

[Danzo]

3 hours 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.

The book of Mormon verse that you referred to is a quote of Isaiah 54. To me, he is using poetic and symbolic language to describe his reconciliation toward the house of Israel, using an example the the readers, both ancient and modern could relate to and understand.   

I don't see the purposes of these Isaiah passages as providing an authoritative, omniscient description of a global, cataclysmic event.

   

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 Scott, if I am misunderstanding..let me know or clarify..but it would not be justice or fair to have Satan bound and have others readily accept the gospel when in mortality that wasn't an option.  Can you explain?

I probably can't explain to your satisfaction without indulging in speculation, and even then, my explanation would probably be less than satisfying to you.

But I will say that my faith in God entails my belief that everyone will have been treated fairly in the end, even though right now I might not see precisely how. This is what helps me deal with the apparent inequity of my having been born in a strong LDS family under relatively prosperous circumstances while others are born in developing nations where the gospel is not readily accessible.

I like what Elder Renlund said last April in general conference:

 

Quote

 

The sacrament truly helps us know our Savior. It also reminds us of His innocent suffering. If life were truly fair, you and I would never be resurrected; you and I would never be able to stand clean before God. In this respect, I am grateful that life is not fair.

At the same time, I can emphatically state that because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, ultimately, in the eternal scheme of things, there will be no unfairness. “All that is unfair about life can be made right.”¹⁴ Our present circumstances may not change, but through God’s compassion, kindness, and love, we will all receive more than we deserve, more than we can ever earn, and more than we can ever hope for. We are promised that “God shall wipe away all tears from [our] eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”¹⁵

 

 

[DBMormon]

54 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Please, enough with the jargon and your personal artificial dichotomies (mystic/literalist).  To me a fowler is somebody who runs hawking.  

I'm not talking about Jehovah's witnesses.  

As to your claim about FairMormon, I think you're just making my point about swimming with nobody except those circling the drain.

As far as "go[ing] toe to toe on the podcast," I don't consider myself a qualified apologist but I'd accept your invitation to go toe to toe on your podcast.  You are welcome to surprise me with your hobby topics.   Note above I said I'd like to interview you on your podcast to demonstrate just how poor a medium a podcast is.

great.  pm me and we will work out the date and details

 

[DBMormon]

39 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The book of Mormon verse that you referred to is a quote of Isaiah 54. To me, he is using poetic and symbolic language to describe his reconciliation toward the house of Israel, using an example the the readers, both ancient and modern could relate to and understand.   

I don't see the purposes of these Isaiah passages as providing an authoritative, omniscient description of a global, cataclysmic event.

   

would you apply the same rationale to the tower of babel?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does it matter? The prophecy stands and it describes exactly what is happening.

No, it doesn't matter.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Please, enough with the jargon and your personal artificial dichotomies (mystic/literalist).  

By all means keep holding your view as if it is my made up personal rhetoric to play the insider/outsider game but the realty is that what I have shared is not in my head only.

http://www.egodeath.com/LiteralistVsMysticStateChristianity.htm

http://www.egodeath.com/ReligionShapedLiteralistAndMetaphorical.htm

http://www.egodeath.com/EsotericMysticExperientialChristianity.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/from-biblical-literalism-to-a-mystical-understanding-of-god_b_982344.html

https://mackenzian.com/blog/2013/08/27/beyond-literal-john-spong/

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/introduction/the-rise-of-allegorical-interpretation.html

https://www.ncronline.org/news/spirituality/reclaiming-mystical-interpretation-resurrection

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/the-atheism-union-board-909186050/religious-literalism-cold-objectivism-and-mystical-10059483/

http://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/augustine-genesis-and-“removing-the-mystical-veil”-part-2

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by DBMormon

[CV75]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

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.

I’m not sure why you posted this. I just said, “Reason can only go so far.” There is no “sure but” about it except to dismiss the real-life application that our intuition, feeling, faith and capacity have an impact on our reasoning over spiritual things. Reasoning devoid of these influences is meaningless because it isn’t relatable. It doesn’t register so as the conclusion can instigate any action. The only reason you started this thread is because your reasoning is affected by your irrational drives.

And no one can possibly go against his own reason as a net compound with every other faculty he possesses. This is why trying to isolate reason from the rest of his faculties only compounds the problem he is trying to solve--he needs to use everything he has to work with, not less.

The Lord’s reasoning in D&C 50 is hardly rock-solid because He is making it relatable to His audience. Yet the outcome He promises reflects something far beyond our capacity to fully comprehend or achieve on our own. Without grace at least, and how reasonable is that?

Edited October 18, 2016 by CV75

[DBMormon]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Lord’s reasoning in D&C 50 is hardly rock-solid because He is making it relatable to His audience. Yet the outcome He promises reflects something far beyond our capacity to fully comprehend or achieve on our own. Without grace at least, and how reasonable is that?

God's Grace is reasonable.  on that i agree.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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.

No, I do see that but it seems that you keep coming back to, for example, the flood as you have in this thread.

The fact you are here acknowledges that we actually see things similarly and you see the pragmatic value over the historical problems, but sometimes your posts don't sound that way.  It seems to me that you keep coming back to that basic error that is so prevalent among the critics who see no pragmatic value but yet harp on the lack of historicity.

I see no reason to disturb people who are fine with literalism, so I often keep my mouth shut.  That is why Kevin C keeps posting the Perry Scheme- it is a case of intellectual maturation.   I don't want to be the guy harping on being a "9" while they are a "2" when they are perfectly wonderful human beings who see this ambiguous world differently than I do, while all along I cannot prove them "wrong" anyway.   In some ways perhaps the Perry Scheme is just a way to put others down for those of us who are more "advanced".

The fact is we don't know WHAT "actually happened" and I can dream up plausible explanations for virtually anything.  Bertrand Russell himself said that he could not disprove the whole idea that the world blinked into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories are implants, but of course he did not accept such a view.  I think that is crazy, but actually he was right!

So if people actually believe that- and base their whole view of life on that, I cannot condemn it any more than they should condemn me for being LDS.   I might think they are crazy, but they think I am crazy or liberal or a communist trying to destroy their lives etc.

The only reason I am here is to try to get these ideas out there.

So I hope we can agree on methodology too then.  I think attacking flood believers is really just asserting one scientific view- that the flood happened- against another scientific view- that it didn't.   I personally find it absurd to think it DID happen, but that is where people get confused thinking that the unknowable of "what really happened" somehow has anything to do with the religious notion that God will "buoy us up in any flood of trials we may have"

"What really happened" has nothing to do with that in my opinion.  That God will buoy us up is pragmatically true and we experience that spiritually in our lives.  That there is no pragmatically useful reason to believe in the flood scientifically seems clear as well.  There is no predictive value in that scientific belief because it conflicts with all the rest of the pragmatically useful scientific beliefs science today holds.  Where would all the water come from, etc?

So again pragmatism "works" (pragmatically!) to accomplish both goals- religiously we see that God taking care of us is "true" and yet scientifically the flood did not have to happen to prove that, can also be seen as "true"

When we break those ties between pragmatic science and pragmatic religion it is easier to not confuse those issues.

So my suggestion is not to take on the flood as "untrue" scientifically by scientific debate but show that the religious belief does not require the scientific belief to still be "true"

You have to give the literalists an alternate POSITIVE way to see it because by taking away their scientific understanding you are taking away their religious understanding with it.

THAT is why people leave the church- they confuse the historicity of the BOM with the importance of its message, same with evolution, same with angels and plates, same with people coming back from the dead.

You can BELIEVE all those really happened- religiously, but not scientifically

It is a RELIGIOUS belief that the resurrection was a historical event.  It cannot be proven scientifically.  This belief has religious pragmatic value

It is a RELIGIOUS belief that there really were Nephites and plates- it cannot be proven (yet?) scientifically.  THIS belief also has religious pragmatic value.  And so on down the list.

Actually I personally have gotten beyond the need to believe any of these "really happened" but others have not been thinking this way for 45 years as I have.  Pragmatically I no longer need to believe they "really happened" even though they might have.   I am fine with the good the belief alone does in my life.  But that is another story.

It is also a religious belief that a very human person- Joseph Smith- really did see God and really did receive extraordinary revelations and perhaps later got a little- or a lot- carried away with this polygamy thing due to human frailties, but yet the revelations were real.

And so it goes.   Making those distinctions between what works pragmatically for a religious life and what works pragmatically in making our cars and computers run and making medical discoveries, makes all the difference in the world.

That distinction, ratified by philosophy, becomes for me itself a religious position.  It gives me peace and allows me no conflict with folks who believe in the flood or disbelieve in the flood.   It doesn't matter if they know the distinction or not- I will try to teach them but I cannot force them to accept the distinction.  If they are unable to make that transition- I did my best.

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/17/2016 at 0:57 PM, DBMormon said:

....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....
#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.  

#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.

 

There is no greater miracle than the resurrection of Jesus. Past and present Prophets and Apostles attest to its literal occurence, not in some mythical or mystical sense, but in physical and temporal reality. It is the foundation of Mormonism. Are they making this up? In order to be more credible with the world should they renounce or qualify their testimonies?

Edited October 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

would you apply the same rationale to the tower of babel?

I believe the account found in genesis is probably based on a real tower.

When it says in Genisis 11:1 that the whole earth was one language, I don't think the author was referencing the earth as a globe.

I don't think the concept existed at that time or was understood that way by the author.  I think that a global reading for that passage is something we do, because we think of something different when it says "earth" than what the author of genesis means.

For me it doesn't matter if it was all the languages or just some of them.  Obviously such an event was far more complicated than can be described in 9 verses. I expect a full account would take a book or more and I wouldn't be surprised if the book length version describes things differently than a 9 verse version.

I don't expect a 9 verse version on any topic to a full account.  It is just referencing an event to teach something the author felt important.

How many times do we use the legend of Icarus to teach important lessons without caring if our version is what really happened?

Since we are all familiar with the story, it is a useful example to use.

 

 

 

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

God's Grace is reasonable.  on that i agree.

But I didn't say it was reasonable. Why do you think you didn't get my point, and how dependable does that render your power of reason in discussing spiritual points?

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, I do see that but it seems that you keep coming back to, for example, the flood as you have in this thread.

The fact you are here acknowledges that we actually see things similarly and you see the pragmatic value over the historical problems, but sometimes your posts don't sound that way.  It seems to me that you keep coming back to that basic error that is so prevalent among the critics who see no pragmatic value but yet harp on the lack of historicity.

I see no reason to disturb people who are fine with literalism, so I often keep my mouth shut.  That is why Kevin C keeps posting the Perry Scheme- it is a case of intellectual maturation.   I don't want to be the guy harping on being a "9" while they are a "2" when they are perfectly wonderful human beings who see this ambiguous world differently than I do, while all along I cannot prove them "wrong" anyway.   In some ways perhaps the Perry Scheme is just a way to put others down for those of us who are more "advanced".

The fact is we don't know WHAT "actually happened" and I can dream up plausible explanations for virtually anything.  Bertrand Russell himself said that he could not disprove the whole idea that the world blinked into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories are implants, but of course he did not accept such a view.  I think that is crazy, but actually he was right!

So if people actually believe that- and base their whole view of life on that, I cannot condemn it any more than they should condemn me for being LDS.   I might think they are crazy, but they think I am crazy or liberal or a communist trying to destroy their lives etc.

The only reason I am here is to try to get these ideas out there.

So I hope we can agree on methodology too then.  I think attacking flood believers is really just asserting one scientific view- that the flood happened- against another scientific view- that it didn't.   I personally find it absurd to think it DID happen, but that is where people get confused thinking that the unknowable of "what really happened" somehow has anything to do with the religious notion that God will "buoy us up in any flood of trials we may have"

"What really happened" has nothing to do with that in my opinion.  That God will buoy us up is pragmatically true and we experience that spiritually in our lives.  That there is no pragmatically useful reason to believe in the flood scientifically seems clear as well.  There is no predictive value in that scientific belief because it conflicts with all the rest of the pragmatically useful scientific beliefs science today holds.  Where would all the water come from, etc?

So again pragmatism "works" (pragmatically!) to accomplish both goals- religiously we see that God taking care of us is "true" and yet scientifically the flood did not have to happen to prove that, can also be seen as "true"

When we break those ties between pragmatic science and pragmatic religion it is easier to not confuse those issues.

So my suggestion is not to take on the flood as "untrue" scientifically by scientific debate but show that the religious belief does not require the scientific belief to still be "true"

You have to give the literalists an alternate POSITIVE way to see it because by taking away their scientific understanding you are taking away their religious understanding with it.

THAT is why people leave the church- they confuse the historicity of the BOM with the importance of its message, same with evolution, same with angels and plates, same with people coming back from the dead.

You can BELIEVE all those really happened- religiously, but not scientifically

It is a RELIGIOUS belief that the resurrection was a historical event.  It cannot be proven scientifically.  This belief has religious pragmatic value

It is a RELIGIOUS belief that there really were Nephites and plates- it cannot be proven (yet?) scientifically.  THIS belief also has religious pragmatic value.  And so on down the list.

Actually I personally have gotten beyond the need to believe any of these "really happened" but others have not been thinking this way for 45 years as I have.  Pragmatically I no longer need to believe they "really happened" even though they might have.   I am fine with the good the belief alone does in my life.  But that is another story.

It is also a religious belief that a very human person- Joseph Smith- really did see God and really did receive extraordinary revelations and perhaps later got a little- or a lot- carried away with this polygamy thing due to human frailties, but yet the revelations were real.

And so it goes.   Making those distinctions between what works pragmatically for a religious life and what works pragmatically in making our cars and computers run and making medical discoveries, makes all the difference in the world.

That distinction, ratified by philosophy, becomes for me itself a religious position.  It gives me peace and allows me no conflict with folks who believe in the flood or disbelieve in the flood.   It doesn't matter if they know the distinction or not- I will try to teach them but I cannot force them to accept the distinction.  If they are unable to make that transition- I did my best.

PERFECT!!!! we are on the same page in terms of speaking the same language.  I think the difference is the tension we feel.  You seem comfortable knowing there is little safe space for you to share such a paradigm publicly so you keep it to yourself.  You realize your a figurative believer and knows most others in the room are not and that they are threatened by such nuanced belief so you, rather then make them uncomfortable, keep it to yourself.  

I can't.  I see little safe space to hold my perspective.  I am fighting for the space to hold it publicly.  I see others enter this space (no longer able to hold orthodox ground) and I see them both feel pushed out and actually get pushed out.  So I can't just let the literal believers be as that paradigm is chasing people away.  I make an effort to be the one voice in the room who effectively says "You can hold that view, but not everyone believes that way.... I for instance believe XYZ".  In my ward there is 1 or 2 rigid orthodox believers who give me pushback, about 7-10 people who appreciate and recognize the space I am working to create and everyone else is relatively apathetic or keeps it to themselves.  I am trying to show that one can hold some other space or ground and still be mormon and still be fully in.  I am respected as one of the better teachers in my ward and am often invited to sub for the gospel doctrine teacher while also being the gospel principles teacher (I teach anything but the basics but also the class has zero recent converts and investigators).  Here is the audio of one of my lessons if you care.  (As you and others would see, I still hold faithful space but push people to consider more nuance in their approach )
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-nuanced-lesson-on-prophets/
 

You see me focus on historicity as if I am still trying to make historicity fit.  I am not.  That boat sailed at least a year ago.  Instead I focus on historicity because meeting it head on compels one to see that this gets messy and hence maybe the nuanced guy who is barely hanging on should have more room to hold his ground differently.  I have seen it help those on the margins feel more welcome and frankly I could care less if it makes the comfortable less so.

My beliefs are very similar to this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-3BBOMIcE

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

For me it doesn't matter if it was all the languages or just some of them.  

sure but a local event poses other issues.  Also this line quoted above is one that rubs me.  it appears to one like me that you protect yourself but being flexible.  That if A doesn't work then I can easily go with B and vice versa.  Please know I get it and respect your stance and often answer the same way myself on things though I realize when doing so I am trying to keep from being pinned down.  This is how I see FairMormon's page on adam God as they offer five answers i believe and none of them are satisfying to the informed doubter.  Same with the Book of Abraham Gospel Topic Essay.  Five answers and none of them satisfying and not without deep problems.  
All languages diversifying from a tower to heaven 4,500 years ago is simply absurd and just a localized event seems to not fit into the story very well.

What about deutero Isaiah?

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

PERFECT!!!! we are on the same page in terms of speaking the same language.  I think the difference is the tension we feel.  You seem comfortable knowing there is little safe space for you to share such a paradigm publicly so you keep it to yourself.  You realize your a figurative believer and knows most others in the room are not and that they are threatened by such nuanced belief so you, rather then make them uncomfortable, keep it to yourself.  

I can't.  I see little safe space to hold my perspective.  I am fighting for the space to hold it publicly.  I see others enter this space (no longer able to hold orthodox ground) and I see them both feel pushed out and actually get pushed out.  So I can't just let the literal believers be as that paradigm is chasing people away.  I make an effort to be the one voice in the room who effectively says "You can hold that view, but not everyone believes that way.... I for instance believe XYZ".  In my ward there is 1 or 2 rigid orthodox believers who give me pushback, about 7-10 people who appreciate and recognize the space I am working to create and everyone else is relatively apathetic or keeps it to themselves.  I am trying to show that one can hold some other space or ground and still be mormon and still be fully in.  I am respected as one of the better teachers in my ward and am often invited to sub for the gospel doctrine teacher while also being the gospel principles teacher (I teach anything but the basics but also the class has zero recent converts and investigators).  Here is the audio of one of my lessons if you care.  (As you and others would see, I still hold faithful space but push people to consider more nuance in their approach )
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-nuanced-lesson-on-prophets/
 

You see me focus on historicity as if I am still trying to make historicity fit.  I am not.  That boat sailed at least a year ago.  Instead I focus on historicity because meeting it head on compels one to see that this gets messy and hence maybe the nuanced guy who is barely hanging on should have more room to hold his ground differently.  I have seen it help those on the margins feel more welcome and frankly I could care less if it makes the comfortable less so.

My beliefs are very similar to this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-3BBOMIcE

OK well good then!

Sorry, but I cannot stand podcasts or speeches.  Much to slow for me- I always want people to get to the point and get on with it.  I can speed read but you can't speed read a podcast. 

[DBMormon]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OK well good then!

Sorry, but I cannot stand podcasts or speeches.  Much to slow for me- I always want people to get to the point and get on with it.  I can speed read but you can't speed read a podcast. 

understood.

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But I didn't say it was reasonable. Why do you think you didn't get my point, and how dependable does that render your power of reason in discussing spiritual points?

so is god's grace unreasonable?

[Danzo]

50 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

sure but a local event poses other issues.  Also this line quoted above is one that rubs me.  it appears to one like me that you protect yourself but being flexible.  That if A doesn't work then I can easily go with B and vice versa.  Please know I get it and respect your stance and often answer the same way myself on things though I realize when doing so I am trying to keep from being pinned down.  This is how I see FairMormon's page on adam God as they offer five answers i believe and none of them are satisfying to the informed doubter.  Same with the Book of Abraham Gospel Topic Essay.  Five answers and none of them satisfying and not without deep problems.  
All languages diversifying from a tower to heaven 4,500 years ago is simply absurd and just a localized event seems to not fit into the story very well.

What about deutero Isaiah?

why would I need to protect myself?

Why would anyone need to protect themselves?

The scriptures were written by men, not by the finger of god.

The scriptures do not even say they are inerrant?  why should we read in to them more than the authors do themselves.

Moroni and Mormon were very explicit about this.  The books contain mistakes. This is to be expected.

Joseph Smith made mistakes.  The D&C is explicit about this.

The books are not complete. They were written from a specific point of view.  The were not written or intended by their authors to be a history as we modern folk understand it.

The concept of an unbiased, complete history didn't occur to them, why should we expect it?

 

What about deutero Isaiah?

We don't have a history of the text of Isaiah,  Neither do those who criticize it.  All they are doing is making educated guesses. I don't expect to get clarity on it in my lifetime, those who engage in the higher criticism don't know either. 

For me, anyway, whether the book of Isaiah was written by one person, or a committee,  doesn't make a difference to me.   Its the words that matter, the spirit that matters.   

When I read Isaiah, or many other books in the bible inspiration come to my about my circumstances.  These are things that I am pretty sure the author(s) never considered.  The value of the words of Isaiah aren't the history behind it, but the way God speaks to me when I read them with the spirit. 

For me this is reality!  This is why I believe!  Living the gospel is far more real and important to me than how many people worked on the book of Isaiah.    

If I found out tomorrow that Isaiah was written by a committee, it would not take away or add to the experience I have with God on a daily basis.

 

 

 

 

[DBMormon]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

why would I need to protect myself?

Why would anyone need to protect themselves?

The scriptures were written by men, not by the finger of god.

The scriptures do not even say they are inerrant?  why should we read in to them more than the authors do themselves.

Moroni and Mormon were very explicit about this.  The books contain mistakes. This is to be expected.

Joseph Smith made mistakes.  The D&C is explicit about this.

The books are not complete. They were written from a specific point of view.  The were not written or intended by their authors to be a history as we modern folk understand it.

The concept of an unbiased, complete history didn't occur to them, why should we expect it?

 

What about deutero Isaiah?

We don't have a history of the text of Isaiah,  Neither do those who criticize it.  All they are doing is making educated guesses. I don't expect to get clarity on it in my lifetime, those who engage in the higher criticism don't know either. 

For me, anyway, whether the book of Isaiah was written by one person, or a committee,  doesn't make a difference to me.   Its the words that matter, the spirit that matters.   

When I read Isaiah, or many other books in the bible inspiration come to my about my circumstances.  These are things that I am pretty sure the author(s) never considered.  The value of the words of Isaiah aren't the history behind it, but the way God speaks to me when I read them with the spirit. 

For me this is reality!  This is why I believe!  Living the gospel is far more real and important to me than how many people worked on the book of Isaiah.    

If I found out tomorrow that Isaiah was written by a committee, it would not take away or add to the experience I have with God on a daily basis.

 

 

 

 

Thank you I appreciate such an answer.  Whether these writings came the way the orthodox approach asks us to trust or not, do they inspire us and help us interact with the divine is a much more important issue.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

so is god's grace unreasonable?

I gave an answer to that already, so before we delve into it further, your answer to my question will inform that discussion: "Why do you think you didn't get my point, and how dependable does that render your power of reason in discussing spiritual points?"

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

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

 

 

 

That is a common mistake. None of the things that i have put in bold print have happened yet. The generation that sees that the branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves and knows summer is nigh is the generation that will not pass away before all these things are fulfilled.

 

  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

  28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

  29 ¶ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

  30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

  31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

  32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

  34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Backing up even further, I believe these verses are the Holocaust of WWII

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

  17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

  18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

  19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Edited October 19, 2016 by rodheadlee

[DBMormon]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I gave an answer to that already, so before we delve into it further, your answer to my question will inform that discussion: "Why do you think you didn't get my point, and how dependable does that render your power of reason in discussing spiritual points?"

 I understand that all of our senses are needed including reasoning and spiritual sense. We are all different though we all come to answers differently. I'm doing the best with what God is giving me.   Some here have arrived at a different conclusion because they're different in the gauge all those senses differently. I cannot speak to their truth only mine. Some here have arrived at a different conclusion because they're different in the way they have gauged all those senses differently. I cannot speak to their truth only mine

Edited October 19, 2016 by DBMormon